What are we to make of the news that Bob Kerrey killed at least 13 unarmed civilians in a mission in Vietnam three decades ago? Reading the New York Times Magazine article about it, I guess I am first grateful that we now know. I am in no position to judge such a decision and wouldn’t try to. And I’m in no position to know exactly what happened. But my gut tells me, after reading the story, that the testimony of Gerhard Klann, and, more importantly, several Vietnamese witnesses, may have more truth to it than Kerrey’s account of a completely accidental massacre. Klann argues that the killing was a deliberate massacre of civilians to protect the troop’s retreat on a moonless night in the Vietnam jungle. The reason for my leaning toward believing Klann is that Kerrey has changed his story several times in ways that are not plausible as simply faulty memory (he never volunteered any information until now, he described the incident first as an accident, then as a “firefight”); that he has tried to get ahead of the publication by presenting his side of things in advance (why would someone go to such lengths to spin something in which he was just guilty of a horrible mistake?); and that he has clearly been haunted by this incident for a very long time (in a recent speech about the subject he commented cryptically about discussing war-crimes issues with an expert a week ago: “It’s the first time I had read the rules of war. I certainly wasn’t trained in them.” But a simple accident is not against the rules of war. Conscious killing of civilians, including women and children, is.) I’m also struck by Kerrey’s decision to omit his Bronze Star, given to him after the incident, from his formal biography. This is consistent with his own account of a harrowing accident; but it makes more sense if Klann and the Vietnamese witnesses are telling the truth. I don’t know. Only the people there know. And many in his squad back Kerrey up. One thing is clear, though. Kerrey was right to decide against running for president after he first heard of this investigation; and he would be crazy to do so in the future. If there is any credibility to the argument that Kerrey committed a war-crime, he cannot be President of the United States. Meanwhile, somber congratulations are due to Adam Moss of the Times Magazine (my editor and friend) for publishing such a thorough, important and gripping piece. I’m still reeling from it as I write.
DAN FORBES WAS RIGHT: President Bush is set to appoint an unreconstructed drug warrior as the new federal drug dictator. After many years of complete failure in the “war on drugs,” Washington is set to ramp up exactly the failed policies of stigmatization, unequal and racially unjust sentencing, and a virtual military invasion of Central and Latin American countries for the crime of providing goods large numbers of Americans are still quite eager to buy. Watch for even more citizens to be piled into over-crowded jails (we have half a million drug-offenders now under lock and key), and the same lugubrious pomposity, pioneered by Bill Bennett, to be foisted on the country from D.C. Watch as drugs more benign than alcohol, like marijuana, are equated with truly dangerous substances like crack cocaine. Watch for HIV to spread more rapidly through minority populations because Walters adamantly opposes needle exchange programs. Watch as more precious taxpayers’ dollars are thrown down the toilet of prohibition. I thought Barry McCaffrey was bad enough. But even he finds Walters desire to cut back even the miserly resources we currently spend on treatment as “shocking.” The only relief is that Walters’ desire for president Bush to use the bully pulpit to excoriate recreational drug-use will surely not amount to much. How on earth can a man who has yet to be candid about his own past drug-use see fit to lecture the rest of the country on the subject?
ON THE OTHER HAND: There are signs that Attorney-General John Ashcroft may be maneuvering to drop the insane federal lawsuit against tobacco-manufacturers. Insane because a) no-one now smoking could conceivably be unaware of the risks when they started; b) by dying younger than most people, smokers actually save our society resources rather than elevating health-care costs; and c) who needs to give trial lawyers even more money to corrupt the Democrats? Now if only Ashcroft could extend his apparent tolerance of nicotine to marijuana …
The Dish 