Bob Dole Calls Out NPR
Former Republican Senator Audio Beef Today. NOT MUSIC! Bob Dole gets fed up with biased and off-topic questions and lets Terry Gross know about it.
'Fresh Air Interview - 04/12/2005 - Full' (8mb .mp3, 64Khz mono)
'Fresh Air Interview - 04/12/2005 - Advice To John Kerry' (4mb .mp3, 64Khz mono)
'Fresh Air Interview - 04/12/2005 - NPR Is Part And Parcel Of The Democratic Party' (2mb .mp3, 64Khz mono)
by Bob Dole and Terry Gross from NPR's Fresh Air, April 12th, 2005
Here's a fun excerpt from Bob Dole's recent appearance on NPR's 'Fresh Air.' I've never been much of a Bob Dole fan, I thought he was a lame senator and an even lamer candidate for President. However, after hearing this interview I gained a bit of respect for the man. Former Senator Dole was on Fresh Air to promote his new memoir : 'One Soldiers Story : A Memoir' but Terry Gross kept asking him questions about current political issues. He became a bit irate and decided to tell her what he really thinks, about John Kerry, NPR, the New York and LA Times, the Washington Post and the Swift Boat Vets. You can hear the entire interview at the URL above, but I've encoded and transcribed the fun bit.
(Partial transcript is mine. Copyright obviously belongs to NPR. All emphasis and errors mine.)
Here's the bit about Kerry, where Dole weighs in on Kerry's service and its effect on the failure of his campaign. This part of the transcript is in the "Full" and "Advice To John Kerry" files above.
T: Being a veteran and being injured in the war was such a life changing experience for you, so some people were surprised that you became one of the people who criticized John Kerry for his military service during the period of the Swift Boat Campaign against him. You said "Three Purple Hearts and he never bled that I know of, I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out." How did you decide whether to say anything and then what to say about Kerry's service during the 2004 Presidential Campaign?B: Well, I only said it once. And John Kerry and I are friends, and we're still friends, even though this.. politics is not beanbag, it's hardball. And I'd sent word through one of his friends (who I will not name because he doesn't want to be involved) to tell John to stop talking about Vietnam. I mean it seemed to me that he overdid it. I really think he may have won the election had he not talked about his.. when he saluted at the convention and everything was sorta based on him being a Vietnam Hero and I acknowledged when I said that that he was.. I don't quarrel with his war record, it's a great record and he ought to be pleased about it. But I was also in the Senate when he came back with that terrible display and in effect said our soldiers there were raping and killing babies and that was only a report, he was reporting what he had picked up, but he should have been more responsible. If he didn't know the facts he shouldn't have been spewing all that bad news about, or charges against our own forces. But I talked to Kerry after I made that statement because he just kept pushing and pushing and pushing his war injuries, and the fact the injuries weren't severe at all. I felt it necessary to make a statement, I mean you get the feeling after a while if somebody is out there telling how bad they were wounded or injured.. the facts didn't bear it out.
T: Maybe I'm mistaken, but my memory is that he wasn't emphasizing being wounded as much as, you know, the bravery and a sense of leadership he had to display when he was in Vietnam.
D: Oh, I think he referred to his Purple Hearts frequently, and his Silver Star. And I don't quarrel with the fact that he served in Vietnam. But I always felt, when I ran in 96 and Clinton evaded service (he didn't avoid service, he evaded it), can I capitalize on that? And say this guy is a so-and-so because he didn't serve? I didn't think that was appropriate. I thought I could talk about, I'd get up and say I'm proud to be a veteran and then go and talk about the issues. I wouldn't stand there for 20 minutes and say this happened to me and this happened to me and this happened to me, and I couldn't use my left arm, my right arm, dah-dah-dah-dah. I don't know whether people want to hear that every time you stand up. And I think that was.. but that's not in my book. I'm not talking about politics.
T: No, I realize that. Weren't you concerned, though, that as a result of the Swift Boat campaign, that it kinda opened up the door for anybody who had been a veteran, who had risked their life to serve their country, that their record could be impugned, that in spite of risking their lives for their country that someone could come along and say well it didn't really happen, or you didn't do what you said you did and that, you're, you know..
D: Well, I don't know, I wasn't part of the Swift Boat operation, so I don't know. I mean, I think that they had.. it's hard to believe that 260 men, I guess in this case, who were in that group were all telling.. were all liars and were not telling the truth. So it may be that their recollection was a little cloudy but this is not.. it's about my book, it's not about the last campaign.
[ transcript break at 4:11 in the "Full" file ]
Here, Dole reveals that he told Kerry to stop talking about Vietnam so much, and that he believes it may have cost Kerry the election. Bob Dole knows something about losing a Presidential election, so it might have served Kerry to listen to him.
In addition, Former Senator Dole points out something which is factually unquestioned : that none of Kerry's injuries were severe. He also comes out with the obvious rejoinder to the accusation that the Swift Boat Veterans were lying, the fact that there were over 250 of them. I've never really been able to believe that all 250 men were so motivated by partisan politics that they would stake their word on personal opinions which were entirely made up. This doesn't mean that I necessarily believed every one of them, but that those who shared their opinion of Kerry as a soldier and an individual must be presumed to be sincere. Even if some of them were inaccurate in their version of events, an opinion cannot be factually disproved.
Terry Gross ignores Dole's first grumblings about the political questions, and proceeds to ask him to speculate on whether Tom DeLay is threatening judges with impeachment if they disagree with Republicans. The transcript resumes when Gross asks Dole a final question about Tom DeLay. Bob seems to have had enough and lets Terry know exactly what he thinks about NPR and a host of others besides. This part is in the "Full" and "NPR Is Part And Parcel Of The Democratic Party" files, above.
[ transcript resumes at 6:53 in "Full" file]D: I really didn't come to discuss all that, I came to talk about my book.
T: No, I understand that. One more question about Tom Delay, though. Do you think that he should resign because of the ethical issues?
D: Why? Why, because the New York Times says that? I mean, they're part and parcel of the Democratic party, as some think NPR is, too.
T: I'm.. I'm sorry but do you feel like you need to say that I'm asking questions from a biased view, that it's not ok to just ask questions?
D: No, it's fine to ask that question, I don't have to respond to it, because I don't have the facts.
T: Absolutely, you have the right to not respond if you don't want to, and.. Ok.
D: You give me the facts, I'm a pretty good judge, but you give me what the New York Times says or the LA Times or the Washington Post, who are out to get DeLay in the first place, then I don't think that I can make a judgement. If they want to bring out every member of Congress who may have done the same thing (and again, I don't know what was done) but lets just say it'd be a great thing for NPR to look down both parties and see how many parties quote allegedely end-quote have abused a system when it comes to trips or who pays for trips and I think that would be doing a public service. But when you just single out one person because of his philosophy and his party affiliation, then I think that's wrong. It seems to me that there are a lot of.. most of the members of Congress, regardless of party, are well intentioned men and women who want to get the job done. And this gotcha journalism that some people promote is not.. I don't think it's healthy.. or it's not right, either.
T: I want to get back to your book.
D: Good. Yeah, I thought that's what I came for.
T: I thought that you might say that.
When I originally heard this interview, this is the point where I was pumping my fists in the air and chanting "BOB DOLE!! BOB DOLE!!" because he was letting it all hang out. One of the benefits of being 81 and retired, I presume.
Terry completely ignores his (fourth of fifth) protestation about the political questions and asks him a loaded question about Tom DeLay. You can sense that he's had enough, and he accuses the New York Times and NPR of being "part and parcel of the Democratic Party." Priceless.
(To forstall inevitable kvetching: I absolutely love NPR. I've listened to it all my life, and I credit All Things Considered as a significant contributor to my knowledge of the world and my interest in it. But let's be honest, here. NPR is a liberal media bastion, as is PBS. Everyone knows it. They're not as far left as, say, The Nation, but they're at least as far left as the New York or LA Times. It sometimes bugs me, but every media source comes with caveats, and NPR is better at the business of news and commentary than most. I value it, but it's clearly liberal. Ok?)
Terry, clearly flustered, asks him a mealy-mouthed question about "just asking questions" and Dole freestyle rants some more. This time it's about the degree to which media elites focus on a given person when attempted to create sensational stories. He points out that many members of Congress engage in the behavior which DeLay has been accused of and accuses the media of practicing "gotcha journalism." In my opinion, this is true on both sides. It's disgusting no matter who is doing it, and counterproductive.
After his tirade ends, Terry finally gets the message and asks him a question about his book... truly a classic Conservative-on-NPR moment. Enjoy!
(Shouts out to incitor, who was also chanting "BOB DOLE!! BOB DOLE!!" when he heard this on the radio in his car. Jeers to NPR for not providing transcripts of their shows, so I have to spend hours of my time typing it up. Sheesh.)
Comments
A couple of points...
"In addition, Former Senator Dole points out something which is factually unquestioned : that none of Kerry's injuries were severe."
This is immaterial; the Army gives out the Purple Heart to soldiers who are wounded by the enemy; it doesn't have any standards by how injured a potential recipient must be. And Kerry WAS injured; no matter how slightly.
"He also comes out with the obvious rejoinder to the accusation that the Swift Boat Veterans were lying, the fact that there were over 250 of them. I've never really been able to believe that all 250 men were so motivated by partisan politics that they would stake their word on personal opinions which were entirely made up."
Dole's and your rejoinders don't hold up. First, there were nowhere near 250 swift boat people on the Bay Hap River that day. Many - if not most - of those guys weren't even around; they were just swift boat vets who didn't like Kerry. Second, many of these guys have admitted that they joined the swift boat organization because of what Kerry did and said after the war; not because of what happened on the Bay Hap River. Third, you mentioned that these vets would not 'stake their personal opinions which were entirely made up.' Well, one of the Swift Boat vets, Larry Tharlow, disputed Kerry's assertion that they were under attack. Yet his own military records indicate that there was indeed an attack that day (link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html ) John O'Neill, another Swift Boat vet, has claimed the same thing, saying that Kerry filled out an after-action report which described arms fire. Yet he has no evidence to back up his assertion, and the initials on the after-action report aren't Kerry's. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21239-2004Aug21?language=printer ) Fourth, every single guy on Kerry's boat (except for one) support his story. Are they lying? What about the troops on the other boats that day who disagree with the Swift boat vets; are they lying as well?
"This doesn't mean that I necessarily believed every one of them, but that those who shared their opinion of Kerry as a soldier and an individual must be presumed to be sincere."
But sincere doesn't necessarily mean correct or factual. Like I wrote earlier, many of these guys had no clue about who Kerry was; they only knew of his post-discharge activities. Many of their opinions are therefore frankly ignorant. They have no special knowledge of the man; they opposed him because of his anti-war activities. And again, the guys who knew him best and were on his boat have been almost uniform in praising him. Their opinions are equally sincere, and much more credible.
Posted by: Rubberheavysoul | April 21, 2005 08:35 AM
> [ The fact that the injuries were not severe. ]
"This is immaterial"
Well, apparently it's not immaterial to Bob Dole!
As he was severely injured in service to his country, his opinion seems worthy of consideration. Whether it necessarily reflects negatively on Kerry is a matter for the reader to decide. What does seem apparent is that the Swift Vets really hurt Kerry, and he would have been less vulnerable to the attacks had he not focused so heavily on his Vietnam record.
"Dole's and your rejoinders don't hold up. First, there were nowhere near 250 swift boat people on the Bay Hap River that day. Many - if not most - of those guys weren't even around; they were just swift boat vets who didn't like Kerry. Second, many of these guys have admitted that they joined the swift boat organization because of what Kerry did and said after the war; not because of what happened on the Bay Hap River."
You seem to have mis-parsed what I said. I was not assigning any credibility to any particular Swift Boat factual claim. In particular you appear to be talking about his Silver Star award, which I didn't even mention in my post. The medals and factual controversies were not the entire substance of the Swift Vets campaign.
What is undisputed is that these men served in the same area of service as Kerry and that they have strong opinions about him. Some of them had direct contact with him, most did not. But I don't consider it particularly relevant whether their opinion is based on his actions during or after the war. Kerry was representing that he had served in an honorable way, and that he was well respected by his "Band Of Brothers." In fact, there seems to be a pretty limited subgroup of his "Brothers" who were willing to come out and support him, and more than a few who hate his guts!
Many of them, as you say, hate his guts because of what he did after he returned from his service. For example, one of the ads they ran quoted from his testimony before Congress. I think it's pefectly legitimate for a group of Veterans who are upset at his testimony before Congress to run ads expressing their upset and how they believe it reflects on Kerry.
To be a member of the Swift Vets group, one was not required to fully back every claim made by a member of the group. It was enough to be a Swift Vet (or later, a POW) and consider Kerry unfit to be the President. To the extent that members of the group communicated these opinions, I consider them legitimate. I can find no reason to fault the subset of members who simply have a negative personal opinion of John Kerry. In other words, if a Swift Vet said "I don't like John Kerry because of what he said to Congress" that's sincere, factual and correct.
Should their words and views be given special weight because they served in a similar capacity? That's for the reader to decide.
Your assertion that forming an opinion of Kerry based on his anti-war activities is "frankly ignorant" does not seem substantiated to me. If Kerry was inviting people to form opinions of him based on his war record and his anti-war activity, what's wrong with the Swift Vets sharing their opinion? It's a free country...
But hey, thanks for your input, and more importantly for staying civil. All too rare these days.. :)
Welcome to The Beef!
=darwin
Posted by: Darwin | April 21, 2005 12:05 PM
Thanks for the welcome!
Anyway..
"As he was severely injured in service to his country, his opinion seems worthy of consideration. Whether it necessarily reflects negatively on Kerry is a matter for the reader to decide. What does seem apparent is that the Swift Vets really hurt Kerry, and he would have been less vulnerable to the attacks had he not focused so heavily on his Vietnam record."
Well, I'm not so sure about Dole's comments. Kerry didn't give himself the Purple Hearts; the Army did. Some of the swift boat vets (or SBV) claimed that Kerry wrote reports to make himself look more brave or injured, when there is no evidence to support that position. If the Army decided that Kerry deserved the Purple Hearts, fine with me. One of those articles I linked earlier note that at the time medals were being handed out quite liberally.
About Dole's comments about playing up the war thing: I never criticized those comments.
"The medals and factual controversies were not the entire substance of the Swift Vets campaign."
But the heart of the book - the impetus for the movement - focuses mostly on Kerry's wartime activities, especially the Bay Hap River. The Amazon and Publisher's Choice reviews expound: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260174/qid=1114110971/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-7911886-8748141?v=glance&s=books&n=507846#product-details
O'Neill and the others then went on the talk show circuit criticizing Kerry's actions on the Bay Hap river. The other stuff - his antiwar activities, etc.- came later or were crowded out with the Bay Hap controversy.
You posted a lot about the SVBs in general, and rather than re-paste the entire thing, I'll just note the following: I mentioned that the swift boat thing coalesced early on around Kerry's behavior on the Bay Hap; this was the source of the original controversy. O'Neill, Harlow et al went after Kerry with relish, only to find their many, if not all, of their assertions unproveable or wrong. That's my major bone of contention with them. As for the SBVs who were anti-Kerry because of his activities after the war, well, that's a different story. But they bundled themselves in with a group that basically engaged in a smear campaign. Further, like I wrote earlier, many of them didn't know Kerry; only of his anti-war activities. They have every right to condemn them, but we already knew of these activities. We also knew that Kerry expressed regret for those comments.
"To be a member of the Swift Vets group, one was not required to fully back every claim made by a member of the group."
It depends on what the claim was. Again, the SBV group came into public prominence by making serious charges against Kerry at Bay Hap. That was their rallying cry, and it built from there. It was a fundamental tenet of their organization.
"Your assertion that forming an opinion of Kerry based on his anti-war activities is "frankly ignorant" does not seem substantiated to me. If Kerry was inviting people to form opinions of him based on his war record and his anti-war activity, what's wrong with the Swift Vets sharing their opinion? It's a free country..."
Actually, I was a little harsh here. My point was that the SBVs who didn't know Kerry, but were against him because of his activities, have no special insight to the man. As former vets, they actually DO have somewhat of an insight because it must suck to fight in a war that then gets condemned by a fellow vet. However, they have no special insight into Kerry the man who commanded troops (and who almost uniformly supported him); they have no special insight to the charges leveled by O'Neill and the others; and they have no special insight into Kerry's alleged bravery (as his shipmates claim) or his alleged cowardice (as O'Neill claims). Unfortunately, they latched onto an organization that IMHO was a smear campaign against Kerry, so I contend that their credibility is harmed. If they had formed a separate organization, say Vietnam Vets against Kerry, and they focused on Kerry's anti-war activities instead of the Bay Hap charges, then they wouldn't be tarred by those (including me) who have problems with O'Neill and Tharlow.
Posted by: Rubberheavysoul | April 21, 2005 01:15 PM
Fair enough. Looks like we've hashed out where each other stands pretty well. Only a few bullet points in response.
#1) Kerry may not have chosen to give himself the Purple Hearts, but as I recall he did choose to use the Three-And-You're-Out option to end his service early. Many soldiers who were wounded more severely did not persue Purple Hearts, and as I recall others who had multiple Purple Hearts did not use them as a ticket home. As none of his injuries were severe enough to incapacitate him in any way for any length of time, it does seem reasonable to me to consider his use of them as his "out" to reflect on his character and/or his dedication to his fellow soldiers.
#2) As you note, many of the SBV factual claims were either "unprovable or wrong." Some of them (for example Kerry's Christmas-in-Cambodia) turned out to be correct, too. As I understand it, part of the impetus for the movement was to pressure Kerry to release his full military records to disambiguate the record. Kerry has *still* not disclosed those records. Perhaps he was unwilling to release them because some of those assertions in the "unprovable" category were actually accurate. I will concede that the factual river claims were a significant portion of the original SBVT media campaign, and that at least some of the claims were discredited. To whatever extent this was done willfully (as opposed to due to mistaken recollection) I agree that the taint applies to the organization.
#3) With a minor quibble, I will agree that these veterans had no special insight into Kerry as a leader. The quibble is that many people who did serve with Kerry (though not immediately on the boat he commanded) do in fact have insight into his service. For example, many of those above Kerry in the chain of command were members of the SBVT. They have as much first-hand knowledge of Kerry's performance as a soldier and officer as those who served under him.
It would have been nice to see a disambiguation of the river claims from the vets who were angry about his anti-war activism... but that's not how it worked out. I think we mostly agree that a subset of the SBVT, those whose opposition to Kerry was based on his post-service activities, would have been better served by belonging to another organization.
Thanks again for the civil discussion, I do believe that it has been productive. I have a more clear understanding of how others viewed the SBVT, and we managed to do it without descending into a flame war. Kudos to both of us, I think.. :)
=darwin
PS, do you have a blog or anything? Your writing (and google skills) seem worthy of their own forum..
Posted by: Darwin | April 21, 2005 09:13 PM
Hi Darwin,
I agree that we pretty much know where the other stands. I’ll just riposte a little with the following…
1) true; JK did use his 3 Purple Hearts to get out of Nam. Two points: first, I really can’t blame a guy for trying to leave wartime service legitimately if he can; I possibly would have done the same. Second, it could very well be that he had a political career in mind; even early 1970s Doonesbury cartoons hinted as much. But my default position is that guys who serve in war deserve our respect, however they served. I still have a special place in my heart loathing Whoopi Goldberg for her comments about Bob Dole during the 1996 Oscars.
2) I am also surprised that Kerry didn’t release his records.
3) No problem there.
I’ll just throw out my political philosophy; I’m a lifelong moderate Republican who voted for Kerry because I have a lot of problems with Bush. I also mentioned that I have a lot of respect for vets (even though I’m not one and I don’t come from a military family), so when one of them runs for Prez (Bush I, Dole, McCain, Kerry) I (probably unfairly) expect them to be treated with a little more respect than the average candidate (not by coincidence, I supported each guy). So when the SBVs made their charges, I had a high threshold before I would believe them, and they didn’t meet it. I do think, though, that Kerry’s anti-war activities meet that threshold. I have no great love of Kerry, I just didn’t think Bush deserved re-election.
Thanks to you for the civil discussion as well. Nope, no blog; I don’t have the time – although I do have the opinions!
Posted by: rubberheavysoul | April 22, 2005 08:23 AM
rubberheavysoul is correct.
Secondly, I just had to make this comment regarding what you wrote about Sen. Dole - being lame. Why did you think Sen. Dole was lame? You can support and believe in POTUS GW Bush and the Republican Party, but you thought this great man was lame and lame as a senator. I find it incredulous that one can support the Bush Administration, but think a great man like Sen. Dole was lame - that you needed to hear him make comments against a "liberal" "MSM" outlet for you to respect him?!?
Posted by: a | April 26, 2005 12:56 AM
a,
I am not a Republican, nor a Bush supporter. I agree with Bush's foreign posture and vision for the world and America.. but on almost everything else I think he's a disaster. Civil liberties, economic policy, environmental policy, social policy, etc., etc. I didn't vote for Kerry or Bush, but if I had lived in a state where my vote mattered I would have held my nose and voted for Kerry. Bush simply bungled so many things in his first term that I couldn't have voted for him.
Fortunately, I didn't have to make that choice.
As to Dole as "lame" well.. he clearly became a very powerful senator. Does that mean he was a good, honorable man, or perhaps exactly the opposite? Decades in the Senate seems to create a legacy of shame as well as accomplishment. I respect him as an individual, but I disagree with many of his positions and accomplishments. He was as lame against a charismatic Clinton as Kerry was against Bush in 2004. Lame candidate.
Anyhow, thanks for your comments on this and earlier threads. Welcome to The Beef!
=darwin
Posted by: Darwin | April 27, 2005 11:51 PM