Kerry lies...Media elides...Clinton cycle redux?

Authors of the newly released book "Unfit to Command" allege that Kerry's own biographical history about his service in Vietnam is full of lies. the most powerful deception is that he was in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 - illegally.

The point is important since he's proclaimed it many times (1979, 186, 2001...) through the decades and cited the moment as key in his education about government deception, which he almost always (mis)attributes to Nixon. But it's all so convenient to have made such a charge after the war was over, after joining the Anti-war movement.

After coverage in the London Daily Telegraph, The New York Post, New York Daily News, and Fox News, the story in the "mainstream" media has gone either silent or into reactionary derision!
The Kerry-crowd (e,g, Lanny Davis) has responded to these charges with smears, ad-hominem attacks, and derision, and the Kerry Campaign with early eery silence.

SO let me piece FOUR sharp observations together for you.

FIRST. Glenn Reynolds at intapundit.com
"NOTHING ON THE KERRY/CAMBODIA STORY in either the New York Times or the Washington Post this morning -- I just searched both sites. Even though the Kerry Campaign has now admitted that Kerry's oft-repeated stories about being in Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968 aren't true. **The Post did find the time to condemn the Swift Boat vets, though, without admitting that one of their charges has already been borne out."

"They're spending another chunk of their diminishing credibility to help this guy."**

SECOND, Will Collier says
"Looks like that American Spectator blurb from a couple of days ago was accurate: beyond Fox News, the press is in full cover-up mode for Kerry on this one."
http://vodkapundit.com/archives/006428.php (12 Aug)

"Yo, Media: Your candidate has apparently lied, repeatedly, over the last 30 years. He did so to embellish his credentials, and in the pursuit of various political ends. His campaign is putting out false spin that doesn't pass the laugh test. Does this say anything at all about his fitness for higher office?"

"Not to some people, I guess, " retorts Glenn Reynolds.

THIRD, media analyst Tinm Graham asks in "Déjà vu anyone?" if we haven't seen this all before in presidential politics.

"It all seems so familiar now. In their overt desire to reject a second term for a President Bush, the liberal media elite allows the Democratic candidate to create a legend around himself and his past. Whatever inconvenient holes or weaknesses there are in his personal history are whitewashed out. When the Democrat's critics challenge these legends, only then is it time to travel beyond the mythology and launch into investigative journalism — but only to expose the cynical conspiracies of the partisan plotters against the Democrat."

"This entire cycle, which recalls 1992 and then repeats in every other year of the Clinton era, is now coming around again with the ad and book campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth...."

He then examines two parallels, Paula Jones, but better still, the Arkansas State Trooper's charges.

"Why would the media approach the swift-boat vets opposing Kerry by completely changing the subject instead of engaging the battle on the turf of Kerry's record? **If they're so confident Kerry is unassailable and the vets are politically daft, why not demand Kerry's records to shut it down [as with Bush's service record]? Here again you can see the Clinton parallels.** Behind the pro-Democrat bravado is a real lack of confidence in what a careful evaluation of the public record will show. They change the subject to motivations and personal attacks because merely raising the subject, the question of whether Kerry served or protested honorably and without great political calculation is a loser for Democrats. If the portrait of Kerry tips even a bit from jut-jawed hero to unreliable ally in a crisis, a self-promoter with presidential ambitions in the most trying situations, Kerry's chances with veterans and military families may be quite hampered."
Graham examines NBC News, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal columnist Al Hunt to support his conclusion that is is Clinton redux!

FINALLY, a prominent example of Tim Graham's criticism that didn't make his list appears in USA TODAY, August 8th:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-08-kerry-vets_x.htm

It's all to-and-fro criticism, no elaboration of the charges or examination of its substance of our fiture president. Graham concludes that the Media "should have been exploring this story on their own in January, when Kerry broke out of the Democratic pack through powerful and repeated war heroism stories.... But they did not. They are more interested in electing Kerry than telling us about him."

So, is it Clinton redux?
[**Emphasis added**]

-Orson

 

Douglas Brinkley amends Kerry's Cambodia story?

The not always reliable Matt Drudge says that historian Doug Brinkley - whose shreeks of objection to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth are quoted in the USA Today story above - will respond with a correction to Kerry's biography.

In the New Yorker, he will say Kerry was in Cambodia in January - not Christmas as Kerry claimed.

This appears to be done at Kerry's behest.
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc93.htm

-Orson

 

Ironically, the whole Vietnam service issue would not even be an issue if Kerry had not made it the focal point of his campaign.

 

The forthcoming Brinkley correction is confirmed by the London Daily Telegraph. It appears that he heavily relies upon Kerry's own private war-time journals. However "Unfit To Command" co-author attorney John O'Neill states that what has been made available of it is terribly unreliable - "imaginative" is how he characterizes it.


Antrim's piece in the Examiner is especially devastating:
A lexus/Nexus "search indicates that Christmas in Cambodia is starting to work its way through the second-tier newspapers, and some of the english-language foreign press as well. The bad news is that, aside from the Daily Telegraph, it's all editorial pages and syndiated columns. And the mainstream media still doesn't think it's a story. Still, the Ft. Wayne News Sentinal has an editorial strongly defending the relevance of the story. One of the San Francisco Examiner's conservative columnists, Kathleen Antrim, is onto it. Investor's Business Daily, not exactly a reliable Republican mouthpiece, is also demanding answers, if not yet asking questions."

"The problem is, these are, if anything, a little lower down on the food chain than the New York Post, Daily News, and even the Washington Times. The editorial writers are in a position to publically ask for medical records and diaries, but not in a position to pry open the doors with investigative journalism. Editorial boards don't dictate either coverage or slant, and they shouldn't. But an editor can assign a couple of reporters to a story, and have them interview some of the swiftvets involved. They can call around the Pentagon, and try to obtain some of those records. Shocked? Well that's what reporters do. When they actually want to cover a story, that is."
http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

"With accusations flying, Kerry's version of free speech has shrunk down to only one veteran: himself. All others must be silenced."

"This is called "damage control," folks, and it's in high gear because Kerry knows he's in trouble here. Big trouble."

"Of course, this whole matter could be cleared up if Kerry would release his Vietnam records and his personal journal. It's a simple matter to release these records, requiring only a standard Form 180."

"So, Mr. Kerry, if you haven't been making up stories, and if the Swift Vets are lying, then release your records and prove your case. Trust the American people to discern the truth. Or have the courage to admit you lied, over and over again."
http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/081304op_antrim

--Orson

 

I've been thinking the same thing.

 

It just goes to show

How desperate the GOP is to trump up charges against Kerry, citing "information" that is 30 years old. Why don't they look at their boy, who very recently lied to the American people about so-called "weapons of mass distruction."

This lie has caused the needless deaths of many, but since he's such a good "Christian," I'm sure Jesus will forgive him.

 

I never in my wildest dreams thought I could actually like Bill and Hillary better than any other Democratic couple. I was wrong. They are much better than Kerry and Heinz Kerry.

 

Well Jimmy,
I still think that Hillbillary is the spawn of Satan, but you are correct that the Heinz twins are even worse. May God keep us from the curse of Kerry in the next election.

BLD

 

Re: It just goes to show

Hi sympatheticear,

All sides during political campaigns sling mud; this is nothing new to American politics.

However, nothing is trumped up here. Kerry's own words, right out of his mouth, are coming back to haunt him.

He testified before Congress he and those under his command committed atrocities that violated the Geneva Convention. Now, he says he exaggeragted.

If what he says he did is in fact true. Then he should be held accountable.

 

Hi Barry,

I really don't think we have anything to worry about. The American public is begining to focus on the election now and reports indicate Kerry is losing ground every time he opens his mouth.

Shades of Billary are slowly becoming evident to the voting public. I do have to admit, however, I think Kerry would actually be a better President in foreign affairs and national security than Clinton was.

Kerry's domestic agenda is what really scares me!

Let me make it clear I do not view President Bush as perfect. He has made some mistakes. His views on capital punishment, immigration, the environment, etc. are anathema to my own.

However, he is still a very good President and a very good, honest, and decent man. He is away more progressive than he is given credit for--AIDS funding (Africa), Liberia, Rice, Powell, immigration, No Child Left Behind, civil rights, etc.

 

My only disagreements with Bush are on immigration (not nearly tough enough) and on Medicare (way too generous). I also don't think he is nearly conservative enough in a number of areas, but all in all, I think he is a GREAT president.

BLD

 

Yea, the borders need to be better protected.

Your comments are the reasons I have always called Bush a "moderate," rather than a "conservative."

I like Moderate Republicans! Don't agree with them all the time, but prefer them to the hard right like Helms, Thurmond, Buchanan, Keyes, Lott et. al.

 

Re: It just goes to show

As mentioned above, the only reason why the GOP is focusing on Kerry's fabricated war record is because Kerry himself made it the entire focal point of his campaign. How many times did he refer to his 19 years in the Senate during his acceptance speech at the DNC?

He didn't lie, you know it, and repeating it over and over again is not going to change things. Assuming that Iraq didn't have WMD's (I think they did, and they went to Syria), Bush made a decision based on faulty intelligence. Much of the intelligence was supplied by Russia and the United Kingdom. That's not a lie, my friend.

Besides, your boy Kerry recently stated that he would have voted to authorize the war even if he knew there weren't any WMD's. Explain that.

John Kerry is starting to find out that the national political stage is a much tougher audience than the lemmings in MA that would vote for Charles Manson if he ran as a Democrat. People are actually checking his stories instead of accepting them at face value.

 

Now that you mention Massachusetts, in this age of legacies (Pres Bush, GHW Bush, and--accidentally--John Heinz) "President Romney" might just sound even better in '08 than it did to many of us back in '68.

 

Mitt Romney will be a player in 2008, as candidate for President or Vice-President, I'm sure of it. A big part of what sunk George Romney in 1968 was being Mormon, which doesn't have nearly the stigma now that it did back then.

Mitt Romney has been a great Governor, and would be a great Presidential candidate. He's handsome, polished, educated (BA from Brigham Young, MBA & JD from Harvard), married to his teenage sweetheart, and has a family that looks like they just stepped out of a J. Crew catalog. The Dems can bring their picks, shovels, and backhoes, but they're not going to find any dirt on him.

 

Re: Re: It just goes to show

Not to change the subject, but how does this square with the poll you mentioned (but that I still can't find) that had 70 percent of MA residents opposing gay marriage? Is that any way for a group of left-wing lemmings to act?

Comments:

- I take Swift Boats Veterans for Nixon about as seriously as any other dubious political hatchet group of any party affiliation. Not only is the stuff Kerry is being accused of 30 years old (predating Bush's DUI conviction by a decade, for crying out loud!), but his accusers are also working from 30-year-old grudges and 30-year-old smears. It doesn't seem to be hurting Kerry very much in the polls, which is good--it shouldn't.

- On the other hand, I think Kerry has made too big an issue of his Vietnam service and that may come back to haunt him. He needs to go back to his impressive Senate record, because he does have one, and acting as if he doesn't only plays into the Republican criticism that he hasn't done anything interesting since the seventies. He's still leading and may very well win without changing direction at all, but I personally think his campaign needs a shot of adrenaline--more of a focus on current issues, and less of a focus on his war hero status (which is reminding me more and more of how Bob Dole campaigned in '96). I thought his convention speech was great, but he's already been there and done that now, and it's time to move on to other things.

- I think Kerry can make a lot of hay out of the fact that he was a state prosecutor; crime dropped dramatically during the Clinton years--though I personally suspect that has more to do with the maturation of the drug trade and the broad application of mandatory sentencing laws than anything else--and in that respect, he'll have a good political story, a political myth cycle. I mean, right now his only political myth cycle is Vietnam-Iraq; "I was a war hero, I came home and campaigned against an unjust war, now the current president is mismanaging a war, and I'm coming in to clean up his mess." He can do the same thing by saying "I was a prosecutor, I came to the Senate and helped President Clinton hire 100,000 new police officers, I've written a book about the international drug trade, President Bush has no comprehensive anti-crime policy, and I do." I believe that he can even tie crime in with the war on terror, and score some votes on the national security issue. Why he isn't playing this card is beyond me; I hope it's because he's saving it for a rainy day, and not because he's decided to be a one or two issue candidate (though if he ends up winning with that strategy, I'll be more than happy to eat crow).

- Agreed on Mitt Romney being presidential material, and I'd love to see a Mormon major-party candidate on general principle. But I think McCain would be the strongest potential candidate for 2008, should he choose to run, and I'm not really sure picking Romney as his veep would be a really good tactical move (because he isn't likely to carry his home state, especially if Kerry is the incumbent president), though it would be a bold display of confidence in terms of the South--saying "We've got this region so locked up we don't even need a candidate from down here." I see Romney as a strong contender in the primaries, and I guess as VP candidate he would stand a good chance of at least taking back Maine and New Hampshire, assuming Kerry-Edwards carries those states in November (which seems likely). Bill Frist would also be great. And Colin Powell, though he's lost a lot of steam since polling ahead of everyone in '96, would still be everybody's bet if he surprised us by running this time.

- I wouldn't even necessarily mind Powell in the White House; he's a multilateralist and a social moderate, and is likely to appoint independent Supreme Court justices. Not sure I'd object to McCain or Romney, either. What I'm concerned about is that our current president, though a nice enough guy who no doubt means well, is a unilateralist crusader who flirts with theocracy and has already promised his base that he'll only appoint justices who take the Scalia-Thomas tack on social issues. To put things bluntly, I'm frightened about what he might do to the country if he's given another four years in office. That said: I don't blame him for the economic slump, which I attribute to the dot-com fallout and the 9/11 attacks.


Cheers,

 

Re: Re: Re: It just goes to show

Strangely.....yes.

Massachusetts is a very odd place. Many people are taught from birth to vote Democrat, and they never bother to look at the stances of the candidates.

My father-in-law is a retired motorman for the MBTA (Boston-area transit system), and he was a rabid Democrat when I first met him, since the union always told him to vote Democrat (Local 589, the Carmen's Union, is a very powerful political force that always supports Democrats).

However, I sat him down one night and went over a bunch of policy questions with him, and his answers were 100% in the Republican platform. He's now a staunch conservative, who religiously listens to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage.

In short, most MA voters just blindly follow the Democrat ticket, unless a specific question is asked of them. The only reason we've had a Republican Governor for the last decade+ is the pathetic candidates the Dems have wheeled out.

As mentioned before, the only, THE ONLY reason that a 30-year old issue is being brought up now is because John Kerry has chosen to make the entire focal point of his campaign on some things that may or may not have happened 30 years ago. It's that simple.

Why hasn't Kerry released his military records, if he's so proud of what he did in Vietnam?

Tom....you're making this too easy.

Name some legislation that John Kerry has initiated. I'm not talking about something where he jumped in as a co-sponsor, which is weak. Something he initiated himself, where he is the author.

Powell stated quite strongly in his book that he isn't interested in being President or Vice-President. That's fine with me, because he is way too liberal for me.

I think the Supremes would benefit greatly with some more Scalia-type appointments.

Anyway....let's review what President Bush has done while in office;

1) Destroyed the Taliban and brought democracy to Afghanistan

2) Killed or arrested the leadership of Al-Queda, rendering them an ineffective organization.

3) Removed & arrested a brutal dictator that slaughtered millions of his own citizens, much like Hitler or Stalin.

4) Cut taxes.... $1400 this year for me, which I promise I can use better than the government.

Based on just that, I'm very unwilling to hand over the reins of power to an ultra-liberal Massachusetts Senator who lies about his military service.

 

Actually, his being a Mormon was never really an issue. Two things hurt Romney. First, he was born in Mexico and had to constantly explain why he was still qualified to run for President, even to the point of having lawyer Eustach Seligman write a small booklet called A Brief for Gov. Romney's Eligibility for President.

Second, and the main reason he sunk from being a serious candidate, was his statement, after having visited Vietnam, that he had been brainwashed. That statement killed any chances he had.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: It just goes to show

Bruce, I know you live in MA but MA has a long history, not just the last decade, of electing GOP governors including Calvin Coolidge, Saltonstall, Herter, Volpe, Sergeant, etc. I think the state has been about evenly split in regards to Dem. and GOP governors.

I agree Mitt Romney will be a major player for the GOP nomination in 2004. If Lt. Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller wins the governorship in Arkansas it would be nice to see a Romney-Rockefeller ticket. Talk about nostalgia!

 

Too bad the Romney legacy couldn't continue in Michigan. Never could understand why both Lenore and Rona lost their respective Senate bids.

Guess Hart and Levin were just too popular. Hart I liked; can't stand Levin. Am glad Riegle went to the Dems, though, ha!

The only thing I miss about not living in Michigan is the politics. It's just fascinating!

Unk, do you think Granholm will be a one-term governor? I have family in Michigan and they think so.