Kranish Is Cooked

Michael Kranish rocked us on Friday with a story, headlined "Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry", which told us that:

"a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

Get Maureen Dowd on the line - that may have been the most misleading ellipsis ever published, but since the affidavit was not public, who knew?

Subsequently, Capt. Elliot retracted his retraction, prompting some head-scratching.

Now, both the original affidavit and the re-affirmation (the retraction of the retraction) are available here. I will read it again, and you should, too, but my first reaction [Update: and second, and third] is that Kranish wrote a wildly deceptive and misleading story.

Let's restore the missing ellipsis, emboldening the excerpted bit:

3. When Kerry came back to the United States he lied about what ocurred in Vietnam, comparing his commanders to Lt. Calley of My Lai, comparing the American armed forces to the army of Ghengis Khan, and making similar misstatements. Kerry was also not forthright in Vietnam. For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.

Hello, Mr. Reporter! When Capt. Elliot "backed off one of the key contentions", was it the My Lai complaint, or the Ghengis Khan comparison? Or was it one example preceded by "for example"?

Unbelievable. In his re-affirming affidavit, Capt. Elliot cites the same material I did to reach this conclusion - he was not informed of the facts, and "had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing VietCong".

This, from the Globe, now looks wildly ironic:

In the ad, Elliott says, ''John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Asked to supply evidence to support that statement, the anti-Kerry group provided a copy of Elliott's affidavit. Elliott said the same affidavit had been used in the production of the book.

It is unclear whether the work contains further justification for the assertion, beyond Elliott's statement.

Oh, it is going to be pretty clear, I bet. They still need to back it up, but there will be more. And based on the Filing Frenchman's description of book co-author John O'Neill, the research will be something other than a house of cards.

Earlier, I had guessed that the Swiftees would disappear under the headline of "Cranks can't get story straight". But if Kranish has been this irresponsible, the Swiftees will sail on as the heroes of a "Liberal media attempts to squash Veteran truth-tellers" drama.

Don't even ask me about Joe Wilson.

MORE: Let's give Kranish a little credit here - Elliot does seem to be on both sides of the "did he shoot him in the back" question. But this early quote in the story - "Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star" - seems to be an out of context interpretation of the full quote, which runs later - ''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

One might plausibly argue, as Elliott now does, that the "terrible mistake" was to cite that somewhat immaterial detail, rather than to focus on the (subjective but irrefutable) war crimes accusations.

UPDATE: The Globe stands by its story, offering a legalistc "the quote is accurate" defense. I assume the quote is accurate; all that is missing is an appropriate context. Print the affidavit - the relevant section (3) is only about three sentences, as demonstrated above.

The NY Times is scarcely better - they can't find space for three sentences either.

And hey, is that Atrios, posting as Duncan B. Black at Mind Over Media Matters? Apparently, co-author Jon Corsi is associated with the Free Republic and delivers the snark when dissing Dems. I bet he wears inappropriate t-shirts, too. Burn his book now!

And a hint to Not Sirius - December comes at the end of the year. Worth noting.

Finally, some commenters seem to think that the Boston Globe article didn't really create the impression that Elliott had retracted his entire affidavit. FactCheck staggered to that erroneous impression, as did most of the commenters found here. (And isn't my faith in tedious things like evidence kind of poignant?)

Comments

[RandMan]

You know, sometimes words just fail me. I wonder if the MSM's "professionalism" is their uncanny ability to misrepresent, mislead, misstate, etc. key information to important stories. Not to worry though, they assure us they don't have an agenda.

[martin]

I swore I would not get sucked into this minutiae, but anyway:
I see no problem with the ellipsis.
In his first affidavit,which you quote,Elliott states Kerry lied, and cites certain misstatements. He then states Kerry wasn't "forthright in Vietnam. For example.."
i.e. Here's an example of how kerry wasn't "forthright": he never said he shot the guy in the back. "I was never informed" meaning Kerry shot the guy in the back, but I was never informed of this because kerry was never honest ("forthright")about it.

So if Elliot really did tell Kranish "I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," then he is definitely retracting the "example" he offered of Kerry's lack of forthrightness.

In his revised affidavit-he says he only meant that he never received a report that the Cong was shot in the back. But if his quote to Kranish is true-he did retract his earlier sworn testimony imho.

But it doesn't matter. This testimony is worthless anyway. You can only testify as to your personal knowledge. Elliot wasn't there. This second affidavit-quoting kranish quoting Kerry-is triple hearsay and actually embarrassing (as far as admissibility into court-politically-who knows/cares).

Incidentally, someone needs to follow up on Elliot's statement in the Globe that "In a hurry I signed it and faxed it [the affidavit]back."
This is quite common-unfortunately it's also fraud.
i.e. you need an affidavit signed-you fax it to a witness-he signs it-faxes you the signature-drops the original signature in the mail-you notarize the fax-make a copy- it looks like an original. Later when the signed original shows up-you notarize it-and voila-there's your original. Except the Notary and the affiant were never in the same room. So the "before me personally appeared" part is perjury.

Happens every day in America-otherwise you've got to schlep over to the Notary's office or vice versa when the damn paper is just going to be filed into the real estate records never to be seen again-so why bother-take the easy way.

Sound like that's what happened here-otherwise why would Elliot "fax it back"? Did Elliott really go to Ms. Webbs office as a oneshot deal and then faxed and mailed the affidavit to the Swifboatians or was Ms. Webb at the Swifboat HQ receiving and notarizing all these vets affidavits at a central point?

Sounds stupid-but I swear this point was raised at a Congressional hearing in connection with Whitewater. Again this is mindboggling minutiae but leave no tern unstoned.

[GT]

You kind of lost me here.

There's two points in my mind.

1. First Elliot's second affidavit is a very, very weak retraction. The Boston Globe, which says that they stand by their story (and I assume they have either recordings or notes of the interview) quotes Elliot saying very specific things. For example ''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here." This is a very clear quote. Did or did not Elliot say that? It should be easy for him to deny it but he doesn't. All he says is that he was misquoted and never explains how. To me that tells me he did say that but then came to regret it.

2. The second point is that the affidavits themselves and Elliot's claims are weird. He admits he was not there and that he has no direct knowledge. But then he says that he would not have recommended the Silver Star if he had been informed of the facts. But what facts? The people that were there agree that the soldier had an RPG that could blow up the boat and that Kerry killed him. For some reason Elliot's affidavits missed that part. The age of the soldier is both irrelevant and a useless debate since no one knows. It doesn't matter what he 'looked' like. I know lots of people in their 20s than easily look like teenagers. And there is nothing wrong with shooting a fleeing soldier that does not surrender and has weapons capable of destroying you and your crew. And, of course, Kerry could not have known if there was somebody else hiding around when he started casing the VC soldier. Someone who could have easily killed him. Lucky for him that wasn't the case.

More details here:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/Politics/kerry_medal_040624-2.html

[TM]

Martin - good point about faxing the affidavit. John O'Neill is a big time Houston lawyer, and they may have subsequently executed a follow-up (Elliot would have signed, figuring it was too late now). Just how fraudulent that is, and how courts handle it, I have no idea.

GT - I had not seen your comment when I wrote my "MORE", so I am not sure if your are responding to it or not.

As a slightly different example - suppose I wrote "I made a terrible mistake when I put on a striped green shirt with an orange polka dot tie before I went off to vote for Bush"

Is it possible there are two mistakes in that proposition, and my idea of the terrible mistakeis different from yours? (Depends on your politico-fashion sense, I am sure).

Put another way, is there anything at all that makes you think that Elliott would like to retract the main proposition - Kerry accused folks of war crimes; and are we absolutely sure that the "terrible mistake" was not in picking some more clear-cut example of Kerry's untruthfullness?

[GT]

Tom,

I guess I read it differently than you. I agree that Elliot does not appear to be backing away from his "Kerry lied about all of us being war criminals" accusation. But I don't see that as the main point of the article. The main point IMO is that Elliot is retracting from the "Kerry should not have gotten a Silver Star" accusation.

In any case I don't see the need for an affidavit regarding the war crimes issue. Without starting a new debate on that issue it seems to me that is a question of opinion. Kerry never said that everyone was a war criminal only that some people had commited war crimes.

In the end I am left a bit puzzled as to what, exactly, Elliot is testifying to. If he disagrees with Kerry's Senate testimnoy why doesn't he highlight what Kerry said and refute or contradict it? The testimony on the Silver Star is at best confusing and at worst an attempt to smear by Elliot. I don't get it.

[DCRob]

Martin's point that "the Notary and the affiant were never in the same room" appears to be belied by the fact that both affidavits were notarized by notaries in the state of Delaware, which is Eliott's domicile. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the notarization was placed on the faxed copy by the recipient of the fax.

[TM]

OK, the Globe stands by their story.

(a) if they had any character, they would print the original affidavit, instead of going into a legalistic "the quote is literally accurate" defense.

(b) for GT, the original story had this headline (not the writer's fault, but the Globe stands by it):

"Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry"

Did you take from that that Elliott retracted all his criticism, his main criticism, or a minor point?

Later, they do say this: "backed off one of the key contentions": were you left with the impression that he stood by his main contentions?

Did you know what his main contentions were? (I did not - I couldn't find this affidavit yesterday, and the Globe still has not printed it).

The story said:

"Meanwhile, a television advertising campaign began yesterday featuring many of the anti-Kerry veterans who are quoted in the book, including Elliott. In the ad, Elliott says, ''John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Asked to supply evidence to support that statement, the anti-Kerry group provided a copy of Elliott's affidavit. Elliott said the same affidavit had been used in the production of the book.

It is unclear whether the work contains further justification for the assertion, beyond Elliott's statement."

Were you left with the impression that the main body of the affidavit was not in dispute?

I think I am OK in saying this was a misleading story.

[Frank G]

yeah, Elliot's the one with the flip-flopping on stories issues here..bet he was in Cambodia during 68 Christmas as well?

/sarcasm

[Daniel]

Sounds to me that Elliot is retracting the "he shot the guy in the back" part not "he dispatched a single fleeing VC" part. So his assertion that he wasn't told the facts and the implication that he would not have supported a silver star for that action is still accurate.

[GT]

Daniel,

huh? The fact that it was only one armed VC is noted in the official citation. What was Elliot unaware of?

Tom,

This is a question of opinion obviously but to me you are nitpicking this to the death. 99.99% of the people that read the article don't know what Elliot said originally and I doubt they have a clue as to which is the main or the secondary accusation.

The article makes clear that Elliot is recanting his "Kerry did not deserve the Silver Medal" accusation. To me thta was always, and by far, the main accusation, since the "Kerry says we all committed war crimes" is a very different beast, starting witt the fact that Kerry never said that.

I will also point out that I read your previous post, which you linked to. It is pretty strange. There is no evidence anywhere that Kerry comitted a war crime. Talk of a teenager in a loin cloth may be good for a political ad that wants to resonate emotionally but is utterly meaningless. Nobody, I repeat, nobody could know how old the VC was and in in any case it was totally irrelevant. The men that were there agree that an armed VC with a weapon capable of destroying them was escaping and not surrendering. Period. Kerry was perfectly right in killing him before he had a chance to kill them. His age, or if he had some other wound, are totally irrelevant. There is no law against shooting someone who is wounded. Only against someone who is surrendering.

[JeanneB]

There's another completely different story running in those Boston Globe pieces. What was Kranish doing writing "the official" campaign book for Kerry WHILE HE WAS A REORTER COVERING THE CAMPAIGN?!

The editor's explanation today does not cover the real question. He says Kranish did the work but withdrew from the project when the publisher signed a deal with the campaign. So: did Kranish's work get into the book? Did he get paid for it? Why did Amazon, in their description of the book include info about Kranish's long history covering Kerry? Today Amazon has removed all references to Kranish in their description of the book...but he's still listed as the "author". Barnes & Noble lists Kranish as the author and the description says, " In his introduction, the Boston Globe's Michael Kranish offers penetrating insight into the policies of a Kerry Administration, and what they could mean for America".

It sounds like the "descriptions" were submitted by the publisher. It also sounds like Kranish's work is in the book.

[GT]

Jeanne,

That story has been debunked. No need to perpetuate Drudge's lies. He's done enough damage as is.

[Doug]

I think more should be made of the fact that this Kranish character is basically a publicist for Kerry. He wrote the campaign book Our Plan for America "by" Kerry and Edwards and he wrote a biography of Kerry, along with "the Boston Globe reporters who know him best."

Elliot plainly didn't know who he was talking to and therefore didn't know that Kranish would cherrypick and Dowdlerize everything he said in order to put him and the Swift Boat Veterans in the worst possible light.

I also think more should be made of the fact that the Globe has retained this Kerry publicist on the reporting staff. Given the enormity of Kranish's conflict of interest, I think their best option from the standpoint of preserving their reputation is to give Kranish leave with pay until after the election.

[Tom O'Bedlam]

Martin:
I agree that it's minutiae but I think its overstating the case to say, "his testimony is worthless anyway." Based on my own multiple-hearsay foundation of knowledge, it appears that he, as Kerry's commander, recommended Kerry for the decoration. It further appears that it's not unusual for the commander to base such a recommendation on other than personal knowledge --i.e., on the reports of others -- since obviously a commander cannot be personally present for every action at every moment taken by every subordinate he commands. He has personal knowledge of what he was told, and he's now saying that if he knew then what he knows now -- both states of knowledge being the based on the reports of others -- he wouldn't have taken an action (recommending someone for a medal) which is frequently, maybe almost always, based on hearsay knowledge by the person who makes the recommendation anyway.

And frankly, given the role played by Kerry's medals in the current campaign, that strikes me as a relevant fact. Deriding his testimony as worthless because it's "based on hearsay" when virtually all medal recommendations are based on hearsay anyway seem to me to miss the point.

It appears to me that the only contested "fact" in this tempest in a teapot is whether he was told the VC was shot in the back or not. And the affiant seems to be saying that if he had known then (based on hearsay, as was customary) what he now knows (based again on hearsay) -- namely, that the man was fleeing, etc. -- he wouldn't have recommended JFK for the medal, and while the claim about "in the back" would obviously have reinforced a decision not to recommend for a medal, its absence would not have changed the decision not to recommend for a medal.

[JeanneB]

GT:
I'm not perpetuating Drudge. I don't even read him. My comments came entirely from the Boston Globe's own article today. Perhaps you haven't read it?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/07/veteran_claims_misquote_on_kerry_globe_stands_by_its_story/

[GT]

Doug,

That has already been proven false. Kranish did not work for Kerry.

[GT]

Jeanne,

You wrote:

What was Kranish doing writing "the official" campaign book for Kerry WHILE HE WAS A REORTER COVERING THE CAMPAIGN?!

Except that that never happened. Kranish never wrote the official campaign book and never worked for Kerry's campign.

[Beldar]

Tom, thanks very much for the link. As to the "Filing Frenchman" moniker, I can only say — "Mips!" Remulak, of course, is the one place in France that resolutely supports Dubya and the War on Terror (which means it's mythical, like Brigadoon).

I'm intrigued by the arguments here about the affidavits, and may post something on my own blog with my comments, in which event I'll come back and post a comment with a link here and ping you a trackback.

[jeanneb]

GT: Please provide details on where the Kranish story was discredited. Everything I said came from the Globe or the two book sites. I'm not saying you're wrong...I just haven't seen it discredited. Thanks.

[ed]

It's funny. IT appears that the Globe was fixing Elliot's comments for mistakes. First, they remove that part about Kerry's anti war "lies." Well Over at kausfile we learn tha Tommy Franks backed up Kerry's claims about the atrocities in Vietnam. Second, regarding the "fleeing Viet Cong." Well TM, you cleared that one up for us.

The more we hear from these guys the more it sounds like they've been holding a thirty year grudge against Kerry for his anti-war tesimony. Maybe they all have something to hide. Anyway the Globe's edits actually help make their case. Now that we see what was removed, well now I know they're just partisan hacks.

[GT]

Jeanne,

It's all in the article you linked to. Starting in the eighth paragraph.

Hugh Hewitt also reported this yesterday in his website.

[Mark Amerman]

Quote:

"Amazon, the online bookseller, apparently contributed to the confusion
with a listing for the Kerry-approved campaign book indicating Kranish
as the author. PublicAffairs' officials said yesterday that Amazon had
agreed to revise the listing immediately."

from "The Boston Globe"

see http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/
2004/08/07/veteran_claims_misquote_on_kerry_globe_stands_by_its_story/

It sounds like the error originated at Amazon. Actually that doesn't
sound plausible, it seems hard to believe they would just randomly
assert Michael Kranish's name as author of the introduction of the
Kerry-approved campaign book. More plausibly the error was at PublicAffairs,
the publisher of the Kerry-approved campaign book. Most likely someone there
thought Kranish had written the introduction -- I wonder why?

It's clear that Drudge did not lie, rather that he made a forgiveable
mistake.

[GT]

Mark,

Then Drudge should say he made a mistake, prominently.

[Mark Amerman]

If "GT" was aware of the context above when he wrote "No need to
perpetuate Drudge's lies," then we have right in front of us
an example of someone lying, of intentionally misleading others.

[GT]

Drudge has a long history of doing this stuff.

And since he had not retracted it when I posted that, although it had been debunked for hours, yes I'd say he lied.

[Mark Amerman]

Well I go to Drudge's website and there it is:

"Globe: Drudge, Amazon Are Wrong..."

Follow the link and, quote:

"Peter Osnos, publisher of PublicAffairs, said both Drudge and Amazon,
the online bookseller peddling the upcoming Kerry-Edwards book,
had made a mistake in suggesting Kranish had written its
introduction."

This amounts to a retraction, and it's far more prominent
than anything I've ever seen a newspaper publish and awfully
quick. As you note, GT, a matter of hours.

[lunatic]

Arguing over at Drum's I started poking around google looking for info on claims Kranish isn't associated with the campaign book.

Here's what I wrote at Drum's. Very strange indeed.

-If Kranish had no connection with the Kerry Edwards campaign book, why does B&N list him as an author too?

Are they mistaken too?

B&N has a graphic of the book on their site. The enlarged view clearly says on the cover "With an Introduction by Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe".

Link to graphic:

http://a1204.g.akamai.net/7/1204/1401/04072612011/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/8000000/8008055.jpg

From B&N site:

" Accreditation

Michael Kranish has worked for the Boston Globe for more than 20 years, including the last 16 in the newspaper's Washington Bureau. He is co-author of John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography (PublicAffairs, 2004)."

All I did was google Kranish and the first hit was the B&N page.

I don't know who paid Kranish. But either there is a huge conspiracy between book stores and book cover designers or Baron is mistaken about Kranish's association with the campaign book.

Oddly, I notice that the cover shown on Amazon is different than the one shown at B&N. No author mentioned on the graphic. They still list Kranish as an author in the book description.

Although it is too slow to load, there seem to be parts of the Kerry Edwards book available in pdf, including the intro. I wonder who's listed within.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004462.php#228458

----------
And then this:

Pardon.

The book on B&N is titled "Their Plans and Promises"

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=zg6UYdh9QP&isbn=1586483145&TXT=Y&itm=2

Amazon has "Our Plan for America"

The difference? Who knows.

However, when I type "Their Plans and Promises" in google, second hit is the Public Affairs Book. Although google says:

PublicAffairs Books: KERRY AND EDWARDS
... Authors. PublicAffairs Books, KERRY AND EDWARDS Their Plans and Promises
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY MICHAEL KRANISH OF THE BOSTON GLOBE. ...
www.publicaffairsbooks.com/ publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=1586483145

A click on the link takes me to "Our Plans and Promises" with no mention of Kranish.

Something is certainly fishy 'round here.

Covering Kranish's ass, I suspect.

lunatic

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004462.php#228465

[Brian]

Something I don't think anyone else has brought up - as of now, Elliott hasn't retracted anything himself. The Swift Boat Veterans say he has, but notice there are no quotes from him directly at all. If he was truly retracting his comments from the Globe interview, wouldn't he himself be saying something? I find that a little odd...

[GT]

Lunatic,

You seem to be confusing two books.

Kranish wrote a Kerry biography. On his own.

Then Kranish was going to write a foreword to a book about the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Again, on his own (meaning not paid for by the campaign).

The the publisher entered into an agreemnt with the campaign to write an OFFICIAL book, paid by the campaign. And Kranish was no longer part of that new project.

[Joanna]

Check out this url that StevenAllaVinceza posted this url at Vodkapundit

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/1586483145/qid=1091896985/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_0_2/702-3550946-4452046

Why Huge Hewitt would believe one word of what the Globe told him after that misleading piece about the retraction, I can't figure.

[Joanna]

Sounds like the Globe's spinning furiously to cover Kranish's and the Globe's credibiity.

[GT]

No Joanna, that story is dead.

The explanation is pretty simple.

[ken]

Here's the cached version of the PUBLISHER'S page for the book. In other words the publisher was claiming Kranish participation as late as a week ago (the date Google grabbed the page). Drudge and Amazon have nothing to apologize for. BTW, the current page has now been stealth edited removing Kranish. Didn't the publisher know who wrote the introduction? Remember, the book has yet to be printed - deniability all around.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cxZw7ydSwWsJ:www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display%3Fbook%3D1586483145+kranish+publicaffairs+books&hl=en

[lunatic]

Okay...I'm still confused.

There's a book on B&N called "Kerry and Edwards: Their Plans and Promises", on Kerry and Edwards that on the cover says Kranish wrote it.

see:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=zg6UYdh9QP&isbn=1586483145&TXT=Y&itm=2

There's a book on Amazon called "Our Plan..." that Amazon says Kranish wrote it.

That a 1/2 an hour ago said "by Kranish"\. In fact I just searched it using ONLY the keyword "Kranish" and it popped up but cites "by Kerry and Edwards"

When I search for "Their Plan..." on google I get "Our Plan... at Public Affairs.

AND there is a Kranish biography/collection of essay that is a separate book too.

See:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=zg6UYdh9QP&isbn=1586482734&TXT=Y&itm=1

SOOOOO....the deal is Amazon WAS wrong 1/2 and hour ago and Kranish didn't write a word for the "Our Plan" book, no intro, nada?

lunatic

[GT]

Lunatic,

Exactly. Kranish was going to write a foreword but once the book became a new project, paid by the campaign, he left it. I think part of the confusion is that the two books have the same title and publisher.

[joanna]

posted at vodkapundit by Chris Carolan

The Globe is still obfuscating.

Note these two links.

The first is to the campaign-backed Kerry book about to be published by Public Affairs which the Globe asserts Kranish withdrew his introduction from once the campaign got involved.

http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=1586483145

The second link is to a forthcoming Kranish book on Kerry listed on Booksamillion.com

http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=2918972058041&isbn=1586483145

Now here's the bombshell/smoking gun. The books have the same ISBN number!!!!!!!

The Kranish book is listed at 224 pages and the campaign's book is 304.

What the Globe is implying is that Kranish edited 224 pages before the campaign got involved and then they added more content, changed the title and authors (to Kerry/Edwards). The Globe wants us to believe Kranish dropped out of the project. Maybe so, but obviously he did the bulk of the work. Was he paid? Did he give back the money? Is the Globe trying to imply that the first 204 pages of a 304 page book are simply 'introduction?'

[ken]

HELLOOOO, anybody out there.

The book in question (by Drudge), "The Plan..." was introduced by Kranish according to the PUBLISHER as late as July 28th . See my post above this one for the Google cache file. There is NO error on the part of Amazon and therefore by Drudge who linked to it. The PUBLISHER claimed Kranish wrote the intro. And this claim was made a week ago. This claim has now been removed on their current website (very easy to erase since the book has yet to be printed)

If there is an error, it is with the PUBLISHER (don't they know who is writing the introduction? Of course they do). And this error is contrary to what the publisher is quoted to say (i.e. a lie) in the Boston Globe rebuttal article by Milligan.

[Joanna]

Interesting Drudge is keeping his original story up.

On second thought, I think it's a red herring to be thinking that the Globe is concerned about protecting Kranish's reputation or whatever. What's at stake here is the campaign book iteself; it is going to play a HUGE part in Kerry's arsenal and it's vitally important that not a whiff of scandal be attached to it.

[lunatic]

Well, it's a little too late for no scandal with the book.

I've got Kranish cited as the author up in a browser now at Amazon.

Instapundit has a screen shot as well.

Also, googling "their plans and promises" brings this first hit:

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Item=978158648314&Catalog=Books&N=35+528250+321140&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1

Second this (cut and pasted from the google page itself is this:

... Authors. PublicAffairs Books, KERRY AND EDWARDS Their Plans and Promises
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY MICHAEL KRANISH OF THE BOSTON GLOBE. ...
www.publicaffairsbooks.com/ publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=1586483145

See the title above? And the author? This was just a few minutes ago that I searched.

Some serious fishiness here.

I TRIED to get the pdf of the introduction from Kerry's site but the site kept timing out. That was about an hour ago.

Go here (at the URL below) and the image of the book cover lists Kranish as author in the graphic.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=zg6UYdh9QP&isbn=1586483145&TXT=Y&itm=2

I don't know how to cache a page for future reference. Maybe someone else will.

As Joanne noted....

These ISBN numbers are identical. See the number in the Barnes and Noble search string...

See what I copied and pasted from the Amazon (kranish as author page I have open)

Paperback: 224 pages
Publisher: Perseus Books Group; (September 1, 2004)
ISBN: 1586483145
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 2,734

Below is from the browser I have open at Amazon where K&E are cited as authors.

Paperback: 304 pages
Publisher: Perseus Books Group; (September 7, 2004)
ISBN: 1586483145
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 1,936

WTF?

[lunatic]

And those Amazon searches, they were BOTH just a little while ago.

What does that date indicate (the 1st and the 7th)? Their release date?

L

[Mark Amerman]

Something strange is going on:

Photocopies of "Kerry/Edwards: Their Plans and Promises," recently
sent to a few reporters and reviewers before the book's planned
release, are now collector's items.

That's because the 287-page bound manuscript, culled from the
Kerry/Edwards Web site and introduced by Boston Globe reporter
Michael Kranish, won't be published, after all, by PublicAffairs.

See http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/219589p-188612c.html

There's no doubt Kranish wrote the introduction to this, and
as of today one could preorder it on the Amazon and also
the Barnes and Noble site. I'm sure in fact that quite a few people
did order the book.

Why in the world would they cancel it?

And given that the material is culled from the Kerry/Edwards web
site surely the Kerry campaign approved it.

Is it really relevant that Michael Kranish wasn't paid for writing
the introduction?

[capt joe]

Mark, Yes, it is very relevant.

Lunatic and Joanna, very interesting indeed. It seems that if this is all so innocent as GT claims, then the publisher is really doing a misservice to the public. But that line of thought is a bit too far fetched for me to swallow.

Oh and GT, if drudge should appoligize for this when is Moore ggoing to own up for his massive disinformation? hmmmm....

[GT]

You guys can't let go, huh?

Well, whatever

[Beldar]

As promised (or threatened, depending on one's outlook), I've posted a typically longwinded piece on the notarization and personal knowledge aspects of Captain Elliott's two affidavits on my own blog. (It's also trackbacked above.)

[GT]

Beldar I posted this at your site but I'll repeat it here. You keep talking of the 'shot in the back".

Who cares about that? Why does that make any difference?

The crew present at the time agrees that a VC soldier armed with a weapon capable of blowing the boat and the crew up (and one that did not surender) was chased and killed by Kerry. Who cares how he killed him? Was he supposed to play hide and seek, giving the armed enemy 30 seconds to regroup? He killed him, period. And he did so by charging after him not knowing if there were other VC hidden in the vicinity. If he killed him from the back, the front or sideways it makes no difference.

[JeanneB]

Ken: You wrote: "...the publisher was claiming Kranish participation as late as a week ago."

As I said in the first post on this subject, I saw the unchanged Amazon webpage as recently as 10pm last night. It said Kranish had written the introduction (and showed him as "author").

As of this morning, the Amazon description had been changed, deleting any reference an intro by Kramish but still showing him as author.

NOW, The book description is gone altogether and the listing says "by Michael Kramish (Introduction)".,,, OOPS! NOW (5 min. later), it says authors: John Kerry and John Edwards! LOL! Somebody's having a hard time getting their stories straight.

From all the tidbits we've gathered, here's what supposedly happened:

1) Kranish contracts with Public Affairs Publishing to write the forward to a book comprised of policy proposals mostly taken from the Kerry/Edwards website.
2) Manuscripts were "recently" sent to a few reporters/reviewers...the manuscript included the intro by Kranish.
3) Kerry/Edwards and Public Affairs signed a contract to publish the book as an "official" campaign document.
4) At this point, Kranish removed himself from the project...apparently without issuing any kind of press release or other public distancing from the book.
5) The publisher allowed the Kranish name to remain "out there" until Drudge, et al picked it up.
_____________________________________________

Questions remaining: Does the "official" book contain Kramish's writing? Did anyone pay Kramish? Why didn't Kramish and the Globe immediately publicize that he'd removed himself from the project.

[Beldar]

GT, I've responded in the comments on my own blog. I tend to agree with you, with some small qualifications.

[martin]

Tom O'Bedlam: I agree with you-my intent was to say Elliot's testimony is worthless as far as establishing whether the Viet Cong was shot in the back or not.

DC Rob I agree with you too re: the notary. However, it seems the time for cutting any one a little slack has long since passed.

P.S. Someone should propose a rigorous examination of every medal issued in the Iraq war to date-and keep this dispute from arising in campaign 2036.

[IraF]

Kerry's crew -- to a man -- stand up beside him and speak, in turn, of his leadership, heroism and loyalty. The spin-doctors (who are irrelevant anyway since they are the only ones who read each others' blogs and posts) have no answer to that impressive show of support. The guys who weren't on the boat and didn't serve under Kerry can jump in the Mekong (which Kerry almost did, under fire, to save one of his crew).

Maybe George Bush can find some National Guard buddies who remember him not showing up.

[ter0]

You guys can't let go, huh?

Well, whatever

Posted by: GT | August 7, 2004 12:30 PM

Moore people would be willing to MoveOn if Kranish had disclosed his relationship to the Kerry-Edwards campaign upfront and if the Globe had been Moore even-handed and forthcoming in its explanations.

It sounds fishy because of the dreadful way it is currently being handled -- it has that Gary Condit aura -- maybe it's innocent, but you'd never know it by the way it is explained. Or perhaps the goal is to make it confusing so that when the claim is that it has been debunked, critics throw their hands up in disgust.

In any event, reasonable people will accept reasonable explanations -- that doesn't include taking the Boston Globe's word on it absent proof.