JustOneMinute

I May Have To Vote For Kerry

Bush can deliver occasionally, but for day-in, day-out steadiness and reliabilty, Kerry's The One. He really did deliver both of these insights at the same event while responding to questions:

Senator, what would you have done in that schoolroom on the morning of 9/11?:

"First of all, had I been reading to children, and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had business that he needed to attend to, and I would have attended to it."

Bravo, Johnny Danger! And sir, knowing what we know now, would you have taken out Saddam Hussein?

"You bet we might have, after we exhausted [U.N.-led inspections] and found that [Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein] wasn't complying and so on and so forth".

Hmm, he's not so bold when faced with adults. Courage, Tall One!

Does anyone know if Kerry has had his hearing checked recently? The President asked for a yes or no answer, not yes and no.

So, the big question - can I count on Kerry to provide this sort of silliness for four more years? Will I vote for him? You Bet I Might!

UPDATE: Getting warmer!

Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday.

The suspense builds inexorably. Will it be war or peace?

Kerry's Advisers Mock His Energy Plan (So I Don't Have To)

On Thursday, Sen. Kerry unveiled his plan for energy independence (apparently a crowd-pleasing concept which we are sure polls well).

On Saturday, the NY Times presented the Kerry rebuttal:

Kerry's Goal of Independence From Middle East Oil Divides Advisers

The idea of a United States independent of Middle East oil is a touchstone of Senator John Kerry's campaign and a huge crowd pleaser, but has divided and exasperated many of his most experienced energy advisers.

Some advisers say they worry that Mr. Kerry's focus on freeing the United States from reliance on oil from the Persian Gulf, the linchpin of the energy plan he released on Thursday, is unrealistic and misleading and that hammering away at it would erode Mr. Kerry's credibility with business, the news media and other countries.

Hmm, that contrasts splendidly with the Washington Post description: His promises to stop the outsourcing of jobs and end dependence on Middle East oil are not grounded in reality.

Well. My (uncharacteristically non-rhetorical) questions:

An Alert Reader Finds Kerry In Cambodia

UPDATE: Another Alert Reader strikes gold - Kerry is back in Cambodia in a 1992 AP Interview. And "Everybody was over there"!

An alert reader has found the Senate floor speech in which Kerry makes the claim that he was in Cambodia in December 1968. That is not good for Kerry (Insert frownie face, and botox it). The Nixon connection is weak, however. This is a disappointment from a comedy and mockery perspective, but hardly central to the main point.

The speech is in an update to "Swimming to Cambodia", below.

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?)

This Is Going Well

The DNC Religious Coordinator experiences a personal separation of church from state; the Democratic Truth Squad is mocked as liars - bring it on!

A Trove Of Comedy Classics

I was looking for something else, and found this compendium of Kerrymania - think of them as potato chips for the Kerryphobic.

Swimming To Cambodia

[UPDATE: A new cite for Kerry in Cambodia - a 1992 AP interview. "Everybody was over there."]

Christmas in Cambodia with John Kerry? Roger Simon and Hugh Hewitt are very intrigued (look for Aug 6, 12:30 for Hugh).

More detail is available in Chapter 3 of the Swiftees book (Christmas in Cambodia starts on p. 17 of the .pdf). Now, set aside (if you can) any sense of these guys as hatchet men, and focus on the specific sources they cite. For example, they claim that on March 27, 1986, John Kerry gave a speech on the Senate floor recounting his time in Cambodia (and deploring the evil President Nixon who sent him there.)

As Hugh Hewitt points out, this is objectively verifiable - someone needs to get the Congressional Record, and see whether these guys are quoting Kerry correctly, taking his words out of context, or what.

Similarly, the Swiftees guide us to the Kerry book by the Boston Globe team, available in bookstores now, as another source for this story. OK, are they lying? Or were the Globe reporters "misinformed" - it wouldn't be the first time, since Michael Kranish also fluffed Kerry's honorable discharge.

Based on Beldar's professional experience with John O'Neill, co-author of the Swiftees' "Unfit for Command", my guess is that the aspects of this book that can be researched will pass at least casual inspection.

For an excellent discussion that preceded the Swiftee book, check this out - these gents did a fine job of showing that Kerry was not where he said he was when Nixon wasn't saying that Kerry wasn't there.

Now, I can't help you find a bookstore. And I don't think you can find Kerry's 1986 speech online, since the Congressional Record is available online only back to 1994. However, this page helps you find libraries that carry it - I already have mine targetted.

MORE: Let's pre-empt one possible Kerry defense, which would be, hypothetically, "His phrasing may have been awkward, but he knew in 1970 that Nixon was lying because he had been there in 1968". Fine, but he wasn't there! Don't let his defenders rebut the minor point and slide past the big one.

UPDATE: All eyes turn to AntiMedia, who has dug up some Kerry speeches from 1986, but can't find the mystery speech - yet. This is far from over - the Unfit for Command book footnotes the Kerry floor speech cite, but, naturally, the portion of the book with the footnotes is not excerpted. However, as noted by Beldar, John O'Neill has done some research in his time.

UPDATE: We have a Bingo! On the major point, he really did tell the US Senate that he was in Cambodia. Good for the Swiftees, bad for Kerry. On the other hand, the Nixon connection is tenuous; let's score that minor point against the Swiftees.

How Kerry might reconcile his claim with his military records, I don't know. And the Kerry website won't help - it does not show after-action reports for December 1968. Why not?

And the Command History picks up on January 1, 1969. What unexpected bad luck.

Speech excerpted below:

More On Pakistan Versus Al Qaeda

Kamran Khan and Dana Priest score a front-pager on the efforts in Pakistan against Al Qaeda. The timeline of the roll-up of High Value Targets makes a nice counterpoint to the "Waiting for the Balloon Drop" theory that generated so much discussion.

More from the FT: Pakistan has uncovered fresh evidence as to where al-Qaeda leaders may be hiding along its border with Afghanistan, senior Pakistani officials said on Friday.

You Take The High Road...

And I'll be John Kerry, who said:

"I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush.

In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity. Let's respect one another. And let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.

My friends, the high road may be harder, but it leads to a better place."

before he said:

"First of all, had I been reading to children, and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had business that he needed to attend to, and I would have attended to it."

Tim Blair is suitably savage.

UPDATE: Having been reminded that Sen. Kerry was simply answering a question, I must express my delight that he has ended his boycott of hypothetical questions, at least about the past; now, if only we can get him to focus on the future...

We are also disappointed to learn that Mr. Kleiman considers "Give 'em Hell" to be somehow consistent with taking the high road. Give 'em four more years, I say! And I will echo the Senator in saying, "Let's respect one another".

Finally, George Stephanopolous was fascinating on this subject.

UPDATE: The WaPo lets Teresa slap Kerry silly.

MORE: My Bad! Kerry has answered the question (linked above) of whether he would have taken out Saddam if he knew then what we know now: "You bet we might have".

Oh, you think I'm cheating - a more complete quote is ""You bet we might have, after we exhausted [U.N.-led inspections] and found that [Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein] wasn't complying and so on and so forth". And yada, yada, and a little bit of this, and a little bit of that, and maybe I can talk him to death and then bore his heirs...

He MUST Be A Kerry Guy!

Did Lieutenant Commander George Elliott actually say, "I was for the affidavit before I was against it"?

NO, but we wish he had. Except for a minor hiccup in the commentary, my story below is fine, and covers a lot of the same ground as the Boston Globe story. And, while on the subject, here is a retraction from the Kerry side about his dates of service that no one has noticed.

[UPDATE: And now Elliott retracts the retraction - from Drudge:

The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in morning edition of the BOSTON GLOBE, written by GLOBE reporter and author of the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book, Mike Kranish.

"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the BOSTON GLOBE by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that he ad be played.

“Additional documentation will follow...

They then refer to the Boston Globe reports we discuss in this post.

OK! We are going full speed ahead here; later, we will figure out whether we are headed up- or down-river. And since it looks like George "Elastic" Elliott will agree with the last guy to talk to him, we await developments (and we kinda hope someone asks him if he buried Jimmy Hoffa).

That said, since this seems to have degenerated into a weird credibility contest we have our own little quarrel with Mr. Kranish. Both in his Boston Globe profile of John Kerry and in his book, he presented the now-discredited information that John Kerry was honorably discharged in January, 1970. The Kerry people have (ever so quietly) corrected the record - will Mr. Kranish? Email Kranish@globe.com]

Now, in this [initial] retraction [retraction.o1], Elliott seems to be focussed on the question of whether Kerry shot a fleeing Viet Cong in the back. As my earlier post demonstrates, that is hardly the only discrepancy between the Silver Star citation and the other accounts.

[SORRY, another update - here is a link to the retraction affidavit, and the original affidavit. Elliot says the same thing I do - shooting the guy in the back is not central to his argument. At first glance, Kranish is cooked.]

We also note that the Boston Globe reporter uses a selective excerpt - when asked about the possibility that he shot the person in the back, Kerry said more than just ''No, absolutely not". (I don't say a lot more than "who cares", BTW, but evidently people do.)

My longish post also uncovers a possible loose end - are there still some missing records at the Kerry website? There are suggestions that Kerry was on patrols on March 18 and 19, but there are no after-action reports beyond March 13.

One wonders where this story is headed - Michael Moore made a million errors, yet remains a hero to Democrats. However, my guess is that the press will point to this retraction of one part of one allegation, and ignore the Swift Veterans forever.

Final result - Kerry is a noble veteran who served his country and would never make up stories, distort his service record, or exploit his military background for partisan purposes.

However, if other veterans criticize him, they are just lying, uninformed, partisan hacks.

Rassmann, the Green Beret Kerry pulled from the water, does get to the heart of this at the end of the Boston Globe piece:

Those questioning Kerry's medals, Rassmann said, are ''angry about John speaking out against the [Vietnam] war."

Yes, these are simply not pro-life Republicans who decided one day to make up lies about John Kerry.

MORE: Good links from Glenn.