JustOneMinute

I Question The Timing Of This Leak

Fans of Sandy Berger will join me in bitterly denouncing this shameless attempt by partisans unknown to embarrass Bush by leaking news of an ongoing investigation just before his convention - "Pentagon Official Suspected of Giving U.S. Secrets to Israel".

Bah! My hearts not in it - because this follows the "leak bad news on Friday" rule, and because plenty of Republicans don't like the neo-cons, this could have been leaked by anybody. And the politics are a minefield - spying on the US is bad, but bashing Israel is bad, too. And we know the AIPAC likes Bush!

A detail which half-identifies the subject of the investigation:

The Pentagon analyst who officials said was under suspicion was one of two department officials who traveled to Paris for secret meetings with Iranian dissidents, including Manucher Ghorbanifar, an arms dealer.

More on the not-so-secret meeting; the candidates, please:

The senior administration official identified two of the Defense officials who met with Ghorbanifar as Harold Rhode, Feith's top Middle East specialist, and Larry Franklin, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst on loan to the undersecretary's office.

This would all be embarrassing if these guys were subject to that emotion.

Are Reporters Allowed Follow-Up Questions?

Thomas Lipscomb of the Chicago Sun-Times does an astonishing job of probing the puzzling reissuance of Kerry's Silver Star citation:

Kerry citation a 'total mystery' to ex-Navy chief

Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has no idea where a Silver Star citation displayed on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's campaign Web site came from, he said Friday. The citation appears over Lehman's signature.

"It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me," he said.

...Asked how the citation could have been executed over his signature without his knowledge, Lehman said: "I have no idea. I can only imagine they were signed by an autopen." The autopen is a device often used in the routine execution of executive documents in government.

OK, is it expecting too much for Lipscomb to ask Lehman whether this might have been the standard practice in his office? Or did Lehman remember siging every citation awarded under his tenure in the 80's? Roughly how many was that, anyway? Does Lipscomb know, or care?

OK, I am glad a Serious Journalist is looking at this. But my goodness.

And we still don't know why the citation was revised...

Sen. Kerry Versus Admiral Schachte

We are grappling with the questions created by the emergence of Admiral Schachte, who claims (Novak column, Meyers interview) that he was on the three man "skimmer" on Dec. 2, 1968 when Kerry got his controversial first Purple Heart.

Since Kerry's story is that he led a three man crew of himself and two enlisted men, both of whom have come forward to vouch for Kerry, we are puzzled.

My first port of call was Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty" (p. 146-8).  I was somewhat surprised that Brinkley's account of the incident is based on his recent interview with Kerry; Brinkley also credits the 2003 Kranish article, back in the chapter notes.  Here is the relevant Globe excerpt:

Kerry experienced his first intense combat action on Dec. 2, 1968, when he "semi-volunteered for, was semi-drafted" for a risky covert mission in which he essentially was supposed to "flush out" the enemy, using a little Boston Whaler named "Batman." A larger backup craft was called "Robin."

Unfortunately, Robin had engine trouble, and Batman's exit was delayed until the boats could depart in unison. The Batman crew encountered some Viet Cong, engaged in a firefight, and Kerry was slightly wounded on his arm, earning his first Purple Heart on his first day of serious action.

"It was not a very serious wound at all," recalled William Schachte, who oversaw the mission and went on to become a rear admiral.

What is missing from the Brinkley version is any mention of how Kerry described this incident in what we thought were his voluminous War Notes and correspondence.  The WaPo wants to see these journals [It's OK with Doug!] - this Dec. 2 incident would be one more reason to look through them.  Remember, Kerry described this as one of his most harrowing nights in Vietnam, when talking to Tim Russert - surely he wrote down something at the time.

A related question - the Globe story does not specifically say there were three men in the boat (and it does quote Schachte, but does not mention either Runyon or Zaledonis).  So, are there any accounts of Kerry's version prior to the Brinkley book?  For example, people found various versions of the Rassman story over the years - has such a thing happened here?  And when did we all agree that Runyon and Zaledonis were in the boat, and what is the evidence supporting that conclusion - Kerry's memory and journal have not been offered to provide supporting evidence.

Or, if the "three men in a boat" version originated in 2003, let me ask a different question - Kerry was at Cam Ranh, the base that performed the skimmer ops, for about three weeks; each skimmer crew was an ad hoc collection of "volunteers", who didn't necessarily serve with each other before or after.

Zaledonis is credited as one of the three men, and later served on PCF-44 with Kerry, so let's set him aside for a moment.  What was it about this night that made is so memorable for Runyon that he was able to come forward 35 years later, sure that he had gone out with Kerry and Zaledonis, and not some other strange officer on some other skimmer op?  Might he just be confused?  It seems weird, but the idea that Schachte has decided to jeopardize his plush career as a Washington attorney by coming forward with a lie also seems weird.

"Runyon" does not appear in the index to Brinkley's book; "Zaladonis" is a crew member on Kerry's PCF-44, which was transferred from Cam Ranh to An Thoi on Dec 5.  We see from Brinkley's book that Wasser was also on PCF-44 at An Thoi, and was involved with the Dec 2 incident, providing cover from the main Swift Boat.  Presumably he has been grilled about this as well - does Wasser remember Schachte as involved at all?

And we think Schachte ought to be able to manage the release of some records for other skimmer ops, even if, as he says, there was no after-action report for this one.  This would lend support to his "two officers, one enlisted" assertion.

UPDATE:  Put Lisa Meyers in the mix again, with a follow-up interview with Mr. Zaladonis.  Good stuff about whether there was enemy fire (he's not sure), but for my purposes, this is key:

Zaladonis:  ...And Pat and I have shared this story a few times since we've been out of the Navy.  We've been very good friends ever since we've been—when we were in the Navy and out – and this is something that we talked about every now and then.

OK, if Zaledonis went on one skimmer op (I believe him when he says that), and Runyon and he remained friends, its easy to believe that Runyon remembers his one night with his buddy on a skimmer.

MORE:  Good links at Swift Boats e-riposte.  Kerry's site has some of the Band.

If I had an editor, she would say my main points are:

- release Kerry's notes

- Runyon is not mentioned by name in either the Brinkley interview or the Globe interview; Kerry did not remember him when they met face to face at a rally (per Runyon's account).  When was Runyon first publicly identified as the third man, and what is the evidence supporting it?

UPDATE 2:  I see assertions but no evidence here.  But the conspiracy-minded will like this story, where Runyon describes his reunion with Kerry, as excerpted in the continuation below.

UPDATE 3:  Deus Ex Machina.  Or, Eureka!  I will assert with OK confidence that Zaledonis and Runyon were first publicly identified by Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe on April 14, 2004.  I say that because they fall from the sky into his story, but are missing from this well-researched Stephen Crum hit piece on April 12, and from this Douglas Brinkley apologia in Salon on April 17.

Now, what evidence does Mr. Kranish offer to verify their role in this incident - none, other than their say-so.

And we are delighted to find an answer to a question that has vexed us in the Crum piece - one other officer, Jim Galvin, got three Purple Hearts, but he did *not* invoke the "Three and Out" rule.

Crum also presents more background on the odd record-keeping surrounding the first Purple Heart.

UPDATE 4:  Kranish follows up with Schachte and others.  Inconclusive.

Runyon excerpt below:

Indiana John - Why Did It Have To Be Snakes?

"If there was anything that leaves me absolutely dry-mouthed and frightened it is the thought of meeting face to face with any poisonous snake - or even any snake."

John Kerry, from a letter to Julia Thorne; Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty", p. 119

MORE: I wouldn't advise looking for a point to this, but if you find one, let us know.

NOW Bush Is "Mr. Credible"!

The NY Times gleefully reports that "Bush Dismisses Idea That Kerry Lied on Vietnam".

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he, since Bush is not a knucklehead and has the good sense to stay on the high road while leaving the (uncoordinated) dirty work to others.

And let's remember Bush's actual (made-up) quote - we wish his answer had been, "Is Kerry a war hero? It's a slam-dunk!"

Actual answer:

"I think Senator Kerry should be proud of his record,'' Mr. Bush said. "No, I don't think he lied.''

Boring!

"B" Is For "Batman", and Maybe "BS"

[The UPDATE is key - it turns out that Schachte is quite forthcoming when asked]

Beldar links to a Robert Novak column which we come to via Glenn. The gist, from Novak:

Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the Swift boat veterans dispute that "I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident which led to his first Purple Heart.

"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 (grenade launcher)," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart."

Oh, boy - two former sailors claim that there were only three people in the "skimmer" that night, so Admiral Schahte makes four. But why come forward now to lie?

Well, why indeed - what do we make of this, from the Admiral's interview with Mr. Novak:

Schachte said he has never been contacted by or talked to anybody in the Bush-Cheney campaign or any Republican organization. He said he is a political independent who has voted for candidates of both parties.

That may well be true, but it is somewhat incomplete. Admiral Schachte is now an attorney with BlankRome LLP.

According to my FEC Spy, he gave $1,000 to Bush Cheney 2004 on Feb 18, 2004, and another $1,000 to Bush Cheney 2004 on April 18, 2004 [Ooops - make that $1,000 to Bush on April 18, 2000].

On the first contribution the donor is identified as "SCHACHTE, WILLIAM L MR.; CHARLESTON, SC 29401; FOSTER WHEELER ENVIR. CORP./ATTOR"; the second contribution identifies the donor as "SCHACHTE, WILLIAM L. MR.; CHARLESTON, SC 29401; DYER ELLIS & JOSEPH/ATTORNEY".

By checking the roster at BlankRome, we see that Dyer, Joseph, and Ellis are associated with the BlankRome Washington branch, as is Admiral Schachte. Since their specialty, like the Admiral's, is law of the sea, it is a fair bet that we have a match.

This announcement places the Admiral on the payroll of Foster-Wheeler.

I also see contributions for Lindsay Graham (R, SC), and Ernest Hollings (D, SC), John McCain, and Wayne Allard (R, CO).

This doesn't mean the Admiral is lying, of course, about his politics or anything else - for all we know, he told Novak exactly this, and Novak printed what he printed.

However, I wish it was either Novak or the Admiral that was telling us this.

UPDATE: Can't fault the Admiral's disclosure with Lisa Meyers of MSNBC:

Myers: Why speak out now in the heat of a presidential campaign?

Schachte: ...I'm non-partisan. Listen, I have voted Democrat, Republican. I voted for President Clinton the first time he ran. And I know what you're talking about. That has nothing to do-- this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of people stepping forward to tell their facts as they saw them.

The Next Big Thing

Deborah Norville of MSNBC hosted a rollicking discussion with and about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - a transcript should become available here [transcript].

One of her guests was Kate Zernike, a national reporter for the NY Times, who had a byline on "Bush Campaign's Top Outside Lawyer Advised Veterans Group".

Near the conclusion, Ms. Zernike was asked to predict what the next big story would be that would deflect the media from the Swift Boat controversy. Her suggestion - when the US death toll in Iraq reached 1,000, the media would re-focus on that.

Ahh! Presumably, the NY Times is preparing their retrospective right now - how did we get into this mess, is it a quagmire, where did Bush go wrong, and so on.

Since we are now at 966 deaths (which is 966 too many), the Times launch point should be sometime in September. Forewarned is forearmed. Folks looking backward will want copies of Kerry's Senate floor speech from October 2002. The Spinsanity "imminent threat" analysis" will probably be helpful; the Senate Intel report is here; other suggestions are welcomed, natch. (Abu Grahib, "Mission Accomplished"... the capture of Saddam?!?)

But no Iraq retrospective will be complete unless we continue to vex Tall John with the "if you knew then what you know now" question about his vote authorizing war, and the subsequent policy decisions made by Bush - it's been fun so far, and we see that Kerry advisor Jamie Rubin, who briefly got us into the endzone by saying that "in all probability" Kerry would have deposed Saddam, has since recanted. The NY Times, among others, has pummelled Kerry for his puzzling explanations of what he might have done differently.

Or, folks looking forward to see which candidate has the more credible plan for a stable and democratic Iraq will want to dust off these LA Times, AP, and WaPo pieces - all deride Kerry's "plan" for Iraq.

VPW - Judith Miller and a New Suspect

Editor and Publisher moves the Valerie Plame Wilson leak investigation story along a bit. They (and we) wondered about the subpoena received by Judith Miller of the Times, who has never had a bylined story on this case. The E&P explanation:

If Miller had Plame's name and identity, who was her source? If she didn't, why has she become embroiled in the current case?

The answer probably rests in the suspicions attending the staff of the vice president, who have become prime suspects as the source of the Plame leak. The man who seems to be emerging at the center of the probe is John Hannah, an aide with a profile lower than that of Cheney's chief of staff.

Hannah could be the link between Miller and Plame, as they have known each other for a long time -- one of a string of close associations she has with neo-cons in the Bush administration. Along with Miller and Bill Luti in Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith's office, Hannah and Libby were the recipients of Ahmad Chalabi's bogus intelligence on Iraqi WMD that was "stovepiped" to the top, and not vetted within the intelligence community.

John Hannah is not mentioned as a member of the White House Iraq Group, which is where we thought we would round up the appropriate suspects. However, Mr. Hannah was mentioned as a prime suspect last February, and this USA Today profile of Cheney describes Mr. Hannah as "Cheney's top Middle East adviser", so that fits.

The One by Two by Six theory is that six reporters received leaks - so far, we think we know about Novak, Pincus of the WaPo, Miller of the NY Times, and Cooper of TIME. I happen to think that the White House should have called Nick Kristof, since he had written two egregious but influential columns - he is my pick for a Surprise Subpoena.

Time To Panic?

The WaPo examined the conflicting versions of the March 13 incident that led to Kerry's Bronze Star. Although their specific conclusions were not unfavorable to Kerry, the warning shots fired by the WaPo must have set the Kerry campaign scrambling:

An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place.

...The fullest account of Kerry's experience in Vietnam is "Tour of Duty" by prominent presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. It was written with Kerry's cooperation and with exclusive access to his diaries and other writings about the Vietnam War. "Unfit for Command," by John E. O'Neill, who succeeded Kerry as commander of his Swift boat, and Jerome R. Corsi, lays out a detailed attack on Kerry's record.

The Post's research shows that both accounts contain significant flaws and factual errors.

...In "Tour of Duty," these thoughts are attributed to a "diary" kept by Kerry. But the endnotes to Brinkley's book say that Kerry "did not keep diaries in these weeks in February and March 1969 when the fighting was most intense." In the acknowledgments to his book, Brinkley suggests that he took at least some of the passages from an unfinished book proposal Kerry prepared sometime after November 1971, more than two years after he had returned home from Vietnam.

In his book, Brinkley writes that a skipper who remains friendly to Kerry, Skip Barker, took part in the March 13 raid. But there is no documentary evidence of Barker's participation. Barker could not be reached for comment.

Brinkley, who is director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans, did not reply to messages left with his office, publisher and cell phone. The Kerry campaign has refused to make available Kerry's journals and other writings to The Post, saying the senator remains bound by an exclusivity agreement with Brinkley. A Kerry spokesman, Michael Meehan, said he did not know when Kerry wrote down his reminiscences.

...Much information is available from the Web sites of the Kerry campaign and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and the Navy archives. But both the Kerry and anti-Kerry camps continue to deny or ignore requests for other relevant documents, including Kerry's personal reminiscences (shared only with biographer Brinkley), the boat log of PCF-94 compiled by Medeiros (shared only with Brinkley) and the Chenoweth diary.

Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages.

I sense frustration at the WaPo. Incomplete, inaccurate disclosure, a run-around from Brinkley, a bizarre confidentiality agreement - do they smell cover-up?

And will anyone keep a straight face if Kerry criticizes the secretive Cheney energy task force, when Kerry won't even release his own war notes except to a friendly historian?

I foresee a grim week for the Kerry side, with the Republican convention as their only hope of respite.

The InstaPundit was on this on Saturday.

MORE: OK, what is on your wish list for released records? My Conventional Wisdom pick - we all want to see the paperwork for Kerry's first Purple Heart.

My long-shot pick is the after-action reports for March 18/19, which should be Kerry's last mission (Brinkley says so, although his website does not). Brinkley says Kerry was sailing to Cambodia; other evidence suggests that Swiftee George Bates was with Kerry while Kerry torched a hamlet or two. Who knows?

UPDATE: The NY Times, "Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad", By KATE ZERNIKE and JIM RUTENBERG:

After weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations that he had lied about his Vietnam service record to win medals and build a political career, Senator John Kerry shot back yesterday, calling those statements categorically false and branding the people behind them tools of the Bush campaign.

His decision to take on the group directly was a measure of how the group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has catapulted itself to the forefront of the presidential campaign. It has advanced its cause in a book, in a television advertisement and on cable news and talk radio shows, all in an attempt to discredit Mr. Kerry's war record, a pillar of his campaign...