The Kerry campaign has now reached such a fine pitch of organization that it is putting out falsehoods that have already been rebutted. Via Mickey and the Man we come to this fine piece by Lawrence F. Kaplan of The New Republic.
The comic highlight is here:
Last December, even as John Kerry was beginning his remarkable ascent in the Democratic primaries, his standing with America's mainstream Jewish organizations sank to an all-time low. The nadir came in a December 3 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, where Kerry recommended dispatching Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or former Secretary of State James Baker to Israel as special envoys--a tone-deaf proposal, given Carter's and Baker's reputations as vituperative critics of Israel.
But the Kerry campers had an explanation!
...On February 28, the Kerry team arranged for the candidate to sit down with Jewish leaders in New York.
...one of the first things Kerry did at the meeting was to blame his aides for the mention of Carter and Baker as possible envoys in his December speech--a claim that several participants double-checked as soon as they walked out the door. The names, Kerry said, had been inserted by mistake, and he had even asked that they be removed. The problem is, in the speech itself, Kerry said, "There are a number of uniquely qualified Americans among whom I would consider appointing, including President Carter. ... And, I might add, I have had conversations with both President Clinton and President Carter about their willingness to do this." Kerry spokesperson Stephanie Cutter even confirmed to The Boston Globe in December that he had spoken with Carter. Today, the campaign offers this explanation: The candidate eventually did speak with Carter--but only after noticing that a draft of his speech said that he spoke with Carter.
So, Kerry called Carter after reading an eroneous draft of the speech, in order to preserve the accuracy of the speech? Ridiculous. But not as ridiculous as the truth.
Way back in March, blogger Rick Richman puzzled over this. It turns out that the Kerry website maintains a version of the controversial CFR speech "as prepared", complete with the Carter/Baker gaffe that Kerry ostensibly asked them to remove.
However, the Council on Foreign Relations maintains a transcripted version of the speech "as delivered". They also have a transcript of the Q&A that followed the speech.
A quick comparison suggests that Kerry's problems go waay beyond runaway speechwriters, and extend to hostile ventriliquists or, as per Richard Clarke, sinister mind-control rays. The "as prepared" version does not contain this next bit - what sinister force compelled Kerry to say these words:
"And I might add, I have had conversations with both President Clinton and President Carter about their willingness to do this, and I think they would welcome it and embrace it as a means of moving forward."
He "might add", and he did, but why? "I Called Carter" was not in the version that had been released to the press - what prompted him to toss in that embellishment? Kerry was also asked to elaborate in the questioning that followed, and he backpedaled from Baker slightly, but not at all from Carter:
Audience... I wanted you to say a little bit more about this very interesting idea of presidential envoys, two if I understood it, one for the Middle East peace process and one for the Islamic world. That's a very intriguing idea.
KERRY: David, thank you for your comments on the speech. Look. Jimmy Carter, President Clinton, President George Herbert Walker Bush, Jim Baker. I think Jim Baker made 14 trips there. I know he wasn't all that popular at the end of a number of them and there were some issues. But Larry Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft. There's great talent out there with people who have been through this. And it's astonishing to me that we are not picking up somewhere near where we left off at Taba, where most of the difficult issues were resolved, in many ways.
Who does he blame that one on? Ghostwriters, or ghosts?
Comments