Quickly On Kristof

[UPDATE:  A commenter's comedy classic - Kristof needs to correct his correction.]

In his latest column, Kristof doubles down on the Swift Boat theme.

Rapid attack points:

These days, though, accusations that have even less evidence behind them - that Mr. Kerry connived his way into getting medals he did not deserve - are widely aired and believed. A Times/CBS poll found that more than 60 percent of the respondents said Mr. Kerry is hiding something or mostly lying about Vietnam.

The breakdown was 49% "hiding something" and 13% "mostly lying".  Since Kerry refuses to sign the Form 180 that would assure full disclosure of his military records, "hiding something" looks like a solid bet.  The 13% "mostly lying" is unfair, but how many people tell pollsters that Elvis lives?

By the way, the comparable figures for Bush and his Guard service are 20, 51, 20 for, respectively, "Entire truth", "hiding something", and "mostly lying".  Kerry has 29% "Entire truth".  Do they know it's Christmas time?  (But not in Cambodia!).

Another avenue:

True, Democrats have also engaged in below-the-belt attacks. Some of "Fahrenheit 9/11," the Michael Moore film, was the liberal equivalent of the anti-Kerry smears. Its innuendos implying that Mr. Bush arranged the war in Afghanistan so backers could profit from an oil pipeline were appalling.

But I, along with some others, immediately complained about "Fahrenheit 9/11." Aside from John McCain, where are the sensible conservatives?

Kidding?  Michael Moore was an honored guest in the Big Box at the DNC.

The only hope for stopping the mudslinging is if well-meaning people try to police their own side.

As if.  Coming from a fellow with his recent record of flacking for Bush-bashers, that is a bit rich.  And as much as I try, and despite the fact that I *have* defended Kerry on the "self-inflicted" aspect, I cannot find the records to validate Kerry's first Purple Heart.  Maybe Kristof could join me in asking for the Form 180 - does policing one's own side extend to holding them to their promises?

Finally, Kristof acknowledges his error on Rood (in what he earlier describes as "a careful look at Mr. Kerry's war record."

He doubles down on the Steve Gardner-excluding legalistic elocution, repeated here:

Every single enlisted man who served with Mr. Kerry on his boats at the time he earned his Purple Hearts and Silver and Bronze Stars say the medals were all deserved, and they are all supporting his candidacy.

Gardner served as an enlisted man with Kerry for many weeks (7?) on PCF-44 and is now a member of the SBVT, but Kerry did not win any medals in that time frame.

They enjoy a polite reader response:

Nicholas Kristof : [email protected]

Daniel Okrent : [email protected]

UPDATE:  Oh, my commenters give me a laugh - Kristof acknowledged the error on William Rood, but still blew the correction!  (Hmm, I blew it too, I guess.)  His timeless text:

In the spirit of taking a tough look at one's own shortcomings: on Saturday, I referred to William Rood as a witness for Mr. Kerry's Silver Star incident. It was the Bronze Star episode that he saw. Mea culpa.

Still wrong - what he said last week was that Rood saw the Bronze Star incident, when in fact Rood witnessed the Silver Star incident.  Next week, he will be correcting the corrections - too funny!

Comments

[Al]

The only hope for stopping the mudslinging is if well-meaning people try to police their own side.

What I found to be the most asinine thing about this entire column of Kristof's is that, while this is the main point of the column, he spends almost the entire remainder of the column policing the other other side, not policing his own side.

Kristof's guiding principle seems to be: "do as I say, not as I do". If he really meant what he said, he would spend more time policing his own side, not the Bush side.

[Duane]

Steve Gardner served with Kerry on the Swift Boat for 10+ weeks, longer than any other crewman.

[Ben]

Of course he wants the other side policed. He wants the other side to stop slinging mud. That is what this piece is all about. All that stuff about both sides is just filler, boilerplate. That way, when someone calls it for what it is, just another slam, can be honestly told that he said both sides.

Even if he didn't mean it.

[Mimi]

Maybe the reason people think Kerry is hiding something about Viet Nam is because he refuses to release his complete records (unlike President Bush who has had everything released.)

So the reason people think Kerry is hiding something is because he IS hiding something.

[Tim]

Talking about "policing their own," Kristoff fails to understand that Kerry loses as an increasingly smaller pool of swing voters realize he and his voters hate Bush more than they do the terrorists and other enemies of America.

[Dave_B]

It looks like Kristof's correction needs correcting.

Kristof's correction:

"In the spirit of taking a tough look at one's own shortcomings: on Saturday, I referred to William Rood as a witness for Mr. Kerry's Silver Star incident. It was the Bronze Star episode that he saw. Mea culpa."

Rood's op-ed:

"I was part of the operation that led to Kerry's Silver Star. I have no firsthand knowledge of the events that resulted in his winning the Purple Hearts or the Bronze Star."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-040821rood,1,1611037.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Some "tough look"!

[R C Dean]

But don't you see? Kristof works for the NYT! He doesn't have a "side" that he is supposed to police. He is there to grace us with his Olympian detachment and objectivity.

Seriously - you know this is what he believes.

[Crank]

Kristof's columns would read better wrapped in plastic.

[Goober]

As I recall, Kristof was perfectly happy to relate unsubstantiated, ugly rumors about Steven Hatfill, the "person of interest" in the anthrax investigation. At the same time, he thought Sami al-Arian was being persecuted for his political beliefs. That's some record.

[Eric]

Inre: "...hiding something"

The question's choices were "entire truth", "mostly telling the truth but hiding something" and "mostly lying".

The fact that respondants were baited with "mostly telling the truth but.." and then switched to "...hiding something" in the write-ups tells more about poor polling methodology and bias than beliefs about the candidate's veracity.

[Mark]

Actually, read Kristof's "correction" carefully again -- he screwed it up and repeated the wrong assertion:

"In the spirit of taking a tough look at one's own shortcomings: on Saturday, I referred to William Rood as a witness for Mr. Kerry's Silver Star incident. It was the Bronze Star episode that he saw. Mea culpa."

No, Bill -- let's try it again -- it was the Silver Star incident he saw!

[Fresh Air]

Mark--

Great catch! The guy can't even get his own correction right. Of course, it really doesn't matter when you believe in "essential truths." I think this needs to be seen by a wider audience.

[Dave_B]

Fresh_Air,

Hey, what am I, chopped liver? (see previous post on subject).

All kidding aside, I'm certainly looking forward to Mr. K's new and improved correction.

As far as a wider audience goes, I've posted this on Captainsquartersblog.com and emailed Instapundit.

[abb1]

What I found to be the most asinine thing about this entire column of Kristof's is that, while this is the main point of the column, he spends almost the entire remainder of the column policing the other other side, not policing his own side.

Kristof doesn't have his own side. He is a typical lesbian-rights liberal. Liberals don't have a side. They want to be fair and they take both side seriously - even Republicans! In other words, Kristof is an idiot. Why even spend time discussing what he wrote - it has zero substance.

Krugman takes sides. Why don't you read him, folks?

Thanks.

[Jim Glass]

"The only hope for stopping the mudslinging is if well-meaning people try to police their own side..."
~~~
Tell him to walk into the next cubicle and slap the handcuffs on Krugman, and then leave a warning note in Rich's cubicle for the weekend. Policing begins at home.

[dan]

"Errors" like these can't be accidental--they require too many calculated contortions--so it's probably pointless to point them out to Kristof and/or Okrent. Here's another "error" worth noting just the same:

Kristof wrote "Every single enlisted man who served with Mr. Kerry on his boats at the time he earned his Purple Hearts and Silver and Bronze Stars say the medals were all deserved..."

Not only did Kristof contort his phrasing to avoid any mention of Gardner, he also inserted the qualification "every single enlisted man" simply to avoid any mention of the officer (Schachte) who says he was on Kerry's boat when he "earned" his first Purple Heart and maintains that they received no return fire that night.

Shameless.

[Fresh Air]

Dave B--

In the spirit of taking a tough look at one's own shortcomings, I stand corrected. Mea culpa! You are correct; Mark found Kristof's correction error first.

[Forbes]

Is Michael Moore's film the equivalent of anti-Kerry smears? Don't ya love the semantic equivalence here?
What are the anti-Kerry smears? If it's the SBVTs, then we've really advanced the discussion for smears. Except, Kerry, his campaign, the DNC, and other elected Democrats, have continued full-throated attacks on Bush's Guard service on not one iota of evidence, while all evidence is to the contrary. Now that's smear.

The Swiftvets, based on their evidence (eyewitnesses accounts and documents), have gotten a rowback regarding Christmas in Cambodia, and one of the PHs. That's credibility.

MM's film is mostly fiction and fanstasy--no one with their head out of their a** takes it seriously. Since it's a collection, or creation, of untruths, it doesn't even rise to the level of an unfair smear, 'cause it's in the gutter.

[Tim]

Every single enlisted man who served with Mr. Kerry on his boats at the time he earned his Purple Hearts and Silver and Bronze Stars say the medals were all deserved, and they are all supporting his candidacy.

So, let's negate this statement, and trim it for accuracy, and see what we get:

The majority of officers and many enlisted who observed Mr. Kerry from other boats at the time he earned his Purple Hearts and Silver and Bronze Stars say the medals were not deserved, and they are opposing his candidacy. In addition, not every single enlisted man who served with Mr. Kerry on his boats are supporting candidacy. In fact, the enlisted man who served the longest under Mr. Kerry's command say he is unfit and opposes his candidacy.

Yep, that should cover it.

[Bill]

It takes concerted efforted to fight off the nausea while rading the "factcheck.org" rebuttal of the SBV accounts. If this is Kristof's source of truth, well then I guess I understand his stupidity. factcheck even has Rassmann's account of being in the water with NO BOATS around. I guess he missed the four boats nearby, he was probably swamped by the wake of PCF-94 speeding off. He didn't see boats but could see bullets hitting the water? And after an hour in the area, not one person received a gunshot wound, even with sniper fire from both banks? And, we are to believe fact check?
Maybe they should read the books.

[James Malcolm]

I'm wondering if anyone knows how often it has happened that a man received a silver star, a bronze star, and three purple hearts all in four months and a few days? Is this common? Unusual? Extraordinary? Thanks, JMalcolm

[James Malcolm]

I'm wondering if anyone knows how often it has happened that a man received a silver star, a bronze star, and three purple hearts all in four months and a few days? Is this common? Unusual? Extraordinary? Thanks, JMalcolm

[Bill]

I just left this for Kristof

Dear Mr. Kristof

The mud you are writing about must be from the factcheck source you referred to in your article.
I followed your link and read an account so full of holes it would sink. How can the Rassman account there be taken seriously? Here is the quote;

" When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard."
And, this is a totally different account than one given by Kerry at a funeral for a SBV, where it is claimed that Rassman is thrown off the boat when Kerry makes a hard turn to starboard, which by the way would have him driving directly into the bank. Read that account by Kerry. Pick your truth.

Now we have heard accounts from the eye witnesses from the four other boats that were there that tell a different story. The only boat that fled was PCF-94. The other boats stayed to assist PCF-3, and other men were pulled from the water. Why didn't Rassman see the other boats? They had not left. How could four boats stay in the area for over an hour under intense fire from both banks, and sniper fire, and not one man receive a gunshot wound. You tell me what is the more credible story, the one that sounds nearly impossible? Kerry's account of 5,000 meters of hostile fire without a hit, please forgive my skepticism.
I think it is clear who has blinders on and who has not washed off the mud..

William VanderWall
Shreveport,LA.

[pajama_jihad]

Every single enlisted man who served with Mr. Kerry on his boats at the time he earned his Purple Hearts and Silver and Bronze Stars say the medals were all deserved...

Enlisted men do not award medals, officers do. Kerry's commanding officer denied Kerry's first Purple Heart but Kerry was able to connived the award. Awards are based on the after-action reports that Kerry wrote and according to eye witnesses, Kerry exaggerated his valor. Kerry was quite liberal in giving his own crew medals. Was it to bribe them? I don't know, but it looks suspicious.

[David]

Never has a man worked so hard to get so many medals for so few injuries during such a short tour of duty. An honorable man would have refused at least 2 of the Purple Hearts he received.

Kerry wrote in his own book, by his own account, that he came upon a firefight after it was complete and helped retrieve a man that was so badly injured that they basically had to carry what was left of him out in a poncho. That man had a family, a father, a mother.

An honorable man would have never accepted medals for the petty injuries he sustained and definitely wouldn't have worked as hard as he did after the fact to ensure that he received medals for these actions. He would have gone about his business, thanked his God for getting him through it and moved on.

I won't even summarize his actions after the war. No doubt these were not the actions of an honorable man.