Nick Kristof runs a cryptic "correction" at the bottom of his Saturday column:
In Wednesday's column quoting Bob Mintz, who was at the Alabama National Guard base where George W. Bush apparently wasn't, I bragged that my interview was his first with a national news organization. It turns out that he spoke to CBS in February. Mea culpa.
That's it? Nick Kristof described Bob Mintz as a "compelling witness" against Bush in the Alabama AWOL story. Did Mintz fail to remember the interview with CBS in February? When Nick Kristof asked, "Why speak out now?", did Mintz correct Kristof on the timing of what Mintz described as "a lot of soul searching"?
If Mintz lied to, or deliberately misled, Nick Kristof, then he is not such a compelling witness, is he?
Kristof failed to mention that Mintz was appearing in a "Texans for Truth" ad. Did Kristof really not know this (and Mintz not mention it when asked whether he was partisan), or was that a deliberate omission by Kristof?
CBS provided the balance of the Mintz-debunking the next day:
...Texans for Truth has a credibility problem. While the chief accuser, former Alabama Guard pilot Bob Mintz, says in the ad it would have been impossible for Mr. Bush to have gone unnoticed, in an interview earlier this year with CBS News, Mintz admitted he's not a smoking gun.
"I cannot say he was not there," Mintz said. "Absolutely positively was not there. I cannot say that. I cannot say he didn't do his duty."
Would Kristof care to amend, for his readers benefit, this from his Wednesday column?
...He's confident that he'd remember if Mr. Bush had shown up.
"I'm sure I would have seen him," Mr. Mintz said yesterday. "It's a small unit, and you couldn't go in or out without being seen. It was too close a space."
...Mr. Mintz is a compelling witness.
Having feasted on Dan Rather, maybe the blogosphere would enjoy Nick Kristof for dessert.
UPDATE: We are taking shot from beyond mid-court with this one, but, in searching the Times for "Mintz" I learned this, from Aug 16:
The fund-raisers also include at least a dozen lobbyists, lawyers and executives for the telecommunications and cable industries, which have been helped by some of Mr. Kerry's Senate votes. Among them are Mr. Kerry's brother, Cameron F. Kerry, and Mr. Kerry's former chief of staff, David Leiter. Both work for the Boston firm Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, whose clients have benefited from Mr. Kerry's votes as a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
"Mintz" is not that common a name. Here is the law firm, and here is the Richard Mitz bio.
Richard Mintz went to Harvard and seems to have stayed in Boston, but could he be a Southerner himself, or could he have a cousin or relative who spent time in the Alabama National Guard? Maybe Kristof will find out. And maybe he will even tell us.
OK, this is a long stretch. But trust no one.
Comments