JustOneMinute

Democrats Don't Want A "Fair" Election

How much coffee will be sprayed out of how many nostrils when NY Times readers open their Sunday Times magazine and see this:

QUESTIONS FOR RAY C. FAIR
Bush Landslide (in Theory)!
Interview by Deborah Solomon

Orrin Judd has been following this forever, and provides links to Professor Fair's website.

The NY Times Charts A Course To Gay Marriage

Hint - they don't want anyone in our democracy to actually vote on this question.

The New Yorker described the legal terrain here; the bit about the Supreme Court being a follower, rather than a leader, with its anti-miscegenation "Loving v. Virgina" decision, actually matches an earlier argument I posted. And no, I was not a fan of the Bush strategy, either.

My Bold Prediction - No Brinkley/New Yorker Article

My Bold Prediction is that, contra Drudge, there will not be a New Yorker article by Douglas Brinkley describing John Kerry's "January in or near Cambodia", which was previewed to the Telegraph.

Why not?

(1) It will simply call attention to a story that mainstream media is ignoring;

(2) It will make Brinkley look less like an objective historian and more like a Kerry flack;

(3) Serious reporters will squirm at this weird selective disclosure - the January after-action reports are not at Kerry's website, but Brinkley can miraculously rely on after-action reports and Kerry's own War Notes to present Kerry's story? Someone in the press may rebel and ask for both the already-promised after-action reports and access to Kerry's notes (ask for December and March 18/19 after-action reports, while you are at it. And the paperwork for the controversial first Purple Heart).

(4) Brinkley will not have a good explanation for his decison to leave it out of the book in the first place. Possible explanations, none appealing - (a) Running covert operatives to Cambodia makes John Kerry look like a macho man of mystery and danger, and that was not the picture Brinkley wanted to paint; (b) Brinkley didn't want to suggest that Kerry was involved in Nixon's secret war, or that Kerry broke international law by violating Cambodia's border (except when he did); (c) it doesn't square well with Kerry's own account of his March 18 mission near Cambodia, as excerpted in Brinkley's book, where Kerry made it clear that violating the Cambodian border was a Big Deal.

The campaign will conclude that it is safer to let this drift away. Well, that's my guess. I hope I'm wrong.

MORE: OK, this is brutal, but how big is the San Francisco Examiner?

UPDATE: Props to the Captain - evidently, "served under Kerry" is a slippery concept. MORE: Oops! Read the comments! The Captain has good evidence that Alston left, but no real evidence that he did not return. Lots of good research being done by Lori from Texas, however. I'd love to get her to compare the Feb 20 action described at Kerry's website (which seems to blame the helicopters for wanton destruction) with the Feb 20 after-action report. (Actually, that would just be a warm-up...)

UPDATE 2: From the Bear, we see the Seattle Times and Knight Ridder, neither known as right-wing apologists, picking up the "Christmas in Cambodia" story.

Shorter Chris Matthews

Chris Matthews had a segment with John O'Neill of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and John Hurley of the (objective and non-partisan) Vietnam Veterans for John Kerry. As a service to my readers, I will save you the trouble of laboring through the transcript. Here we go:

Chris Matthews: I didn't go to Vietnam. George Bush didn't go to Vietnam. John Kerry showed a lot of courage going to Vietnam, and anyone who disagrees is a lying, partisan weasel.

John O'Neil: Well, lots of men, including John Kerry, showed courage by going to Vietnam. However, to win a Silver Star requires an extraordinary display of courage...

John Hurley: You're a partisan, lying weasel funded by Republicans.

Repeat for twenty minutes.

"Squirrelly And Unsettling"

ABC's August 12 NOTE intrigues us with this comment about the subtlest of flaws in the Kerry campaign:

E. . Let's face it: there is something squirrelly and unsettling and not quite right about the way Michael Meehan answers the media's Vietnam-era questions — something that makes nearly every member of the Gang of 500 think there is still something there.

And there is a reason for that - like the rest of us, this campaign is on a voyage of discovery into John Kerry's past. And like the rest of us, they are repeatedly learning that their candidate's memory of his Vietnam era is conveniently unreliable.

Three quick examples - first, we have been following the "Christmas in Cambodia" story; from Matt Drudge, we see that Kerry historian Douglas Brinkley is now scrambling to recast this as "January in Cambodia". Time will tell. Meanwhile, we can check the January after-action reports at John Kerry's website, where he has fully released all the relevant records. But wait! I only see after-action reports for February and March! (and *not* his March 18/19 mission, BTW). Golly, the Big Media will never tolerate this sort of non-disclosure, will they? Squirelly, indeed.

Second example - the Kerry campaign, through both press releases and its website, spent months promoting the odd notion that Kerry was in the military from 1966 to 1970, and then was in the Naval Reserve from 1972 to 1978. Yes, this would have conveniently meant he was not in the service during his anti-war, ribbon-tossing, meet with the North Vietnamese days, but why did he re-join in 1972?

Of course it made no sense, and with the release of his records in April they have corrected their press releases. But imagine their surprise! We also imagine that they hope that the LA Times and NY Times don't notice (or, more likely, don't care - the NY Times is more inclined to correct the misspelling of the name of a Russian ballerina then they are to correct this.)

A third example is found in this NY Times story, with this provocative lede:

When questions were raised last month about whether a 27-year-old John Kerry had attended a Kansas City meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War where the assassination of senators was discussed, the Kerry presidential campaign went into action.

Indeed, they did. But patient readers will eventually come to the bit where we learn that Kerry's memories and denials about his attendance at such a meeting are contradicted by FBI files. Oops. We especially admire the subtle distinction Kerry makes about "being there":

...he says he had emotionally checked out of V.V.A.W. after St. Louis and until recently said he had left the organization at that point.

But several news organizations, including The Kansas City Star and The New York Sun, have recently reported that Mr. Kerry also attended the meeting of the group in Kansas City, Mo., in late 1971 where killing opponents of the war was discussed.

Mr. Kerry says he still has no memory of being there but does not dispute the F.B.I. files.

Let's be fair - some participants say the assasination plan was discussed, but never voted upon; some say there was a vote; some say Kerry was there for discussions, but not the vote; all agree that Kerry was opposed. This was covered widely last spring - a link-hunt could start here. (And anyone who wants to drop a relevant link in the comments is surely invited to do so.)

The recurring theme - what Kerry remembers isn't always what is true, but it is self-serving.

UPDATE: A commenter at Orrin Judd's fine blog presents a head-scratcher - Kerry spoke to the Senate in April 1971. By then we all knew about the 1970 incursion/invasion into Cambodia (Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming...).

However, the "secret bombing" of Cambodia was not widely revealed until 1973 (if we can rely on Sy Hersh). And this article suggests that the insertion of covert operators into Cambodia was highly classified (presumably, prior to 1970 - post invasion, what was there to deny?). Here is a quick excerpt about the Al Haig, then an aide to Henry Kissinger at the NSC:

He confided to a few that while serving in Vietnam he had participated in one of a regular series of highly classified ground reconnaissance missions inside Cambodia. The Americans who went on such missions, whose existence did not become publicly known until 1973, wore specially manufactured replicas of North Vietnamese uniforms and carried captured gear and weapons. They went in "sterile," that is, without any identification or markings to indicate that they were Americans-except, of course, their white or black skin, large body size, and fluent knowledge of English.

So, the question - John Kerry was not exactly holding back in his Senate presentation - atrocities, Genghis Khan, and so on. Why didn't he mention that the US was routinely violating the Cambodian border in 1969? Since that news did create headlines later (and became a proposed article of impeachment against Richard Nixon), wouldn't it have been a big deal when Kerry testified? Why so coy?

Just to state the obvious - the previous question is suggestive, not dispositive. A transcript of the Kerry-O'Neill debate on Dick Cavett might shed further light on this.

Now, other points I would ponder, if I were spinning for Kerry - why were the South Vietnamese getting liquored up in celebration of Christmas? It's not a Christian country. Ok, they were celebrating the truce. But when was the Chinese New Year that year (and is that celebrated in South Vietnam?) What, from the Command History, was Kerry doing then? And might that be the incident which is "seared" in his memory?

More here.

UPDATE: OK, the campaign tried to release the January records last April but got all confused. Time to try again?

VPW - Judith Miller Of the NY Times Subpoenaed in Plame Investigation

Judith Miller of the NY Times has been subpoenaed in the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak, the NY Times reports.

The Times reminds us that "The Times has not published any articles saying it received information about Ms. Plame's identity.

We do recall the eerie media silence that fell over this case last summer. If we can believe our timeline, Paul Krugman mentioned the case in a July column; the first story by a Times reporter was on August 8 by Douglas Jehl.

In fact, from this list of stories with Ms. Miller's byline, only this one stands out as vaguely relevant. Our guess - folks remember her as sympathetic to the Administration spin on WMDs - she might have been mentioned as a recipient of a White House leak meant to discredit Ambassador Wilson, even though she never went on to publish a story using the information.

And what does it mean? "One x Two x Six" refers to one source leaking to the WaPo the news that two White House staffers leaked the Plame connection to six reporters. We have puzzled over Pincus, and mulled over Miller, neither of whom have any obvious bylines on this story. Perhaps the special counsel has found The One, and is subpoenaing the six reporters who received leaks. (Hmm, a blogger's dilemma - the sequels were so lame that I hate to go with the Matrix wordplay; can the phone call to the WaPo be the "One Ring-a-ding to nab them all"?)

On a related note, the Times had an editorial whining that this leak investigation, with the aggressive subpoenaing of reporters, might have a chilling effect on investigative reporting.

First of all, no kidding - that endgame was always obvious, which was why I speculated a year ago that the press was deliberately avoiding a walk down this road.

Secondly, what is the Times thinking about with this:

To unmask a confidential source as part of a criminal investigation, the government should have to show two things: that the information is central to the investigation and that it cannot be obtained any other way. In Mr. Cooper's case, the information could more than likely be provided under oath by government officials, including those implicated.

Boy, will their jaws drop when they read the rest of the Bill of Rights (past the bit about press freedom) and get to the Fifth Amendment.

Getting To "Yes" - Ongoing

The NY Times provides the latest on the Kerry campaign agoniste, as they struggle to deal with President Bush's ticking time bomb:

"My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq."

Previous follies are recounted here and here; from the latest:

...Mr. Kerry has struggled to convince his audiences that his vote to authorize the president to use military force was a far, far cry from voting for a declaration of war.

So far, his aides and advisers concede, he has failed to get his message across, as Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have mocked his efforts as "a new nuance" that amount to more examples of the senator's waffling.

Well, yes, and the Senator is in quite a box. If he admits that his vote was a mistake, he will immediately have thrown at him his famous question from 1971 - "How do [you] ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

And in trying to answer that, he will risk leaving the strong impression that his commitment to a democratic Iraq is unsteady, and that Kerry is the "cut and run" candidate (which a big part of his base will love him for, BTW).

So, he tries to pretend that his vote was not a mistake. And that it was not simply political positioning. And no one is convinced.

Leaving us where on Kerry and Iraq? No one can keep a straight face when he explains his votes. No one can keep a straight face when he explains his Iraq "plan".

Kerry's The One!

Now I'm Getting Crazy

Matt Drudge alerts us to a marital spat that led John Kerry and Teresa Heinz to spend the night in separate hotel rooms. Marital spat indeed - Teresa just wanted a good night's sleep, away from the nightmares and thrashing (Look for Gourevitch-skipper).

Hey, is this line of speculation over the border, or just near it? I don't know, but Tim Russert raised it in April.

MORE: But seriously, a note to self - re-read Robert Musil's warning about insane over-reach by the Kerry critics. This is what he is warning against.

UPDATE: OK, new explanation - maybe Kerry was sailing into Cambodia to meet with foreign leaders. (ed -- You're backsliding...)

Really Bad Advice For Kerry

Doc K at Titus One Nine provides a helpful diagnosis to Kenneth Baer, writing in TNR.

And oh, my - not only was there a doctor in the house, but a lawyer showed up, too - Beldar the Terrible lays waste to the TNR. Run, you fools!

MORE: Robert Musil waves the yellow "caution" flag, twice.

Matt Welch makes an odd comment (partly rebutted by the InstaPundit here), and provides an interesting link to the JunkYard Blog.

OK, the odd comment from Matt:

What I don't understand is how anyone professes to truly give a flip about what John Kerry and George Bush did 32 or 36 years ago.

...I'm going to vote for the guy who I think will do the best job leading the most powerful country in the world in the war against people who want to blow us up, period. Everything else -- only 32,000 new jobs this month! This one dude acted weird at a Wendy's! -- is an increasingly pointless and unfunny diversion.

Well, yes. I hope to compose a slightly longer repsonse, but the gist would be, we are trying to locate Kerry's heart, and head, on the subject of Iraq (specifically) and the War on Terror generally. Since his constant emphasis of it suggests that Vietnam was a formative experience for Kerry, we need to explore his conduct both during the war, and immediately afterwards.

As a quick example - Kerry probably "hates" Nixon - will Kerry really want to get elected so that he can become Nixon, guiding Iraqi-ization and delivering peace with honor? What, one wonders, does his heart tell him?

"Christmas In Cambodia" Gets Bigger

Although it is not yet News Fit To Print, the two NYC tabloids, the The NY Post and the Daily News, grapple with Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" legend. Fox News ran a story, and got a comical reaction-retraction from the Kerry camp. (And yes, we see a Murdoch connection, thanks).

My caveat to the Kerry critics - "Christmas is Cambodia" is a Kerry creation, and he deserves to be hammered on it. However, "St. Patrick's in (or near) Cambodia", especially with SEALs, has got life. Be careful with the undated "hat" story - SEALs and CIA both operate covertly, and that mistake would be easily overlooked. I'm just sayin'.

Of course, as support of this, Kerry would need to release some missing after-action reports for March 18/19. C'mon, John - Keep the promise you made to Tim!

MORE - where I would take this, if I worked for Kerry, is to get the "seared in my memory" quote scaled back to "Sort of lightly browned", and then try to switch over to "Hey, he really was in Cambodia when Operation Menu started." The partisan, racist, hate-mongering, lying, crooked Republican Attack Machine (did I mention they are racist?) needs to stare at the checkerboard (Kerry clearly does not play chess) and get one step ahead of this defense. Hint!

RE: "Lightly browned" - NO, Kerry is not going to say, "I was toasted in my memory". Please. This is a no-smoking blog. No smoking of anything.

Getting to "Yes" - Kerry Hammered From Both Sides

Last week, President Bush goaded Man Who Would Be President with a seemingly simple question:

My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq."

After some amusing tap-dancing, Kerry finally stepped up and firmly straddled, restating his long-held position that he would have voted for diplomacy in October 2002. Oh, let him say it:

"I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

A position Boldly Taken!

Now the Bush team is chewing on him, and the anti-war Toronto Star is chewing on him. First, let's Blame Canada:

Kerry fails Iraq test

..."I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Kerry now says. Only he would have used that power more "effectively."

This amounts to a sweeping claim by Kerry that America has carte blanche to make war on even bogus grounds, and in defiance of the United Nations and world opinion, so long as the war is waged effectively.

...Kerry comes off looking like "Bush lite" on Iraq, rather than as a candidate with better values and a sounder program. He seems weak. Muddled.

They are unhappy.

From the other flank, we have the LA Times - Bush Mocks Kerry's 'Nuance' on Iraq

And from somewhere in the middle, USA Today - Kerry's been consistent about his nuances, at least .

The Atrios Smear Catches On

Props to Atrios, whose guilt by association smear of the SwiftVets seems to have caught on with the Kerry campaign and the mainstream press.

Duncan "Not Sirius" Black spent some time with chat board archives, and concluded that John Corsi, co-author of "Unfit for Command", is a "moronic brownshirt moronic f***". Oops, wrong link, my bad! People do say the darndest things on the internet, though, don't they?

Anyway, this particular "rebuttal" made it to the Kerry campaign, and on to the AP. The "guilt by association" bit is here:

"It says something about the smear campaign against John Kerry that it has stooped to enlist a hatemonger," said campaign spokesman Chad Clanton.

I'm not sure what it says - that all the Swiftees are racist hate-mongerers? That they don't research Free Republic chat boards before taking a guy on as a co-author? Help me, Chad!

Strangely missing from the Atrios piece, and the comment from the Kerry spokesperson, and the AP story, is the somewhat ritualistic "we honor his service" tribute to the fact that John Corsi, like John Kerry, got shot at defending his country. OK, folks (including myself) have slacked off putting that disclaimer in every piece about Kerry, but this is the first time Corsi has made the news. Atrios we understand, but is this really the way the AP wants to introduce John Corsi to America? What is the AP thinking about? (Don't answer that!)

And if the press has this much free time, we encourage them to ask Chad and his friends to deliver the military records Kerry promised last April. What does it say about Kerry and his campaign that they have lied about this (Hint: a good guess would be "sometimes they lie").

The AP could even look into these other points, if the afternoon is dragging and time hangs heavy.

Kerry's First Purple Heart

One of the Swiftee allegations is that Kerry did not deserve his first Purple Heart.

The Kerry talking point in defense of this seems to be, the doctor who is doing the complaining isn't even the one who signed the medical form.

This was addressed back in May by the LA Times, and more recently by the good doctor himself, with Jim Geraghty of the NRO, chatting with the NRA (yeah, he's great in front of a friendly crowd...). From the LA Times, as reprinted by the Seattle Times:

Letson said that Carreon, a lower-ranked "hospitalman," was "present at the time and he, in fact, made the entry into Lt. Kerry's medical record."

Mr. Carreon died in 1992.

Props to the commenters at Q and O.

The Purple Heart regs are here. Friendly fire and accidents in combat would qualify, so I am not sure why Kerry's accident wouldn't, strictly speaking, qualify. However, it was just a scratch...

MORE: My stint as a JAG ends - Under 2-8 (b) 6 (b), Kerry wins:

(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.

Under 2-8 (b) 5 (h), I suppose Kerry could lose:

(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.

OK, the Kerry people should change their talking points.

And we still haven't seen the after-action reports for December (when this incident, and "Christmas in Cambodia" both occurred). C'mon, John you made a promise to Tim Russert.

We want the March 18/19 after-action, too - c'mon, Brinkley uses five pages of his book to excerpt from your "War Notes" journal discussing your March 18 mission is support of Operation Menu, and you can't release a simple after-action report? Like you said you would? C'mon.

Brinkley On Kerry In Cambodia

Having sat down with a copy of Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty", it is pretty clear that this book does not support Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" story. To the contrary.

A strong cite is on p. 324-328 - Kerry's War Notes are excerpted, and he describes his reaction to Nixon's Operation Menu, launched March 18, 1969, to bomb Cambodia. Kerry's role - he and other Swift boat ran SEALs to the Cambodian border (His last mission, BTW, contra his web-site, which says his last mission is on March 13 - release the records!). Here we go, p. 324, Kerry's words:

On occasion we had shot towards the border when provoked by sniper or ambush but without fail this led to a formal reprimand by the Cambodian government and accusations of civilian slaughters and random killings by American "aggressors".

One might infer from Kerry's journal that he believed that the border was taken seriously. We also sense a resentment that others would exaggerate claims of American war crimes. Ain't life ironical.

P. 179, Cambodia off-limits: Oct. 14, 1968 (two months before Christmas) - a fellow officer, Bernique, engages in an action "near the Cambodian border at the northern end of the Gulf of Thailand...unfortunately, because the action had taken so cose to Cambodia, and several of the dead had fallen on the other side of the border - which at the time the US Navy took great pains to observe - the incident was not so easily lauded, or forgotten. A furor erupted over Bernique's violation of the ban... and it appeared that he was facing a court-martial for his actions and "

P. 218: Describing the Christmas incident, Brinkley never describes Kerry as crossing the border. Wasser is quoted: "We were getting close to Cambodia," Wasser explained later. "We were out there all alone in the darkness."

UPDATE: Hey, this is why we have Fox News, which recycles the "Christmas in Cambodia" story, presents the Swift cites (the Boston Herald letter, the 1986 Senate speech), and asks the Kerry campaign for a comment:

The Kerry campaign first asserted that the Massachusetts senator never said that he was in Cambodia, only that he was near the country. But when presented with a copy of the Congressional Record and asked about Kerry's letter in the Boston Herald, the campaign said it would come up with an explanation. After repeated phone calls, there was still no clarification.

The campaign should just tell the truth - Kerry and Valerie Plame were looking for Santa Claus.

Getting To "Yes" - Kerry Nearly There!

On the "if you knew then what you know know" question about Saddam and the missing WMDs, the Good Ship Kerry nearly has sailed into port.

Let's let George Bush ask the question:

"My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq."

Since we don't have any videotape of oral surgey to inspect, let's watch Kerry's progression on this question.

Last Thursday, Aug 5: "You bet we might have".

Saturday, Aug 7, through a spokesperson: "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>"

And now, Kerry himself: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

Ahh, he'll answer it directly by not answering! How, we still wonder, would he have followed up?

The article goes on to explain Kerry's vision for reducing our troops in Iraq by passing the steaming sack of whatever to our allies. Current laugh line - Kerry says that troop reductions are an "appropriate" goal. Well, gee, is that controversial? Our question is, is it achievable? The LA Times, and others, have already pounced.

VPW - Reporters Subpoenaed

Recent news reports suggest that Special Counsel Fitzgerald may be approaching the penultimate lap in the investigation into the Valerie Plame Wilson leak. Matt Drudge is blaring this AP story, but the real news is in the front-page coverage by the Washington Post.

A federal judge has held a Time magazine reporter in contempt of court for refusing to testify in an investigation of the leak of a CIA officer's identity, rejecting requests from two media organizations to quash federal grand jury subpoenas seeking information from the media.

...While NBC fought a subpoena issued May 21 and was included in the opinion, it avoided a contempt citation after Tim Russert, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," agreed to an interview over the weekend in which he answered a limited number of questions posed by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, NBC said in a statement.

Now, Russert has said previously that Ms. Plame's name was not disclosed to him. However, this next bit is the key, in terms of the timing of this case:

Lawyers involved in the case said it appears that Fitzgerald is now armed with a strong and unambiguous court ruling to demand the testimony of two journalists -- syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who first disclosed the CIA officer's name, and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, who has written that a Post reporter received information about her from a Bush administration official.

Pincus was served with a subpoena yesterday after Hogan's order was unsealed.

Ahh, instead of a cooperating defendant roll-up, we are seeing a judicial roll-up. Cool.

The subject of these conversations is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby. Folks who read only the AP story will hyper-ventilate that he is going down (OK, Full Disclosure - I picked him as a prime suspect a long time ago). However, the WaPo is fascinating on this point:

Fitzgerald has shown a continuing interest in Libby, witnesses have said, but it now appears that his reasons may be more complex than was first apparent. Libby has signed a waiver allowing reporters to tell the prosecutor whether he disclosed Plame's name to them. Prosecutors have e-mails and phone records showing his contacts with reporters, and witnesses have said they are interested in a story Cooper wrote last summer in which Libby was interviewed.

We take for granted that this is the Cooper story in question.

Ok, those are the highlights. Here's your soundbite - be cool on Libby - he's still a good choice, but this story doesn't prove it.

As to timing, the court order has an expedited schedule (p. 2) for the TIME appeals - three to four summertime weeks. The the Walter Pincus subpoena fight has just begun, and Novak's subpoena may or may not have been served (would the WaPo know?).

The opinion itself is here; this is the court's website, where we can await future developments.

MORE: CNN coverage of their TIME reporter's situation.

UPDATE: Why Walter Pincus, you ask? Good question. This NY Times story from last February describes (near bottom) the One x Two x Six investigation sparked by a WaPo story.

I sure thought this was the WaPo story in question, but the bylines are Allen and Priest; here is some WaPo follow-up from last October, this time with Pincus and Allen.

So, what news on subpoenas for Allen and Priest? I'm, like, derelict here. Unless Pincus was a source for the Allen/Priest story, or other evidence suggests that Novak and Pincus were original leakees...

UPDATE: Interesting - Walter Pincus had the June 12 story with Wilson as a source - the story the Senate Intel committee mocked. That struck me as deeply significant when I began this sentence...

OK, the fog has cleared - if Pincus had a bum story on June 12, the White House may have called him in July to set the record straight, and leaked the Plame-Wilson connection in the process. Hence, Pincus was a leak recipeint, even though he did not publish.

Props To Matt Yglesias

Matt told us then what the LA Times is telling us now - Europe is not interested in sending troops to Iraq so that we can send our troops home.

Short excerpt:

Did Anyone Else Get This Stock Tip?

Filed under both "I'll Be Darned" and "Is This The Latest Scam?":

We had a "wrong number" message left on our answering machine over the weekend detailing a stock that will surge on Monday. We had no idea who the tipper was, and the name she was leaving the message for (no, not Martha Stewart) was unfamiliar to us as well. The underlying "news" that was meant to spark the stock came out last Wednesday.

Well, the stock did surge. My question - did some scammers leave 10,000 "wrong number" messages just to hype the stock?

And no, I did not buy any. Just doing my civic duty here.

Wasn't This Josh Marshall's Big Scoop?

From last week's Financial Times:

French Probe Led to 'Fake Niger Uranium Papers'
By Mark Huband / Financial Times
August 2, 2004

I didn't see anything about this at his site last week, but that may reflect more on me than on Dr. Marshall.

A Good Comment In Defense Of Kerry's Bronze Star

Well known commenter Bruce Moomaw and I don't often see eye to eye, but he does a good job here.

The subject is the debate over the March 13 incident where Kerry got his third Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for pulling Green Beret Rassmann out of the water. A sense of the dispute is found in the Swift letter at Captain Ed's.

I am reprinting his comment, with no significant editorial oversight:

Regarding the clash between Thurlow and Rassmann over the Bronze Star Incident [here on CNN] -- which, as [Tom] remarks, resembles Rashomon (with both men flat-out calling each other liars before Judy Woodruff, and both of them apparently disagreeing with Brinkley's account), the obvious thing to do is to track down the skippers of the other three Swift Boats and find out what THEY say. According to Brinkley (if he's right), they were Rich Barker, Don Droz and Rich McCann.

Well, a 2-minute stroll through Google reveals that:

(1) Barker is an wildly enthusiastic supporter of Kerry. (See http://www.abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/politics/072804_politics_kerry_vet.html and http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1090919792168000.xml , to name just two of dozens of entries.)

Kerry Versus The Swiftees - Who's Lying?

[RELATED: A new "Kerry in Cambodia cite - the 1992 AP interview - is here.]

I have been advised that the Swiftees may simply be lying about Kerry's Vietnam record for partisan political purposes. Oh, that would be low! We would all agree that lying about Kerry's Vietnam record for partisan political purposes is a bad thing, wouldn't we? Well?

It turns out that John Kerry, his supporters, and his campaign have been doing exactly that - they have been lying about his record. Let's have a quick review:

(1) John Edwards and Bill Clinton, two of the most prominent speakers at the Democratic Convention in Boston, lied about the circumstances under which Kerry joined the Swift boats, with the effect of over-stating his valor. Brendan Nyhan of Spinsanity caught this, not the Swiftees.

(2) From a 1970 interview with the Harvard Crimson through two recent major biographies, with erroneous reporting in major newspapers along the way, Kerry has left the false impression that he had been honorably discharged from the Navy in 1970, prior to his days as a prominent anti-war activist. John Cole captured the political significance succinctly - "I was completely unaware that Kerry was throwing his anti-war hissy fits and meeting secretly with the North Vietnamese while serving as a LIEUTENANT IN THE RESERVES."

Following the release of his military records, the the Kerry campaign ended this charade. However, the campaign was misleading the public on this point through the entire nominating process, and we have seen no corrections in the same media that ran the mistakes. The Swiftees have not been emphasizing this point (and Naval officers have free speech rights), but others have been since April.

3. In a Senate speech in 1986, in order to score a political point about the perils of a wider war if the US provided aid to the Contras, Kerry recounted his dramatic story of a Christmas spent in Cambodia in 1968. In 1992, in order to demonstrate his empathy and solidarity with the POWs/MIAs who may have been lost in Cambodia, Kerry told the story to John Diamond of the AP.

However, the story does not stand up. Perhaps Kerry would like to release the relevant records to support his contention, but that takes us to number 4.

4. Kerry told Tim Russert in April 2004 that he would make his military records public. We are still waiting for a full disclosure.

For example, the John Kerry website shows after-action reports for February 1969 through March 1969; it also includes the history of CD-11 (Kerry's assignment) from Jan 1, 1969.

However, the "Christmas in Cambodia" incident took place (or didn't) in December of 1968. Where is the after action report for that?

Similarly, when Tim Russert asked about the circumstances under which Kerry received his first Purple Heart, Kerry responded that "if you ask anybody who was with me, the two guys who were with me, [it] was probably the most frightening night that they had that they were in Vietnam...".

Well, we are still waiting for the after-action report from Dec 2, 1968. It is not at his website, and it is quite controversial - the Swiftees claim that, according to the after-action report, there was no enemy fire. From that, it follows that Kerry's minor shrapnel wound may have been a friendly fire incident - his own friendly fire, in fact, since he may have simply fired a grenade launcher and had a grenade explode too close to him. The Swiftees attach a copy of a reg that, they claim, disqualifies a "friendly fire" wound in this context.

Interestingly, some of these Freepers point out that "friendly fire" is not disqualifying (understandably). As to the regs, who knows? My much simpler question is, where are the long-promised records - reporters should be clamoring for the after action reports and the Command History for the units described in this timeline: Coastal Division 14 for Dec 2; Coastal Division 13 for Christmas.

While they are at it, they might ask about after-action reports for March 18-19 of 1969. Kerry missed a couple of days after being wounded on March 13, but was back in full service mode by the 17th, and seems not to have left until the end of the month. The Command History shows his boat went out on March 18 and 19, burning structures and destroying enemy bunkers, but not reporting enemy contact. More details are at the bottom of this post.

Is this a big deal? Kerry told Dick Cavett (from the MTP archive) that "I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages." Maybe this simply documents that point. Maybe Kerry was filing records while waiting for his transfer and his boat was reassigned - release the records!

So, good point - let's not have any partisan lies told about John Kerry. That would be deplorable.

UPDATE: Let's give some oxygen to Douglas Brinkley - he gets Kerry's "honorable discharge" wrong in the text (p. 338), but right in the timeline in the back of the book. My half-bad.

Brinkley also kills the "Kerry in Cambodia" story, repeatedly. In fact, he says several times (and quotes Kerry saying) that the Navy was quite strict about observing the border, and that crossing it meant trouble and an investigation, prior to the Nixon incursion.

And Kerry's last mission was *after* the March 13 Bronze Star adventure, in support of Operation Menu, the Nixon incursion into Cambodia which started March 18. Kerry's role - running SEALs to (but not across) the Cambodian border. The timing matches the CD-11 history - release the records!

Page number to follow, sorry.

Brown Books From The Folks In, Hmm, Earth Tones

John Kerry with Tim Russert on Meet The Press, April, 2004:

MR. RUSSERT: You used the word "war criminals."

SEN. KERRY: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them.

And this, from a source about which I know nothing:

“We have prepared what we call ‘Brown Books’ that contain damaging military records, personal credit histories, medical histories, psychiatric histories, divorce records, you name it,” our source told us. "We've got the goods on the Veterans who oppose Kerry."

Hard to believe. Of course, there is this smear, from Not Serious at the Krugman-endorsed Media Matters. The left may not like McCarthy, but they are not afraid of the tactics.

A Cite For Swiftee Eyes - A New "Kerry In Cambodia"

An alert reader points me to a "Kerry in Cambodia" cite that, as best I can tell, will be new to the Swiftees, and everyone else. This is an AP story from 1992 interviewing Sen. Kerry about a committee hearing into the fate of missing POWs/MIAs:

06/25

Kerry-MIA

Copyright, 1992. The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

By JOHN DIAMOND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Navy Lt. John Kerry knew he had no business steering his Mekong River patrol boat across the border into Cambodia, but orders were orders.

A quarter-century later, Sen. John Kerry says newly declassified documents have convinced him fellow servicemen captured on such trips were left behind at war's end.

Kerry, D-Mass., announced this week at hearings of the Senate Select Committee on POW-MIA Affairs he chairs that as many as 133 U.S. servicemen may have been left behind, either as unrecorded fatalities or prisoners of war, when the Vietnam War ended in 1973.

This conclusion that the government failed to account for all its soldiers, sailors and fliers did not come easily for the 48-year-old senator. Through two decades of political activism since he returned from Vietnam, first as an opponent of the war, then as a lawmaker, Kerry has remained studiously neutral
on the POW-MIA question.

Veterans groups and researchers of varying credibility raised allegations and published photographs suggesting that Americans might still be languishing in Southeast Asian stalags. Bereaved family members pleaded with lawmakers to rescue loved ones they were convinced were still alive. Kerry said only that
there was evidence that needed to be explored.

"I've always said there's evidence. But I'm not going to draw any conclusions about this until we do a sound, sensible job," Kerry said in an interview. "This conclusion was drawn from documents which no one saw 10 years ago."

But for Kerry, who spent six violent months commanding a patrol boat on the Mekong River, there's always been a ring of truth to allegations of abandoned Americans. By Christmas 1968, part of Kerry's patrol extended across the border of South Vietnam into Cambodia.

"We were told, `Just go up there and do your patrol. Everybody was over there (in Cambodia). Nobody thought twice about it," Kerry said. One of the missions, which Kerry, at the time, was ordered not to discuss, involved taking CIA operatives into Cambodia to search for enemy enclaves.

"I can remember wondering, `If you're going to go, what happens to you,"' Kerry said.

Excerpts continue below.

Quick reaction - if I were a Kerry defender, I would like the CIA, hush-hush, everyone is lying angle.

And that is it for the defense - what about "Everybody was over there"? The Swiftees are not backing him on this, and three of his shipmates seemed to have spent Christmas elsewhere. Maybe they were channeling Yogi Berra - nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.

One wonders - were any US boats going upriver into Cambodia? And did John Kerry specifically do so? This post strongly rebuts the Kerry story as it has been presented so far.

Many sources at the Vietnam Veterans of America.

Captain Ed has "Kerry in Cambodia" cites, and a letter from the Swiftees detailing their allegations.

This PBS show says that in 1967, "Pursuing their enemy, American and South Vietnamese aircraft often attacked across the Cambodian border. Sihanouk criticized Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who was then trying to repair relations." OK, that could result in POWs/MIAs; it does not mention boats, but how surprised would you be to learn that some boats did cross the border? OTOH, the Cambodians couldn't control their airspace; a river would have been more manageable. On the third hand, covert ops to rescue airmen or scout the VC probably were happening. However, Swift boats were 50 feet long, and noisy; smaller, quieter boats were available, and perhaps more suitable. Beats me, but I am distracting myself - Kerry has no after-action reports, no witnesses, a story by Brinkley that puts him too far from the border, and a less-than-full crew supporting him - not good. Unless everyone is lying except John!

UPDATE: Early reaction is not favorable to Kerry - plenty of links to recap the discussion, and some colorful quotes.

ANOTHER UPDATE: US News and World Report put Kerry in Cambodia in a May 2000 article. This time, he is running supplies on clandestine missions - cool! To be serious, it might be his last mission, running SEALs to the border in support of Operation Menu, Nixon's bombing of Cambodia (Brinkley, p 324-328).