Kate And Kerry, Sitting In A Tree

Patterico busts Kate Zernike of the Times for a flat out lie in her coverage of Kerry's botched joke and its comedic aftermath (Kerry's next quip: "They laughed when I said I wanted to tell a few jokes, but they're not laughing now").  The short version is this - Ms. Zernike buries the actual content of Kerry's "joke", then misrepresents it.  Oh, dear.

But let's add this - Ms. Zernike was the Times reporter who prepared the absurd Times article last May telling the world that Kerry was preparing to resume the Swift Boat battles.  A longer overview of the problems with Ms. Zernike's coverage is here; a specific, non-arguable, flat-out-wrong mistake is spelled out here.

For non-link clickers, the flat mistake is this - Ms. Zernike claims that Kerry won his first Purple Heart in a "hail of enemy fire"; actually, no one involved ever claimed that.  However, Ms. Zernike did use the phrase "hail of enemy fire" in a 2004 story to describe Kerry's controversial Bronze Star incident.  Hey, she got confused - that can happen even at the Paper of Record.

And who cares?  The Times has never run a correction or even acknowledged my occasional (and polite!) emails.  One might almost think that they just don't want to be bothered with the details of Kerry's various medals and various controversies.

All The News That Fits The Storyline.

Comments

[Davis]

Kerry isn't even a candidate in this election, but he is managing to blow it for his party.

Thanks for pointing out what is in The Times - it means the rest of us don't need to click on their website and give them the traffic to help them sell ads.

[Patton]

Ahhhhhrrgrgg.

A hail of bullets or a quiet night on the river, the point is that he served and Bush didn't, well, you know what we mean.

[jwest]

But…but….the NYTimes has professional editors and fact checkers that scrutinize every word and nuance.

Say it ain’t so.

[clarice]

They ought to make their reporters post here first before they print anything if they want fact checking!

[Pofarmer]

Ya know, been listening to the radio quite a bit today doing fieldwork. The bias in the MSM is just striking. The newsmonkey comes on with a story about Bush at a meeting somewhere. Then he talks about "Bush speaking to a partisan crowd". The clip plays of Bush speaking, and the crowd is reacting to him like a rock star. Then quickly they switch to former President Bill Clinton, and "rising star" Barack Obama. Oh, my. As if the Dems weren't speaking to partisan crowds? C'mon folks.

[sylvia]

Does anyone have a link to a more complete transcript of what Kerry said? Dems keep saying that if you place the comment "in context" you'll get that he was talking about Bush. I don't remember seeing anything prior or after in Kerry's comments about Bush. I did a search for a more complete transcipt on CNN and NYTimes and Fox but I don't see it. Anyone?

[tautala]

Kerry you stupid arrogant a**hole. Don't take offense, what I meant was "you're great, sorry I didn't vote for you on '04"

[steve]

talkleft has a new post-
Walton ruled aginst libby using the memory expert-
thought you guys would be interested and dont' see ithere yet...

[Jane]

Ya know, been listening to the radio quite a bit today doing fieldwork. The bias in the MSM is just striking.

After Kerry had his press conference I decided to check how CNN was covering it. Two guys, neither of whom I recognized were discussing it. One reminded the other: "Let's not be partisen about this". In the next sentence he said: "Perhaps this is why Barack Obama would be a great uniter".

It was hilarious.

[Semanticleo]

NewsFlash for the Plausible Denialists:

The issue is IRAQ, not John Kerrey, although it is in your special interest to pretend you don't see the man behind the curtain who is pulling the levers in Iraq, even as you fulminate your necessary distractions. You have sealed your fate with your abominable, blind support of the WarChoice President and his Lackies.

[Jane]

Uh Semi, It's Kerry, not Kerrey - you know the guy you voted for for President.

[JM Hanes]

I don't even need a link to remember that earlier Zernike piece. The usual NYtimes bias appeared utterly (albeit temporarily) transcended by the meanderings of a fatuous ingenue. An ingenue no longer, Ms. Zernike has apparently settled permanently on fatuous.

[JM Hanes]

NewsFlash for Semanticleo:

Be careful what you wish for. Iraq is clearly on the table in the Angelides and Lamont campaigns, where the anti-Bush contenders are looking more and more like incidental doormats every day.

[Other Tom]

Cleo, have you already forgotten that Kerry, too, chose war? For the second time in his wretched life, he has been supportive of a war when it was the popular thing to do, then turned against the war and the men who fight it when it suits his political purposes to do so. The absolute beauty in all of this is that he has written his final obituary as a presidential candidate. And I'm sorry if "the issue" isn't the one you'd like it to be, but this man is the most recent Democratic nominee for president, he said exactly what he said, and he said it in the middle of a political campaign in which he is being critical of the war and condescending toward the troops. He deserves what he is getting.

There was indeed a "hail of fire" in the Bronze Star incident--in Kerry's mind, and in the after-action report that he wrote, and thence in the award citation. It was "intense enemy fire" over a stretch of 5,000 meters. Quite some hail of fire, since it would take a Swift at top speed about a minute and a half to travel that distance, yet all of that intense fire struck not a single person, and not a single round struck his boat.

Sounds to me like Scooter is better off without that particular expert.

[Other Tom]

Correction--it would take the Swift more than six minutes to travel that distance at top speed. Six minutes of intense fire, and not a single hit. At close range, too. Remarkable.

[Semanticleo]

"At close range, too. Remarkable."

WTF does that have to do with anything other than the desperate need to reassure yourself.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Frankly I think you Democrats need to reconsider what it is you're wishing for.

If you gain control over Congress you'll be the ones responsible for dealing with Iraq. You'll be the ones authorizing, or not, the funding to continue operations there. If you cut funding and remove troops and Iraq goes to hell, you're the ones on the hook.

And no Charlie Rangel's idea of keeping a "quick reaction force" in *Okinawa*. (Note to Rangel: Okinawa is not close to Iraq.)

If you gain control over Congress you'll have to deal with the nation's energy budget. You'll have to deal with terrorists. You'll be responsible for protecting the country. Which is going to be an odd position for a bunch of people opposed to interrogating terrorists.

Hint: Don't fuck up. If America get's hit by terrorists while you're in charge, it'll be your ass.

[Davis]

The Democrats are always fighting the last election. They don't want to talk about looming issues like how to deal with the underfunded Social Security program, or what to do with 10-12 million illegals. They shouldn't even bring up the subject of the Iraq War until they have formulated a coherent plan that they can all speak to. The momentum has changed this week - now it is evident that both the Senate and House will remain in safe hands.

[Sue]

ed,

Wishful thinking. It will be Bush's fault. Whatever happens the media and the left will spin it to be Bush's fault.

I am resigned to a democratic house. I am somewhat hopeful that those democrats who ran on a conservative ticket will do the right thing and not get sucked into the abyss of moonbat terrority.

[Sue]

what to do with 10-12 million illegals.

The same thing Bush wants to do with them. Grant them amnesty. If the house changes hands, the Senate's version of the immigration bill will be passed.

[Enlightened]

The issue is Iraq, and John Kerry has demonstrated in spectacular fashion (in both prior and current example) exactly what his and the lefts intentions are.

And the proof of this major blow to the 2006 election is the fact Kerry is hidden away in an ivory tower, banished by his minions, too afraid he might open his cake hole yet again.

And the left jumps on the "Its About Iraq" train - destination - Okinawa.

Because, you know - fighting the war from 3000 miles away is like - the purple heart for self inflicted shrapnel slivers.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'...the purple heart for self inflicted shrapnel slivers.'

He's inflicted more damage on himself with his jokes than he ever did in Vietnam.

[PeterUK]

"Frankly I think you Democrats need to reconsider what it is you're wishing for.

If you gain control over Congress you'll be the ones responsible for dealing with Iraq. You'll be the ones authorizing, or not, the funding to continue operations there. If you cut funding and remove troops and Iraq goes to hell, you're the ones on the hook".

The fate of milions of Vietnamese didn't bother them,the Democrats will sell the Iraqis down the river in the same way.

[Enlightened]

PUK's got that right - since when did a conscience ever stop a Democrat or lefty from mis-speaking resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?

That is precisely why we know John Kerry spoke the truth, and was not mis-represented in any way.

He does not care if the troops or Iraqi's are killed as long as his party has the Power.

[clarice]

He appears clearly to have a narcissistic personality disorder and people who fit that category indeed have no conscience or empathy...the entire world is populated with people whose sole purpose is to meet their needs.

[TexasToast]

They shouldn't even bring up the subject of the Iraq War until they have formulated a coherent plan that they can all speak to.

There simply is no simple solution - if we ever had the opportunity to create a democratic single state Iraq that would be tolerent of a perminant US military presence, that opportunity is long past. It was arguably lost the moment we dismantled the only unifying institutions in the country - the army and the civil service - in the first days of our occupation. Our continued presence has only made things worse - and I doubt that a Democratic congress can alter the spiral toward anarchy now - particularly in the light of a President whose only bow to reality is a slight change in rhetoric.

No - you guys own this baby - and you are about to get the benefits of that ownership.

[Pagar]

Here's who gets the benefit of every single vote for a Democrat on 7 Nov.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

[JM Hanes]

TT:

Have you ever actually contemplated the potential downsides of not dismantling Saddam's army?

[MayBee]

No - you guys own this baby - and you are about to get the benefits of that ownership.

Really? I kind of thought this was an issue that affects all Americans, not just republicans.
If it is owned by Republicans, why should Democrats even care? Why should they even bother mentioning Iraq? It's not their thing.

[TexasToast]

JMH
Yep. I've contemplated it.

The insurgents fighting in Anbar and elsewhere with the weapons we didn't secure would largly be inside the institututional framework of a functioning government instead of outside setting off carbombs. By destroying all instrumentalities of Sunni power and influence, we practically guaranteed the resulting Sunni insurgency in reaction to Shia and Kurdish control.

I suspect the Sunnis are scared to death - they think they are fighting for their existence as a people - and they are fighting hard.

[Other Tom]

"WTF does that have to do with anything other than the desperate need to reassure yourself."

I can explain it to you, Cleo, but I regret that I can't udeerstand it for you. In a nutshell, what my comment "had to do with" were the statments in the thread's topic essay that "Ms. Zernike claims that Kerry won his first Purple Heart in a 'hail of enemy fire,'" and that "Ms. Zernike did use the phrase 'hail of enemy fire' in a 2004 story to describe Kerry's controversial Bronze Star incident." Ms. Zernike was in error in both instances. I have now told you why. You may very well not like my explanations, but it seems quite odd to suggest that they are not relevant to a discussion of Ms. Zernike's reporting on John Kerry's Vietnam experiences.

[Enlightened]

Jeez - 3 years later and those weapons we did not secure are still around huh? They must be pretty selective in the weaponry usage. Sounds like they are pretty smart. I guess Kerry was not referring to these troops either.

But, if our Marines are capturing this ordnance, and the insurgents are running out of the "unsecured" ordnance - where or where do they keep getting their weaponry?

http://www.usmc.mil/magazine/105/FactFile.pdf

[Sue]

Texas,

While I don't agree with everything you are saying, I do appreciate that you have coherent thoughts, with the obligatory digs at Bush thrown in which I realize can't be helped. I think, the 1st months of our invasion could have been handled better. I think, for instance, we should have opened up the contracts to all takers, making it everyone's baby. I have other criticisms, all with perfect 20/20 hindsight of course. I don't have the 20/20 hindsight to know if your ideas would have worked better, and neither do you. I personally think if democrats had stood behind their votes we wouldn't be where we are today. Divide and conquer. That was AQ's only objective and they are close to fulfilling it. And since you don't have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight to counter my belief that democrats are as responsible for the 'quagmire' in Iraq as republicans are, we should now work together to finish what we started. And 'we' did start it. Democrats can run from their votes but the record says otherwise. To date, the democrats have done nothing but criticize and call for a cut and run policy.

[Daddy]

Seeing all these reporters consistantly getting the facts wrong, I'm going to have to reconsider my opinion of Eason Jordon, former CNN news director. Maybe he didn't say at Davos, that US Troops were intentionally targeting Journalists. Maybe he instead said that Journalists were intentionally targeting US Troops, and the reporters just got his comments ass backwards.

[Sue]

By destroying all instrumentalities of Sunni power and influence, we practically guaranteed the resulting Sunni insurgency in reaction to Shia and Kurdish control.

By keeping those same Sunnis in power, we practically guaranteed a resulting Shiite insurgency in reaction to Sunni control that had been brutal to those same Shia and Kurdish. You are once again working with 20/20 hindsight. What if they had kept them, as you are aruging, and we were still where we are today, with Shia and Kurdish causing the most problems? Would you be arguing that Bush should have dismantled those in control immediately? I suspect you would have.

[JM Hanes]

TT:

And how do you think the Shia & Kurds would have reacted to the fact that Sunni/Bathists remained in control of the most powerful agencies of government? Under such circumstances, why do you assume that an inclusive "institututional framework of a functioning government" could actually have come into existence either peacefully or otherwise? Do you think that the majority Shia & Kurd combo would regard the U.S. support for and reliance on (collusion with?) Sunni/Bathist institutions? Do you realize that Saddam's army actually has very little institutional or political resemblance to what we would envision that term to mean?

I believe your basic assumptions here are more than just slightly arguable and have worst case scenarios that are easily as horrifying as anything we've seen to date. There are huge potential downsides for almost every suggested improvement on the decisions that were actually made, something that Administration detractors almost universally, and studiously, avoid addressing.

[JM Hanes]

Let me know if my previewing negligence makes my badly edited comment too confusing!

[Sue]

And then again, if we had opened up the contracts and brought NATO in, we would still have Kerry standing in front of crowds saying we cut and ran from Afghanistan and he could have thrown in Iraq to boot.

[MayBee]

Who counts as "everyone" when it comes to opening up the contracts?
I remember when the left was upset we weren't opening up the bidding to the French. This was before many of the Oil For Food Follies had come to light. How fun it would have been to give the new contracts to Saddam's former financiers.

[AST]

The truth is that Kerry dropped the mask for a split second and gave us all a view into the soul of his core supporters. They've always looked down on the military as unfit for polite society.

The ironic thing is that the military has its own brotherhood and understanding of the world that these people will never be part of, and it takes a lot more to make it there.

[Sue]

Maybee,

I know. There is that 20/20 hindsight thing. There is no one good answer. My thinking at the time was good, I'm glad we didn't let people in that weren't part of the coalition of the willing. I personally don't think if we had had 1,000,000 troops in Iraq it would have stopped the terrorists. More troops might have controlled the Sunnis. Again, I'm working with 20/20 hindsight and speculating.

[Pofarmer]

Everybody(including the lefties) need to read this link

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-10-29-1.html

[mark c.]

JOHN KERRY(Du-Mass).

[Sue]

Pofarmer,

Thanks. He said what I was trying to say, but said it so much better.

[sylvia]

Okay no one here answered my question about getting a link about a fuller transcript of Kerry's remarks on "stuck in Iraq". And for good reason too, because I just did another search on it, and the only thing I could find was a summary that Kerry talked about surfing to the students first and then something like George Bush used to live in Texas but now lived in a "state of denial". Then he brought up education and the "stuck in Iraq line". I didn't save the link cause I hoped to later find an actual transcript, but that was the best I could find.

I think this is important because if the Dems are going to claim this was a "joke" we should be able to find the comments before and after that line to support this, but I find it strange that almost no outlet printed any other lines but those.

Anyway, as far as I could find, the lines were not some continuation on some running comments on Bush, but instead was a subject change on the seriousness of education. He did not mention Bush immediately after that 'stuck' comment either. So where is the case then that this was a joke on Bush? Where's the MSM getting the evidence for this?

[TexasToast]

I believe your basic assumptions here are more than just slightly arguable and have worst case scenarios that are easily as horrifying as anything we've seen to date.

I agree that my assumptions are arguable - but neither I nor the Democrats proposed we invade the place to test them. Our invasion resulted in a whole lot of bad choices - and we apparently chose the poorest of the poor choices available. Our leadership wouldn't listen to the folks on the ground -witness the quick firing of General Garner.

As to the Democrats running away from their votes, I would suggest that most of them could say, "We F__ed up, we trusted you." Every democratic authored proposal for a change in course has been turned into a "support the troops" referendum (witness Murtha). As the Kerry flap proves once again, you give this administration anything, and they turn it on you to their political advantage. They broke the china, Murtha offered to help them repair it, and they told the american people the democrats were abandoning our troops. You can't help the unwilling.

The whole enterprise was based on arguable assumptions/faulty premises - apparantly arrived at prior to the marshalling of "facts" underlying these premises. A lot of the "faulty intelligence" was Cheney sending the analysts back for a "do over" until he got the answer he wanted. Hubris, I tell ya, hubris.

[davod]

How do we even know Kerry apologized. A written statement on his web site could have been written by anyone. Any forensic investigation of the writing?

[Bob]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11032006/news/nationalnews/inside_unit_that_outwit_ted_kerry_nationalnews_niles_lathem_in_d_c__and_todd_venezia_in_n_y_.htm>INSIDE
UNIT THAT OUTWIT TED KERRY

"When they saw and heard what Kerry said, they were just furious and they were sitting around and one thing led to another," he said.

Ward said that his daughter was among those who came up with the plan for the sign - and when asked if she actually painted it, he chuckled and said: "Well, she said she had paint under her fingernails."

-snip-

Heather Ward has 31/2 years of college credits in chemistry and biology and is about to graduate when she gets back. She hopes one day to be a radiologist, he said.

And what's more, she joined the armed forces soon after 9/11 because she wanted to help her country, her dad said.

"These aren't uneducated people with no options in life," he said."

You Go Girl... God Bless Heather and her buds!

[Jane]

I kept trying to figure out who Ted Kerry was.

[Pofarmer]

So where is the case then that this was a joke on Bush? Where's the MSM getting the evidence for this?

There ain't one. Somebody remind me who's lying?

[JM Hanes]

TexasToast:

"As to the Democrats running away from their votes, I would suggest that most of them could say, 'We F__ed up, we trusted you.'"

Could say? That's been their constant refrain, and it represents the same refusal to accept any real responsibility that Kerry's accusatory apology does.

"As the Kerry flap proves once again, you give this administration anything, and they turn it on you to their political advantage."

As compared to the opposition which can take nothing but a short list of fairy tale choices and turn that on the administration for political advantage. You could streamline any war ever fought that way in hindsight, but looking backward the entire time you're actually fighting a war does not help you win it.

[JM Hanes]

sylvia:

Here's a link to the video of the Angelides event which starts at Barbara Boxer's introduction of Kerry. If that link doesn't work for you, you can get to it via HotAir, which is where I found it.

As a side note, I was amused to see that when Kerry bounded on stage, he seemed completely oblivious to Angelides himself, and actually stepped in front of the candidate to wave at the crowd. A tin ear is just a symptom of Kerryosis.

[clarice]

The NYT has basically admitted Kate just made it up.

http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6524

Via Larwyn--Kerry's a Manchurian candidate programmed years ago by Rove to destroy the Dem party.

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-kerry-should-not-talk-about-war.html

I'm of a notion that the McCain-Feingold Act which I regard as a constitutional abomination was really a Rovian plot to destroy the old media by cutting them free to indulge in their most outrageous pimping for the left ,destroying their credibility and cutting their readership to a vanishing point.

[sylvia]

Thanks JM Hanes for trying. I tried both of those links and neither worked for me. But video links never seems to work for me anyway. Everytime I try one I have to download some other version of Player or whatever else program is around and even if I do, it still never seems to work. Am I the only one with this problem? It must be because I'm a tech geek. Anyway thanks for the effort at least.

[sylvia]

Oh wait- being a "tech geek" means I'm good at tech - like "bad" means good now. I'm a tech nerd? Nah, that doesn't work either. Okay, I'm just not good at tech - there you go.