QandO
Questions and Observations| « Where do we get such men? | Main | Kerry for Troop Realignment before he was against it » |
|
August 19, 2004 The Media Plays Defense I'm having a bit of trouble piecing this Washington Post story together....(alt: here) Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.Now, if Thurlow wrote the report that was the basis for that citation, then he's pretty clearly dishonored himself, either then or now. On the other hand, we already knew Kerry's citation said there had been small arms fire, and I would assume the citations were issued based on the same set of reports, so it's hardly news that other citations were consistent with John Kerry's citation. In short--assuming Thurlow did not author the initial report--the question is not whether Thurlow's citation is consistent with the SBV's story, but whether the initial after-action report is representative of their view or of John Kerry's view. So, this new information really doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. Actually, that's not true. It tells us one thing. This story tells us that the Washington Post is willing to use a Freedom of Information Act....but only against Kerry's critics. John Kerry's complete records are still flying under the media radar. The day after John F. Kerry said he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters, a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving undisclosed many of Kerry's evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material.UPDATE: As "Just a Dad" points out, Kerry has released some of his records since this report. However, he has not released all of his FITREPs, medical records, etc. Selective release isn't the same thing as complete release. And the media doesn't seem willing to subject those records to the same sort of inspection to which they've exposed Kerry's critics. Or President Bush. The Associated Press asked a federal judge Friday to order the Pentagon to quickly turn over a full copy of President Bush's military service record.* A Google News search for FOIA requests for Bush records from the AP returns 5 stories. * A Google News search for FOIA requests for Kerry records from the AP returns....nothing. But they have time to find out that the Thurlow medal citation for March 13, 1969 tells us what we already knew the reports indicated for that day. Though, not, apparently, enough time to find out whether that initial report is based on Kerry's version of events, or that of others. Kerry supporters are jumping on this story rather quickly--apparently, they have some insight into the genesis of this citation that would differentiate it from the questions surrounding the Kerry citation--though, not as quickly as they failed to demand of Kerry the same thing they demanded of Bush.....a complete records release. Note: the usual caveat applies. I'm agnostic about the veracity of claims on either side, doubtful that they can be proven either way, and perfectly willing to concede that Thurlow has--at best--been disingenuous in accepting a medal for an action, while disagreeing with the description of the action. Nevertheless, the one-sided partisanship of the attempts to get to the bottom of this is instructive. UPDATE: It's also worth noting the almost complete lack of interest in public domain information that appears to contradict Kerry's story. Of course, since the source of those apparent contradictions is John Kerry, it's hard to see how they can call it a smear campaign. UPDATE II: James Joyner makes a point I'd like to echo, and expound upon... So far as I'm concerned, the Navy awarded him a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with "V" device, three Purple Hearts, and an Honorable Discharge. That's sufficiently decisive for me, just as George W. Bush's Honorable Discharge ends for me any concern over his service in the Guard.I absolutely agree with this. 100%. So, why am I posting about it? Well, you'll note I have not called Kerry a liar, or accused him of falsifying his war experience. My interest in this story--and stories like this...Bush/AWOL, for example--is a two-parter:
I had--and have--no problem with people examining the "Bush/AWOL" story, provided they remain equally skeptical of claims from Bush's critics and from Bush's supporters. Unfortunately, far too often, the case was closed as quickly as it was opened, based on that one little letter...(R). I worry that the same is being done with Kerry, but the facts and the stories are worth following nonetheless.. |
Jon,
I'm confused - can't we as private citizens FOIA Kerry's records as well?
Posted by: Elliot Fladen at August 19, 2004 08:33 AM
You can, indeed. Of course, it makes more of a splash--more pressure--if that FOIA requests carries with it the threat of "ink by the barrel" publicity.
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 19, 2004 08:45 AM
You reference April 24 article.
Since that time Kerry has posted his military records on the web site
It includes fitness reports.
Is there something missing from that site?
Posted by: just a guy at August 19, 2004 08:55 AM
Well, it cretinly is nice to see some reporters get motivated, even if it is for the defense of their candidate.
And as usual, please discount anything Oliver, Atrios and the rest of the Soros-funded hacks say.
Posted by: shark at August 19, 2004 08:58 AM
Kerry has released selected records, but far from all of them. Relevant FITREPs, medical reports, etc have not been released. (there's a form to authorize the release of all of those - SF 180)
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 19, 2004 08:59 AM
Relevant FITREPs,
There are fitness reports there. Are some missing?
There's also a casulty report.
Posted by: just a guy at August 19, 2004 09:10 AM
The intellectual dishonesty being displayed by some of those members of MSM just now waking up is astounding. The old report-the-allegation-as-basis-for-refutation is SOP and hardly worth remaraking.
It is the conveniently altered standards of credibility which they apply as circumstances warrant that is to me embarrasingly (for them) obvious. Here we see the WaPo accepting as holy writ that document which tends to refute a portion of the statement of a SVFT member, failing to address either the sources supporting the particular fact alleged, or acknowledging the numerous inconsistent statements on the matter by the candidate, his campaign or hagiographer.
The BG yesterday ran a Kranish story which addressed the Christmas-in-Cambodia question, and implied that the gravamen of SBFT's complaint was that "Nixon was not president in Christmas, 1968".
Piffle! This amounts to a straw man. It may be true this is a point of supporting evidence, but it is only one, and a minor one at that. Kranish completly avoided addressing any other grounds propounded to doubt Kerry's Christmas Story, or addressing his growing number of contradictory staements, or acknowledging the existence of numerous other allegations of subtantive prevarication of the candidate about his entire Vietnam service.
Aroused by such cherry-picking, I fired a an e-mail to the BG ombudsman, outlining a moderately complete list of charges about Kerry's claims of Cambodia service, as well as the circumsatnces of his having implied he has been a participant in or witness to certain events (e.g., Jan 28, 1969, firefight of PCF-94 in which Lt. jg Peck and Dave Alston were wounded). I avoided completely any discussion of whether Kerry deserved decorations. I took to task Kranish and the BG for intellectual dishonesty and partisanship and their apparent fear of a full and fair examination of the questions.
Funny; he hasn't responded.
Posted by: Jumbo at August 19, 2004 09:14 AM
Yes, there are gaps in his FITREP dates. There should be none. He hasn't released the FITREPS which fill those gaps. There are also medical reports and spotreps missing which would support (or not support) some of his medals. He promised Tim Russert when on his show that he would release all of his remaining records when Tim asked him to do so. To date he has NOT done so.
Posted by: McQ at August 19, 2004 09:17 AM
"Kerry has released selected records, but far from all of them."
True. As his campaign spokesman Meehan said yesterday, "Senator Kerry has released all military records that he gave to (the Boston Globe)." (paraphrase, but very close)
Hmmmm. Any wiggle room there?
Posted by: Jumbo at August 19, 2004 09:18 AM
Can you be more specific as to what you mean by the missing "relevant" reports? It's very frustrating to hear that such records are missing without any sort of indication of what they might be. Do you know that records of relevance are missing? Or are you guessing? It's also frustrating to see some (conservative) groups call for specificity in every and all details with respect to challanging the Swift Boat group, but yet offer only vague accusations about Mr. Kerry's missing records. It's also very strange that with all the controversy, at least in conservative circles, about Mr. Kerry's records that no enterprising reporter (surely there are a few conservative reporters) has found a way to get these "missing" records and has failed to use the FOIA to get them.
Posted by: Dave at August 19, 2004 09:21 AM
Dave: that's a fair point, and a reasonable request. I'll let McQ do the specifics on the unreleased documents, as he's (far) more knowledgable on the subject of military reports than I am.
McQ?
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 19, 2004 09:24 AM
So why hasn't anybody FOIA'd the records of Kerry then? I'm sure if you did it, then Instapundit linked to it, it would get plenty of coverage.
Posted by: Elliot Fladen at August 19, 2004 09:32 AM
Or is that the agency who would respond to the request is dragging its feet? Sorry for the simplicity of the question - I'm really quite new at this.
Posted by: Elliot Fladen at August 19, 2004 09:34 AM
FOIA's will not gain the release of medical or FITREPS due to privacy laws. Thus it requires the signature of the person they relate too in order for those records to be released. Kerry has promised to release all of those records (which would require his signature on the SF 180 to do so) and hasn't done so.
Posted by: McQ at August 19, 2004 09:40 AM
Found this last night through the SwiftVets site:
Judicial Watch Calls For Investigation Into Kerry’s Medals, Anti-War Actions
Perhaps this will help in getting all of his records released, and in determining who filed the after-action reports.
Posted by: Leslie at August 19, 2004 10:05 AM
I WILL call Kerry a liar.
We both know he's ben proven such time and again, Jon.
there's a major difference you're missing, here. Bush didn't make his military service the central part of his qualifications for the office. Kerry did. That, by it's nature opens the subject up to serious scrutiny. Too bad WaPo doesn't agree.
But as Greyhawk over at Muddville mentions:
"But President Bush, of course, didn't reach down into a river and pull Mr Rassman onto an Iowa stage, thus making his military record the centerpiece of his campaign. Bush's record, like Kerry's, was brought into play by Democrats. (And poured over by the press.)"
Posted by: Bithead at August 19, 2004 11:15 AM
Agreed. This information was available at least 10 days ago. Thurlow was on Inside Politics and talked about it. So if the "liberal" is so fond of Kerry, why did they wait a week and half to talk about it?
Posted by: mkultra at August 19, 2004 11:35 AM
Jon:
For the sake of evenhandedness here, if to you it is a big deal that Kerry's full file hasn't made its way to the public domain (and I have no knowledge that it hasn't), and if that is the criteria upon which you and others keep the issue of his records alive, then I suppose it is fair game to apply that same standard to Mr. Bush, is it not? As we know, Mr. Bush's full file is nowhere to be found, and there are major undocumented gaps in his record.
So if Kerry's critics want to hammer this issue as a negative against him, then they can't have it both ways and say criticisms of Bush aren't relevant because he got an honorable discharge. If you have a problem with Kerry because of an allegedly incomplete service record being in the public domain, but then turn around and say you support Mr. Bush while he also has gaps in his record, then your criticisms of Mr. Kerry are groundless and hypocritical.
Posted by: Steve Soto at August 19, 2004 11:36 AM
Question: If the WaPo is so liberal, so biased, and so clearly pro-Kerry, why do the Bush lovers care what it says, and whether the story is 'above the fold'?
Seriously. The WaTimes is clearly pro-Bush. And yet when a pro-Bush story appears there, you don't see liberals up in arms over it. They just assume there's a bias and move on.
Posted by: mklutra at August 19, 2004 11:40 AM
When George Bush cries out, "George Dubya Bush, reporting for duty!" at the GOP convention, why, we'll all join in the outcry for evenhandedness. In fact, if the media ever gave this story equal scrutiny as it did Bush's Guard record, I for one would STFU.
You're looking to draw a parallel with Bush and Kerry's disclosure, but Bush is running on his record as President. Kerry is running on his service. He could end the whole thing with that Form 180, you know?
Posted by: spongeworthy at August 19, 2004 11:43 AM
"If you have a problem with Kerry because of an allegedly incomplete service record being in the public domain, but then turn around and say you support Mr. Bush while he also has gaps in his record, then your criticisms of Mr. Kerry are groundless and hypocritical."
- - -Sounds reasonable. I would respond that:
1: I have not said I am supporting Bush. I'm an "undecided voter"...though, my indecision is largely whether I will vote against Kerry, or against Bush and Kerry.
2: I think it's reasonable to ask Bush to release his records. I'd be curious to know, specifically, which relevant records still need to be released...but fair is fair.
In the end, though, the issue is alive because it is a "he said/he said" problem. It's kind of hard to solve it without evidence, and it's hard to get evidence 35 years later. I'd give it a LOT less credibility if it were simply Kerry and the Navy Report VS a few other veterans. The fact that there are a couple hundred certainly lends to their credibility.
But I'm agnostic on the whole thing, and would not allow it to sway my opinion of John Kerry without hard, fast proof.
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 19, 2004 11:44 AM
As we know, Mr. Bush's full file is nowhere to be found, and there are major undocumented gaps in his record.
The difference is that Bush signed the 180, Kerry did not. If the records are incomplete because they just cannot be found, that's one thing. But if the records are incomplete because the candidate refuses to release them, that's another.
Question: If the WaPo is so liberal, so biased, and so clearly pro-Kerry, why do the Bush lovers care what it says, and whether the story is 'above the fold'?
Seriously. The WaTimes is clearly pro-Bush. And yet when a pro-Bush story appears there, you don't see liberals up in arms over it. They just assume there's a bias and move on.
Everyone should care when one of the leading newspapers, which purports to be conducting investigative journalism refuses to investigate one candidate for President, but will gladly investigate any of that candidate's critics.
And every time Fox news runs a story, there's a huge outcry from the lefties about how it's biased and not really news. That's a logical fallacy, criticizing the source of the report, rather than the facts.
Posted by: Steverino at August 19, 2004 12:40 PM
It is mostly Kerry's medical records regarding his wounds that are still unreleased. This is important because Kerry trumpets the fact that he has 3 Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star and there are allegations that he did not deserve them (he went around Hibbard, his CO - something you just do not do in the Navy or Marines - after being denied his 1st Purple Heart request).
From the Washington Times:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040422-121900-7315r.htm
Though the campaign released more than 120 pages of Navy records yesterday, Mr. Kerry still refused to release medical records that more thoroughly describe the injuries.
Among the records that the campaign will not release is any explanation for the injuries that led to Mr. Kerry's first Purple Heart, less than a month after going into combat.
Although the campaign won't release one document, called a "Sick Call Treatment Record," officials allowed the Associated Press to view it earlier this week. It said: "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl[ied] bacitracin dressing. Ret[urned] to duty."
FreeRepublic states:
These gaps include missing and incomplete fitness reports, missing medical records and missing records related to his medal awards.
*******
Again, this is important because it is the medals which are being contested and because there are allegations that Kerry was a loose cannon whose recklessness was a liability to the command. Admiral Zumwalt among others made this charge. Unfortunately he is no longer with us.
The easiest way for Kerry to refute the charges is to release all his FITREPS and medical records pertaining to his award injuries. And even then, since Kerry wrote up the after action reports, the FITREPS and medal citations could be based on bad info so they are not conclusive. To this day, it is not unknown for junior officers to submit a writeup for their own evals prior to a fitrep. Of course the writeup gets reviewed, but still the officer has the chance to make himself look good. Knowing all of this makes me wonder why Kerry didn't release ALL OF HIS FITREPS.
You have to understand the bizarre inflated language of FITREPS to know that an officer is often damned with faint praise (rather than actively dinged) to be able to evaluate his ratings. There are all sorts of little code phrases that would mean nothing to a reporter but speak volumes to someone familiar with the terminology.
Also, just looking at rankings is not always conclusive as the most senior officer (by date of rank) at the same rank can be ranked #1 relative to his peers, regardless of ability. Giving him any lower than that is a black mark. And different services have different conventions for FITREPS. I would think the only way to evaluate Kerry would be to compare his FITREPS to those of other officers in comparable duty at the same rank.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 19, 2004 03:17 PM
Jon Henke writes,
... the question is not whether Thurlow's citation is consistent with the SBV's story, but whether the initial after-action report is representative of their view or of John Kerry's view.
I don't have a copy of that, but several other veterans have come forward to support Kerry and Rassmann on the "enemy fire" issue:
Other surviving crew mates corroborate that account. "I was there," crew mate Del Sandusky told CNN. "I saw the bullets skimming across the water. I saw the firefight gun flashes from the jungle. I know the firefight and the ambush we were in."
Everybody aboard Kerry's boat, including Rassmann, says there was fire from both riverbanks, and the official after-action report speaks of all boats receiving "heavy a/w [automatic weapons] and s/a [small arms] from both banks." The Bronze Star citations for Kerry and Thurlow also speak of prolonged enemy fire.Does this suggest an answer to which version is better supported?
A report on "battle damage" to Thurlow's boat mentions "three 30 cal bullet holes about super structure." ...
Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river," said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry's.
Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks. Langhofer, who now works at a Kansas gunpowder plant, said he was approached several months ago by leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but declined their requests to speak out against Kerry.
Posted by: Raven at August 22, 2004 10:41 AM