QandO: The Birth--and, perhaps, death?--of an Anti-Kerry Ad

August 20, 2004

The Birth--and, perhaps, death?--of an Anti-Kerry Ad
Posted by Jon Henke

The New York Times has an article on the Swift Boat Veterans sure to propogate around the blogosphere in short order today. Kerry supporters will write--not unreasonably--that it is a vindication of Kerry, and a refutal of the Swift Boat Veterans. Kerry critics will claim--not unreasonably--that the stort is one-sided.

Kerry supporters, it seems to me, will have the strongest case, though. The vindications and rebuttals contained in the story are not insignificant. Though, others--the connections to the Republicans and the Bush campaign, for example--are so tenuous and removed as to be a bit laughable.

I'll list some of the major points...

* Some of those SBV's weren't always so critical of Kerry. In fact, they weren't critical at all....

* The SBV's "remembered" much of their story after "an indoctrination session"...

* SBV's stories occassionally were contradicted....at which point, said SBV stopped talking to the press. (hardly a credibility enhancing move)

* SBV's had previously corroborated accounts they now challenge...

* Various Naval reports contradict the SBV story....

* If you're going to criticize Kerry for not releasing his records, you'd better not do this...

* The Christmas in Cambodia story may not be a matter of whether Kerry was there, but whether he was there in December or January....hardly a "victory" for the SBV's.....

Those are not minor problems, and the SBV's credibility is deeply in question - especially with the disclosure that so many of them had made statements about Kerry exactly opposite to those they are currently making.

To be fair, other criticisms of the SBV are much less damning.

The allegations that they know Bush supporters, are connected to people who support Bush....or even people who know people who are connected to Bush. That's the sort of "connect the dots" nonsense that Michael Moore ran with in Fahrenheit 911, and it's proof of very little, really. (an anti-Democrat 527 is supported by pro-Bush people? You don't say!)

The charges that Corsi has written "anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic comments": while accurate, and certainly damning to Mr Corsi, it's pretty irrelevant to the charges brought by the Swift Boat Veterans.

The claim that "Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr. Kerry": that a medic, rather than a doctor, filled out paperwork should come as little surprise to anybody. (c'mon, haven't you ever watched MASH?!?! Make Radar a medic, and you've got Carreon!)

All in all, a fairly one-sided story--note the very limited "other side"--but the criticisms appear valid and damning to the Swift Boat Veterans. It's encumbent on Kerry's critics to recognize that the Swift Boat Veterans may very well be incorrect....or worse.

UPDATE: Of course, individual mileage varies, so let's see what others are saying...[updated as I find more]

John Cole, on the 527's...

Roger L Simon, on the Cambodia story...

Paul, at WizBangBlog...

UPDATE II: Dale Franks disagrees with me, and gives his reasons in this post. He makes reasonable points, which is something that's missing from this debate in much of the 'sphere. I really would like to hear the left address some of the SBVs specific charges--and rebuttals of this NYT story--without dipping into ad hominem and absolutist rhetoric.

It seems to me there's an interesting debate to be had on the margins here. Unfortunately, many people have already chosen their side, and they're not moving.

Note: this criticism is addressed at the 'sphere in general, and not at my co-bloggers, who--as I read them--have been pretty reasonable, even when we disagree.
.....which is why I pay more attention to their point of view than, for example, people who write things like this

So now, Kerry lied Thurlow into a medal?
[...]
The big question is: why did we give a man this stupid a gun and control of a boat in which he was responsible for the lives of other men?

That's great red meat for partisans, but hardly an instructive question. I'd prefer to read pundits who are willing--or even able--to question both sides. Just a little even-handed skepticism about what is, let's face it, an unverifiable-from-both-sides event.

TrackBack

Comments

Haven't had a chance to look at it in detail, but one thing that jumped out right away concerned Schachte and the skimmer. I don't recall (I'll have to look) Schachte ever claiming to have been on the skimmer. He was the OiC of the Swift Boat which towed the skimmer out and stayed there in support of the skimmer mission. Zaladonis, who was on the skimmer, has been quoted as saying he has no idea if they were receiving fire as he was firing an M-60.

Mr. Lonsdale, who did not attend, said the meeting had been planned as "an indoctrination session."

Sounds like an opinion. If he wasn't there, its rather hard to give that opinion credibility.

Sharing stories and experiences to flesh out events doesn't necessarily mean it was indoctrination.

I'll have to look at the others later.

Posted by: McQ at August 20, 2004 08:12 AM

Nothing Of Importance Defense Strategy
1) Attack messenger and/or whoever paid for the horse he rode in on. Require messenger to prove own purity.

2) Equivalency Spin "Howcome you don't examine the opponent for his whatevers". Misdirect the conversation ignore the validity (or lack thereof) of the message.

TV Version
Repeat 1 & 2 above loudly begining with third word from opponent. Shout down any who want to focus on the harmful message. (example see CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS)

Goal
At no point does anyone ever examine the details of the charges. Moderators will comply as "good TV" is their main goal. Noisy Conflict is presumed to be good TV

The Primaries showed each candidate as one who could attack Bush Best. This fit the ABB anger. It did not test or reveal the candidates to the public. Result, nobody knows Kerry.

The only one who ran a positive, non-ABB Primary campaign was Edwards. Edwards is the VP Candidate. If Kerry resigns.... (supply your own scenario).

Posted by: Andy at August 20, 2004 08:46 AM

If one assumes that the NYT is a neutral observer then we can take much of the reportage at face value. However, I have, thus far, not seen a a valid neutral observer role for the NYT in all of this. This is an attack piece. It's goal is to attack the periphery of the SVT credibility while leaving the Kerry camp untouched. There is no neutrality in the reporting. no objective observer.

How many stories on Bush AWOL, how many times did they ask the Dentist if it was possible that he signatures were forged. In the Bush AWOL, the NYT took an aggressive attack stance against Bush based on the most flimsy evidence.

Posted by: capt joe at August 20, 2004 08:50 AM

I've granted that it's a fairly one-sided story, but that doesn't change the relevance of the criticisms the story makes. They are largely valid, I think, and troubling.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 20, 2004 09:06 AM

Show of hands - After being indisputably misquoted in a hit piece by the Boston Globe, would you agree to an interview with that paragon of journalistic integrity, the NY Times? Anyone? Anyone?

As for the 1996 thing, it's another example of that event being taken out of context: Kerry was being accused of war crimes and these people stepped up and defended him in that situation. That's credibility-enhancing, IMO. The other quotes look taken out of context as well. The NYT story is very thin gruel indeed.

Posted by: HH at August 20, 2004 09:08 AM

First a meta point: With the publishing of these point by point refutations of the SBV charges in the NYT, the SBVs have officially "arrived" as an opposition group to Kerry. The Kerry campaign will now never be able to define their candidate independent of the SBV charges. Whatever the details, whatever the positive spin put on it by the NYT (for Kerry), it is very serious for Kerry's campaign.

On the details, I don't think it is as bad for the SBV as you make it sound. The article has a cafeteria feeling to it.

Some of those SBV's weren't always so critical of Kerry. In fact, they weren't critical at all.... Some of the examples they cite are not so laudatory of all. More importantly, they don't appear to have asked Lonsdale, the most gushing of their examples, about his switch, though I guess they appear to have asked him about other things. The NYT further hints that Brinkley's book with Kerry contains some mistruths about Lonsdale. While the "he said she said" is always very weak, while trying to find a motivation for Lonsdale to attack Kerry, the NYT could have opened the door to more questions.

The SBV's "remembered" much of their story after "an indoctrination session"... This characterization from one guy who wasn't there. And of course the SBV coordinate; they're an organization against Kerry! Just like MoveOn and their billionaire sugar daddy Soros, SBV is an organization that has meetings and gets money from Bush supporters. So what? The question still is why did they form/join the organization, and is there any truth to what they say?

SBV's stories occassionally were contradicted....at which point, said SBV stopped talking to the press. (hardly a credibility enhancing move) Yeah, with regard to Elliot, because the press mis-represented what he had to say. That's what he said in his second affadavit. The NYT could have dug a little deeper into it, like perhaps quoting the second affadavit where he said that the Boston Globe misquoted him. Would you keep talking to the press if they misquoted you?

If you're going to criticize Kerry for not releasing his records, you'd better not do this... True, but the pressure will still be high on Kerry to release the records. In the end, nobody cares about Thurlows records. He maybe liked getting a Bronze star, and figured that all he had to do was shut up about it and he could keep it. The real question is: was there enemy fire that day? What do the other vets say?

* The Christmas in Cambodia story may not be a matter of whether Kerry was there, but whether he was there in December or January....hardly a "victory" for the SBV's..... Yeah, right. I search for the phrase "seared, seared - in me" in the article. Conveniently for Kerry, the NYT failes to mention that Xmas in Cambodia was a formative event in Mr. Kerry's life, according to Mr. Kerry.

In the end, the NYT leads with a devastatingly simple truth: that many of the SBV are angry with Kerry for his public testimony painting them as evil war criminals in the early 70's. By focusing so hard on his Vietnam service, Kerry has awoken forces mainly in opposition to his senate testimony from back then. I think it is appropriate to remind people that when the US pulled out of Vietnam, some 200,000 Vietnamese were sent to concentration camps, and tens of thousands died. Maybe round 2 will be a Vietnamese from the Los Angeles Little Saigon area testifying to this fact in juxtaposition with Kerry's testimony.

Posted by: pdq332 at August 20, 2004 09:08 AM

What a hack-ridden hit piece.

1) OH NO! REPUBLICANS FUND THE AD!!!!!!!!! Wow, what a shock. This is the same fricking times that a few weeks ago was writing stories about how lucky the Kerry camp was that MoveOns ad strategy conveniently filled in gaps where Kerry decided to go dark for a couple of weeks. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, nothing wrong there I guess. When the NYT writes an editorial condemning all the Soros funded 527's - then I'll give anything they say creedence. Until then, they can go shit in their hats. Millions of dollars spent in Kerry's defense, no problem. Now 1 ad gives it back to Kerry, it's suddenly an affront to the nation.

2) Can they acknowledge that the Christmas in Cambodia story is something the SwiftVets were vindicated on???

3) So the Times ignores the controversy....until the exact moment that Kerry stops dithering and fights (though again, Kerry can't seem to fight on the facts, just some laughable twaddle about Bush). Makes me wonder if the NYT is a 527 for Kerry. They're sure acting like it.

Who gives a flaming f**k what the Times says.

Posted by: shark at August 20, 2004 09:08 AM

I've granted that it's a fairly one-sided story, but that doesn't change the relevance of the criticisms the story makes

The NY Times has been known to fabricate things before...why do they deserve the benefit of the doubt now? Because they hired an ombudsman who's just as bad as the rest of the sorry crew over there? Woopee

Posted by: shark at August 20, 2004 09:12 AM

With all this complaining by bothe the WaPo and NYT of the SVT refusing interviews, let's put this into perspective.

Those of Kerry's "Band of Brothers", i.e his supporters are verbotten to give interviews without approval of the Kerry campaign.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200408160842.asp

So why no mention of this? Well I have a feeling that this isn't the point for the Water Kerrying Media.

Posted by: capt joe at August 20, 2004 09:16 AM

Thurlow is going to sign form 180.

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/he_akamai_swiftvetrebuts.html

When will Kerry? And When will the NYT be honest enough explain the diiference to their readers rather than slur Thurlow for not releasing his records and ignore Kerry.

Posted by: capt joe at August 20, 2004 09:22 AM

So while Thurlow's boat had bullet holes, Kerry's did not.

http://idexer.com/misc/pcf94_damage.jpg

The explanation of why so few bullet holes is odd given that they were attacked by a numerically superior force.

One could say that the holes in thurlow's boat were friendly fire during a moment of panic for everyone.

Again, the relevance of this part of the NYT piece is interesting

Posted by: capt joe at August 20, 2004 09:27 AM

The Kerry camp is trying strong arm tactics. If Bush did this to Moore, it'd be pandemonium on the left.

http://www.drudgereport.com

Posted by: HH at August 20, 2004 09:30 AM

Forget the NYT for just a moment.

See the Malkin interview (interrogation) from Hardball last night. It says more about this story than anything else.

Matthews ripped Malkin a new one.

The truth doesn't change with regard to our ability to stomach it.

Posted by: mkultra at August 20, 2004 09:30 AM

It's interesting that so many on the right are engaging in the same sort of "attack the messenger, rather than the message" tactics they ridicule in attacks on the SBV.

Look, the debate over the credibility of the NYT might be an interesting one, and it may impinge on this story, if this story contains falsehoods. In the meantime, the story contains some troubling problems for the SBV's, and the respectability (or lack thereof) of the NYT does not give the SBVs a pass on those problems.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 20, 2004 09:35 AM

Yes Jon, true enough. However, I think you will admit that any facts will be embarrassing if they are should out of context or clipped (ala Moore). So the question of how facts are presented is as important to the facts themselves. Has the NYT started to take a page from Moore.

Consider the handy dandy chart.

http://nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820_SWIFT_GRAPH.html

From the top, it appears that it appears that degrees of separation are a fact in evidence. If I know someone who knows someone who is on the other side then my story must be suspect. What happened to actual proof of malfeasance? Slipppery slope, very slippery.

and as for the bottom

(critism borrowed from John Moore of Uselful fools)
1) Elliott slightly changed the word of an affidavit but not in a significant manner.

2)Hoffman - said good things about Kerry in the past. Context, folks, Context.

3)Letson - didn't sign off the medical paperwork. Normal procedure, as is obvious.

4)Lonsdale (they could have found more if they had tried) - defended Kerry from war crimes charges and general boosted him in 1996. Several swiftee, knowing that war crimes had not been committed by their unit, defended Kerry against war crimes charges that year.

5)Van Odell. Bronze star citation has enemy fire in incident where he (along with 3 other skippers who were present) says there was no enemy fire.

Posted by: capt joe at August 20, 2004 09:50 AM

Mkultra,

It was worth viewing that program just to see Michelle. ;)

Matthews ambushed Malkin and then kicked her off before she could respond to his bloviation. She was asked to talk about national security and he starting asking her about SVT stuff.

I think that Matthews has completely lost any vestige of authentic journalism. His is becoming a more vociferous and less endowed Rush.

Posted by: capt joe at August 20, 2004 09:54 AM

Also interesting is that the author Jim Rutenberg wrote not a mere 2-3 weeks ago (August 5, 2004, Thursday) about how the 527's were working to help Kerry through August. (sorry no link, since it requires paying).

These 527's are the likes of MoveOn, CEIP, Media Matters, etc.

I guess that the NYT doesn't mind slippery truths so long as they are focussed on Bush but not Kerry.

Imagine being worried about an organsation that has $158,750 (http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527events.asp?orgid=61)

Posted by: capt joe at August 20, 2004 10:09 AM

The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'... 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag... Developing

Wow, Kerry hates that pesy free speech thing doesn't he. I guess he should be calling for theaters to stop showing F9/11 and for retailers to not sell the DVD...

Posted by: shark at August 20, 2004 10:18 AM

There is a reason Kerry received all those glowing recommendations while in country. He is a tough sonofabitch. I don't really think Rove gets that - but he is learning fast.

Posted by: mklutra at August 20, 2004 10:23 AM

Some of the examples they cite are not so laudatory of all. More importantly, they don't appear to have asked Lonsdale, the most gushing of their examples, about his switch, though I guess they appear to have asked him about other things.

Lonsdale appeared on WRKO in Boston this morning. He stated that his opinion of Kerry changed after reading stories in Kerry's "Tour of Duty" that didn't match what actually happened.

Speaking of which, 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag is a pretty cruel stab in Doug Brinkley's back. Or perhaps Mr. Clanton was referring to something else.

Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at August 20, 2004 10:47 AM

From the Kerry Spot:

Arrrgh! It was not just a "tough election fight"! Kerry had been charged with war crimes by a Boston Globe columnist based on flimsy evidence (how one of his 'band of brothers' story could be interpreted). They didn't endorse him for the Senate, didn't endorse him for President. The overwhelming tone of their comments and the event was "we don't like seeing our guys accused of war crimes without evidence." And the New York Times picked up this talking point from the Kerry campaign without checking. The Kerry folks were handing out this talking point at the first Swift Boat Vet press conference.

Anyone who uses the 1996 appearance as an *attack* on the Swiftees a) has no idea what they're talking about or doesn't care about the truth and b) is taking talking points from the Kerry campaign, period.

Here's Malkin on Matthews.

Posted by: HH at August 20, 2004 10:51 AM

Nice summary.
What I'd love to see is if the NYTimes thinks the SBVT are lying; then just do a story about Kerry's own inconsistancies on these matters. These are well documented in the blogs.

Posted by: Todd Horrell at August 20, 2004 10:57 AM

I thought the piece was predictably partisan, but far less damaging to the Swifties than you. In fact, I found points of support for for them (ok I will reread it)in terms of some the smaller pieces of it. In sum, not damaging with the side benefit of legitimizing the story in the *spit*"main stream media"*spit*.

Posted by: JingoJim at August 20, 2004 11:09 AM

Kerry wants the book banned. What next, burned!?

I'm sorry. Kerry has officially crossed the line. Kerry=Fascist

Posted by: shark at August 20, 2004 11:37 AM

Imagine the outcry if Bush asked that Fahrenheit 9/11 be pulled from circulation because it was riddled with falsehoods. Hell, the whining from Moore over Disney not distributing the film was loud enough.

Kerry is calling for a book to be banned. There is no defending that position.

Posted by: Steverino at August 20, 2004 12:35 PM

Weren't some of these people also implying that John McCain fathered a mixed-raced child? What else did they say? Oh yeah, John McCain wasn't really fighting because he was shackled and getting bitch-slapped, and stupid too for not joining the National Guard instead. I think the extent these people will go to script a story is important to know up front. Why do they deserve the benefit of the doubt now?

Posted by: Wm D at August 20, 2004 12:35 PM

Isn't the relevant book burning comparison to 'Fortunate Son'. I think the Kerry campaign is trying to crack open the cocaine door, with complete deniability, of course.

Posted by: Wm D at August 20, 2004 12:39 PM

Wm D, can you cite any evidence to back up those charges?

I won't hold my breath waiting, by the way.

Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at August 20, 2004 12:41 PM

To the person coding this site:

On my system (Windows XP Pro, IE 6 with all patches except SP2) and for these comments for this post, the window is non-resizable and too narrow for the content. I have to keep scrolling left and right to read everything. The other comments for other posts mostly do not have this problem. Is there an easy way for you to fix this?

Posted by: Rory Daulton at August 20, 2004 01:27 PM

I saw a clip from a 2000 debate recently where Bush charged McCain with not really being a hero because he was POW and didn't really fight. Ted Sampley, the guy who got the ball rolling calling McCain the Manchurian Candidate for selling out to Hanoi and Moscow, doesn't have too keen a fondness for George H W Bush either for bailing out on his fellow aviators and leaving them for dead at the bottom of the Pacific. I'll bet there are none too few WWII vets who don't deserve their medals either.

I don't know is Merrie Spaeth was involved in the South Carolina push polling, but Rove is responsible any way you slice it. Apparently they had different versions of McCain fathering the nigger half-breed including with a prostitute. These folks are class acts.

Lance, I don't have time to develop a complete dossier on this, so why don't you pretend you're John Kerry and refute the allegations.

Posted by: Wm D at August 20, 2004 03:24 PM

Even if one were to grant your ill-sourced notions about how Bush & Co. campaigned in South Carolina (Which I don't, by the way. Which debate are you referencing where Bush made this supposed comment? Please provide a link to a transcript, or at a minimum explain which debate you're discussing.), we aren't discussing the Bush campaign - we're discussing the SBVT. Your mention of Mr. Sampley is utterly irrelevant as he has nothing to do with them.

As for Ms. Spaeth, she's a publicist who tends to work for Republicans, and starred opposite Peter Sellers in a movie I quite enjoyed not that long ago. Is that supposed to be scandalous?

My request remains on the table.

Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at August 20, 2004 05:49 PM

Bush didn't level any charges directly, McCain got in a huff:

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, let me tell you what happened. There was an ad run against me. We ran a counter-ad in New Hampshire. Governor Bush took the ad down. But let me tell you what really went over the line. Governor Bush had an event and he paid for it, and stood next to a spokesman for a fringe veterans group. That fringe veteran said that John McCain had abandoned the veterans. Now, I don't know how, if you can understand this, George, but that really hurts.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah.

Here's more on push polling: here and here.

Posted by: Wm D at August 20, 2004 07:47 PM

I'm sorry you found that bit too harsh for your tastes, but it might behoove you to read the post itself and the information I supplied rather than throwing up your hands in a bout of impotent superiority.

Posted by: Jesse Taylor at August 20, 2004 08:57 PM

I did read your post--a few times, in fact--but it seemed to me to take the same tact that you use far too often. That is, you obscure complexities by mocking your opponents.

This SBV story is a far, far more complicated issue than either side seems willing to admit, and both sides have some serious 'splainin to do. Unfortunately, it seems like partisans on both sides are doing exactly what you did in your post. Mock the other side, assume they are liars, and cut out without really examining the real questions raised.

Now, perhaps you've already determined that Kerry and his witnesses are right, whereas 200+ SBVs are all--to a man--liars. And perhaps you are right. But it's hard to see how you've reached that conclusion, except by the same blind partisan faith that others have used to conclude that Kerry is a liar.

In short, there's an awful lot of mockery around this issue, which is a poor, poor substitute for serious, thoughtful analysis.

Of course, mockery is much better red meat for the wolves, isn't it? And it saves you the trouble of arguing on the margins, instead of in absolutes.

Perhaps there's something to that, but you're shortchanging yourself. You're capable of really educating people, instead of just being a party-flack. You're smarter than that.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 20, 2004 09:12 PM

Well, Wm D, that's nothing at all like what you claimed Bush said. Odd you could so badly misquote Bush considering how "recently" you saw the clip from the debate. Also, if you're going to cut and paste a piece of the transcript from that debate the least you could do is include Bush's response to the charge.

Your two links to push polling stories have nothing to do with the SBVT or include anything that supports your claims, so I'm not sure what the point of including them was, except perhaps as an attempt to change the subject.

Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at August 20, 2004 10:10 PM

Isn't the relevant book burning comparison to 'Fortunate Son'.

Not quite the same thing

Bush never demanded that the publisher pull the book. There's a difference.

Posted by: Steverino at August 21, 2004 12:07 AM

The definitive story on Hatfield was written by Mark Schone and published last year in the Oxford American. Unfortunately it's not available online, but it has been reprinted in "Killed:
Great Journalism Too Hot to Print" edited by David Wallis.

Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at August 21, 2004 01:17 AM