16 Words, and What D'Ya Get?

Blogger Cynthia Johnston insists Kerry's Vietnam lies are merely political tall tales and thus won't influence the election:

[Carl] and his right wingnuts have started comparing Kerry's "lies" to Al Gore's "lies"s the centerpiece of their anti-Kerry diatribes. The former supposedly presenting with symptoms of False Memories which "justify" his policies. The latter having "claimed to be the inventor of the internet and the hero in Love Story". Carl says Kerry's "lies" have consequence.

Johnston supplies two arguments: First, President Bush's falsehoods are worse; and, second, Kerry's exaggerations are trivial. Neither is true.

1. Bush's Sixteen Words Were True: Johnston says the President overstated Saddam's ability to acquire nuclear fuel in his January 2003 State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium (yellowcake) from Africa." She belittles Bush's basis for the so-called "16 words":

   That's the litany all those right wingnuts recited ad nauseam when President Bush got caught with imaginary yellowcake on his hands. IT WAS ONLY SIXTEEN LITTLE WORDS, they bellowed and brayed, as if to justify their presence in the State of the Union Address.

   Liberals disputed the phrase--especially Joe Wilson, who visited Niger. Naturally, as Jeff Jacoby recounts in the Boston Globe,

   The Democratic National Committee cut an ad accusing Bush of deliberately deceiving the American people. And the press embarked on a classic feeding frenzy, turning loose a tidal wave of coverage and commentary.

   But Bush was vindicated, said a July 22nd Washington Post editorial, by "two major official reports, by the Senate intelligence committee and a special British commission." The British group left no doubt:

   We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa was well founded.

   Liberal icon (and former Kerry advisor) Wilson lied. But Bush's 16 words were accurate--even when trumpeted (never brayed) by "right wingnuts."



2. Kerry's Lies Are Frequent and Frightening: Johnston insists Kerry's fibs are like Clinton's, who famously perjured himself before a grand jury. She mentions Kerry's standard stump-speech story about a supposed victim of America's ineffective (mostly employer-provided) healthcare system--which President Kerry promises to fix. It turned out that the women--a Kerry delegate to the Dem convention--likes her insurance plan. Johnston downplays Kerry's tale as "apocryphal instead of accurate" and thus inconsequential.
   
   Not so. Kerry's fibs are the source of, and props for, his values and proposals.
   
   a) Testifying before the Senate in 1971, Kerry said American soldiers routinely committed war crimes. Kerry's charges were never substantiated. Anyway, Kerry's now proud of his service and of Vietnam vets.
   
   b) Kerry's consistently claimed special insight from a fake fire-fight in Cambodia, even during a Senate debate in 1986. Yet, Kerry's own diary says he was "relaxing" miles away that day; none of his crewmates confirm Cambodia. Ultimately, the Kerry campaign grudgingly conceded Cambodia was fiction.
   
   c) Kerry did more than embellish Ms. Knowles' story. Cancer wasn't enough; Kerry invented a problem--inadequate health coverage. Ms Knowles became a victim of cancer and the market--justifying liberal legislation.

3. Conclusion: There's a theme here. The Kerry tales all have the same ending--more control. Kerry's made-up memory, James Lileks says,

   taught him the necessity of standing up against evil governments, such as the ones we face today. In other words, [that] would not only be a lie, but one that eroded the political persona he was relying upon in the election.

   Kerry's acceptance speech said "help is on the way." A lame lede for a campaign, but appropriate for a doctor. Kerry looks a bit like an old fashioned medical man--impressive presence and demeanor; smart; a bit dreamy. Still, I wouldn't recommend "Dr. Kerry"--he only prescribes one remedy.
   
   The Senator's the same. The Sirens in Kerry's nightmares bellow warnings of President-elect Nixon's war crimes and markets un-mindful of Mary Anne. His too-vivid imagination thus becomes a rationale for regulation and paternalism.
   
   Cynthia, voters prefer authentic to ersatz. Kerry's not only been caught lying--apparently no longer fatal for Democrats--he's battling imaginary demons rather than specifying how his plan to halt Islamic terrorism differs from Bush's. So voters can more easily see that Kerry's other proposals are more Mondale than new millennium.
   
   In the last month, multiple investigations confirmed President Bush's "16 words" were not lies. In that same span, the only reason Kerry hasn't shot himself in the foot is that its stuck in his mouth. Kerry's just not Presidential.

More:

Further fractures in Kerry's leadership, according to Mark Steyn in the Spectator (U.K.):

[T]he party that likes to sneer that Bush never had a plan to deal with Iraq’s inevitable insurgents doesn’t seem to mind that Kerry never had a plan to deal with the Swiftees’ equally inevitable insurgents. A guy awash in gazillions from Barbra Streisand and co. who can’t see off a couple of hundred middle-aged ‘liars’ and their minimal ad-buy? Is that really the fellow you want to put up against al-Qa’eda, the ayatollahs and Kim Jong-Il?

Pre-Convention Predictions

The latest poll data gives President Bush a narrow lead. First, from Rightwingnews, national polls, which mostly give Bush a 1-2 point lead.

NBC/WSJ: Bush 47, Kerry 45, Nader 3
Gallup: Bush 48, Kerry 46, Nader 4
FOX News: Kerry 44, Bush 43, Nader 3
LA Times: Bush 47, Kerry 44, Nader 3
Rasmussen: Bush 47, Kerry 46 (released 8/26)

Next, state polls in key battleground states:

MO: Bush 46, Kerry 42, Nader 3
WI: Bush 45, Kerry 44, Nader 3
PA: Bush 45, Kerry 44, Nader 3
OH: Bush 46, Kerry 43, Nader 4

Finally, the reliabable Iowa Market Poll, showing price changes in Kerry and Bush futures since early June, has the President up by 6 nationwide.
Remember - the "convention bounce" (if any) is still to come.

Cambodia, You're On the Air

Don't miss the latest Swiftboat Vets ad. The 30 second spot features Steve Gardner--who was on Kerry's boat--and calls Kerry's story about Cambodia "a lie." As Instapundit notes, so much for Kerry's claim his Veteran opponents weren't shipmates.

Hypocrites for "Reform"

Bush's outside lawyer, Ben Ginsberg, resigned, after the Kerry campaign alleged violation of the election laws. The charge: the fact that Mr. Ginsberg also provided advice to the Swiftboat veterans group (a so-called "527"), making the Swifties "coordinated" with the campaign.

It's a bum rap. Ginsberg advised the Swifties--but his conduct was legal, moral, and epidemic among Democrats. (Full disclosure: I've worked with Ben Ginsberg on prior campaigns.)

As usual, big media's set the cover-up dial to "11." While detailing the Kerry campaign allegations, the NY Times conceded that Ginsberg was no different:

The campaign of Senator John Kerry shares a lawyer, Robert Bauer, with America Coming Together, a liberal group that is organizing a huge multimillion-dollar get-out-the-vote drive that is far more ambitious than the Swift boat group's activities. Mr. Ginsberg said his role was no different from Mr. Bauer's.

But consider this quote from the same story:

"It's another piece of evidence of the ties between the Bush campaign and this group," Chad Clanton, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry, said. Asked about his [i.e., the Kerry] campaign's use of shared lawyers, Mr. Clanton said, "If the Bush campaign truly disapproved of this smear, their top lawyer wouldn't be involved."

Read that again: the campaign is saying that when Democrats share lawyers, it's evidence of dirty tricks by Republicans!

Fortunately, there's alternatives to the "paper of record"--bloggers. In particular, blogger NZ Bear, who's coverage deserves a Pulitzer. Bear spots lawyers shared between the Democratic party and 527s:

Neil Reiff is listed as the contact person for MoveOn.org's 527 organization, as can be seen on the actual form submitted by MoveOn.org to the IRS here (PDF).

But Mr. Reiff seems to have another job. According to his firm's website, he's also the Deputy General Counsel for the Democratic National Committee.

But where's the press? They're dropping crumbs. Here an admission in AP:

Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the DNC and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org, said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once.

And today's NY Times follow-up only hints:

Republicans, in an e-mail message to reporters, listed several Democrats who they said showed connections between Democratic 527 groups, Mr. Kerry's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Among them were Zack Exley, the former organizing director for MoveOn.org's political action committee who now works for Mr. Kerry's campaign; Jim Jordan, the former campaign manager for Mr. Kerry who now works as a consultant for the liberal groups America Coming Together and the Media Fund; and Joe Sandler, who is a lawyer for both the Democratic National Committee and MoveOn.org.

Democrats said all of their activities were legal and that the groups are not leveling similarly personal and unsubstantiated charges against the president.

Is this English, asks Bear:

Gotta love that passive reporting! Heaven forbid that the Times might actually do some research and establish whether connections exist or not on their own. Nah, why bother --- there's a staff meeting in twenty minutes and this cruller is tay-stee.

Hello! It's over here. At least steal some solid information, for crissakes.

Newsmax fact-checked the Democrat party websites--and found plenty of "coordination" between Dems and anti-Bush 527 groups like MoveOn:

• The Democratic Party is partnering with MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Campaign for America's Future, and dozens of other groups. . .



• DNC Chief Operating Officer Josh Wachs (left), Senator Leahy, and Zack Exley from MoveOn.org pose with the more than 310,000 signatures.

And Bear's chart compares the funds raised by Swiftboat Veterans for Truth with those of the three George Soros-affiliated 527s. The Kerry campaign is several times more dependent on mega-funded, supposedly independent groups than the Bush folks are. So where's the Dem's beef? Thay say that sharing outside counsel is coordination. But even the WaPo says that's wrong. And there's no evidence of any wrongdoing, as the NY Times concedes Bush denied working with the Swifties: "Scott Stanzel, a Bush spokesman, said, 'There has been no coordination at any time between Bush-Cheney '04 and any 527.'" Indeed, Bush condemned all 527 electioneering, including the Swiftboat ad.

Moreover, the cannons of ethics prohibit lawyers from sharing confidences between clients. Although any client may waive this privilege, there was no waiver here. And Ginsberg provided only narrow advice to the 527. For the most part, John O'Neill--a founder of the Swiftboat group--has been their attorney.

So Ben Ginsberg fell on his sword for the President. Why should anyone care? First because of the media bias--conduct common among Dems is a scandal for a Republican. Second, because the underlying culprit is campaign finance reform. Both candidates seek to stifle speech--Kerry campaign asked the Federal Election Commission to stop the anti-Kerry Swiftboat TV commercials, and publishers to halt sale of their book "Unfit for Command." Recently, the Bush campaign threatened to sue all 527s. How is that "reform?" According to Robert Samuelson in Wednesday's Washington Post:

There's an indestructible inconsistency between the language of the First Amendment and campaign finance laws. . . .The Supreme Court upholds the campaign finance laws simply by ignoring the First Amendment's language.

NRO's Jonah Goldberg agrees:

What is so thoroughly absurd and tragic is how we've come to accept as the "enlightened" position in America that political speech needs to be regulated as much as the instructions on prescription drugs.

The long-term fix is repealing the "reform" of campaign finance laws. Too bad that's too late for Ben Ginsberg.

Why We Fight

The press bias quote of the week, published in--no suprise--Reuters:

U.S. marines have done most of the fighting in Najaf, which has killed hundreds, driven oil prices to record highs and touched off clashes in seven other southern and central cities.

(via Best of the Web)

Kerry=Gumby

The race is neck-and-neck. Not the Presidential election--the battle for cluelessness between the Kerry campaign and big media. With the election all but over, the real suspense is whether Kerry or the press get the Olympic gold medal for stupidity.

• First Kerry. The man's a cipher. As the nominee of a party dominated by anti-war Deaniacs, Kerry chose to link Presidential leadership with Vietnam service. Now, Kerry doth protest too much, methinks:

  But having first questioned Mr. Bush's war service, and then made Vietnam the core of his own campaign for President, Mr. Kerry now cries No mas! because other Vietnam vets are assailing his behavior before and after that war.

  Further, this isn't Kerry's first make-over: He's been re-inventing himself from the start, especially about Vietnam and the military. Such flip-flops offend all and please none, according to Ralph Peters:

  The first show-stopper problem with Kerry began after his return. He had the right to protest against the war -- more than most, since he had served himself. But he had not earned the right to lie about the honorable service of millions of others.
  
  Kerry's lies -- and they were nothing but lies -- about "routine" atrocities committed by average American soldiers and sanctioned by the chain of command were sheer political opportunism. Kerry knew that none of the charges were true. . .
  
  John Kerry lied. Without remorse. To advance his budding political career. He tarnished the reputation of his comrades when the military was out of vogue.
  
  Now, three decades later, camouflage is back in the fall fashion line-up. Suddenly, Kerry's proud of his service, portraying himself as a war hero.
  
  But it doesn't work that way. You can't trash those who served in front of Congress and the American people, spend your senatorial career voting against our nation's security interests, then expect vets to love you when you abruptly change your tune.

  Mark Steyn pronounces Kerry "strange, stuck-up . . . and stupid." But it's still more simple: Americans don't want Gumby for President.



• And then there's the press. The media are both sloppy and self-important. Sloppy because they first suppressed the story, then blasted the Swiftvets before investigating. Self-important because reporters like Boston Globe writer Tom Oliphant (a Kerry partisan who praises the Dem without disclosing that his daughter works for the Kerry campaign) presume lofty status as guardians of the truth:

  I think this is an allegation that has a credibility problem that I believe I can address on journalistic as opposed to political grounds. One of the things we look for, I mean, there is nothing new about a dispute over a war record with many of us in journalism that have been through many, many times.

  So the media mostly missed a central and undisputed point: Kerry claimed he infiltrated Cambodia, said the experience was central to his values--but made up the whole thing, as the Washington Post belatedly conceded by hosting a column by AEI's Joshua Muravchik:

  Most of the debate between the former shipmates who swear by John Kerry and the group of other Swift boat veterans who are attacking his military record focuses on matters that few of us have the experience or the moral standing to judge. But one issue, having nothing to do with medals, wounds or bravery under fire, goes to the heart of Kerry's qualifications for the presidency and is therefore something that each of us must consider. That is Kerry's apparently fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia.

  Why isn't Kerry's lie in 64 point type on every front page? Instapundit answers:

  A Kerry claim proven false, a retraction, and a retrenchment -- and absolutely no coverage at all. If we were seeing the same sort of questions raised about George W. Bush I think we'd be getting wall-to-wall coverage. It's as is they're letting their coverage be shaped by the fact that they want Kerry to win or something. Kind of makes you wonder what else they're leaving out.

  As Eugene Volokh says, "Good thing that people still read the reliable, credible Real Media instead of those nasty inaccurate, un-fact-checked blogs."



• The effect on voters. In a word, huge. It won't convince Bush haters to support the President. But swing voters care--and, as I've argued, others might abstain. Ralph Peters observes:

  I wish Kerry were better. The truth is that I'm appalled by Bush's domestic policies. I believe that the Cheney-Halliburton connection stinks to high heaven. And I'm convinced that Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld & Co. have done colossal damage to our military and to our foreign policy.
  
  But we're at war. And for all his faults, Bush has proven himself as a great wartime leader. Despite painful mistakes, he's served our security needs remarkably well. And security trumps all else in the age of terror.
  
  Kerry says many of the right things. But I can't believe a word of it. I just can't trust John Kerry. I can't trust him to lead, I can't trust him to fight -- and I can't trust him to make the right kind of peace.
  
  I have reservations about voting for George W. Bush. But I have no reservations about voting against John Kerry. And I'm not alone.

  Muravchik goes further:

  If -- as seems almost surely the case -- Kerry himself has lied about what he did in Vietnam, and has done so not merely to spice his biography but to influence national policy, then he is surely not the kind of man we want as our president.

• Conclusion. In decades to come, Senator John Kerry will be remembered as the man who lost Vietnam--twice. With two assists from the press. Give 'um both a gold medal.

Best Overview On Kerry, Vietnam and America

Tremendous essay. RTWT (read the whole thing). Now. (via Kerry Haters)

Kerry Voters--An Endangered Species?

Who is John F. Kerry? Got me. War opponent? Macho soldier? Kerry's been both--and neither. I've previously said Kerry's inconsistencies will cost votes.

I have a more nuanced position today: Kerry's flip-flops are so frequent and familiar that they will repel voters on both sides of the issues. The most obvious example is Vietnam. In accepting his party's nomination, Kerry relied on and praised America's military and its veterans:

And in this journey, I am accompanied by an extraordinary band of brothers led by that American hero, a patriot named Max Cleland. Our band of brothers doesn't march together because of who we are as veterans, but because of what we learned as soldiers. We fought for this nation because we loved it and we came back with the deep belief that every day is extra. We may be a little older now, we may be a little grayer, but we still know how to fight for our country.

But Kerry was a well-known war protester, who tossed his medals (or someone's medals) and pointed to supposed war crimes. Clearly, Kerry's Vietnam war dissent quickly morphed into distrust of the military and those who served. Lucianne quotes Kerry from his out-of print but available on the net book "New Soldier" (MacMillan Publishing, Co, Fall, 1971):

We will not quickly join those who march on Veteran's Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands of lives who died for the 'greater glory of the United States. We will not accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. We will demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently been able to provide. We will not uphold the traditions which decorously memorialize that which is base and grim.

True-blue lefty/pacifists won't be comfortable with Kerry's pro-military posture; Kerry's over-the-top loathing will repulse vets and pro-defense voters.

Vietnam's the hot button now, but expect future fireworks about Iraq. Kerry, of course, famously swerved to-and-fro, voting against the first gulf war, for invading Iraq, then opposing post-war funding. But the Senator raised the bar on indecision earlier this month in acknowledging he still would vote to invade Iraq even had he known we wouldn't find WMDs! Quite a concession--and fatal for Kerry, according to Adam Sparks in today's SF Gate:

That comment probably sealed the coffin for his presidential hopes, and the Lefties are squealing in contortions with this latest declaration. [S]o much of the leftist wing of the Democrat Party is made up of Deanie-weenies, who are both Saddam appeasers and unabashed peaceniks. This latest and startling revelation, that Kerry would also have pushed for a war of liberation in Iraq whether or not any WMDs were there, now means he should lose a good 10 percent of the vote -- those of the peace-at-any-price voters who have been turned off now that they realize there isn't a great deal of difference between the two major candidates. These people won't cross over and vote for Bush; they just won't go to the polls at all. Why bother? Kerry is now more gung-ho than Bush. He must have taken that Vietnam thing at the convention just a bit too seriously.

Something like 42 percent of likely voters believe "Bush=Hitler". They're never going to support the President. Instead, I've argued that re-election depends on persuading some to stay home November 2nd. Each no-show (or Nader fan) is half a vote for Bush.

Already Kerry's Iraq waffle prompted a blistering attack from ultra-lefty (and occasional NoKo apologist) Robert Scheer writing in The Nation. And at least one anonymous post on a San Diego "peace and social justice" board concurred: "Nader is the ONLY choice for progressives! Kerry is just Bush lite!"

It's a start.

Paris is Burning

A Jewish community center in Paris was torched early Sunday morning. The police suspect arson, especially after discovering

anti-Semitic graffiti and swastikas scrawled in red marker. Among the messages were "Without the Jews, the world is happy," "Hitler=France," and "SS."

Only a week ago, Church officials found similar graffiti on the grounds of Notre Dame Cathedral, including a swastika and the slogan "death to Jews."

Meryl Yourish has details, and explains why Chirac's failure to acknowledge the issue encourages more such crimes.

Media Boycott of Kerry's Tale Ends

The liberal media's stopped suppressing swirling questions about Kerry's Vietnam service. The New York Times and the Washington Post each ran two stories, the first (Times on Friday; WaPo on Thursday) adopting the Kerry line in its entirety. Both articles claimed the Swiftvets were lying (WaPo headline: "Records Counter a Critic of Kerry"); neither reported contrary evidence; neither mentioned Kerry's fable about Cambodia--despite his campaign already conceding the point. Typical.

The follow-ups (NYT Saturday and Sunday; WaPo Sunday) were a bit better. The Times still hasn't trusted readers with the truth, but acknowledges the Vietnam questions "slowed whatever momentum Mr. Kerry enjoyed after his convention" and "were taking their toll." The WaPo's article was more fair, but mostly focused on March 13, 1969, when Kerry qualified for his third Purple Heart and a ticket home.

So questions about Kerry's Vietnam record are popping up all over. PBS's Jim Lehrer played fair when questioning John O'Neill, co-author of Unfit for Command--and Kerry fan/Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant's attempted challenge flopped.

(Note: Oliphant never mentions his daughter works for the Kerry campaign. Hmmmm. A journalist with a relative inside a Presidential campaign? I thought that was verboten.)

Sunday's Chicago Trib interviews one of its own editors, William Rood, who defends Kerry (but, according to Beldar, doesn't address the issues most disputed). Newsweek's article is reasoned and balanced. Even the Kerry-friendly BBC is worried. In US News and World Reports, Michael Barone and John Leo see defects in Kerry's character--and the press response. Investor's Business Daily says Kerry must answer the Vets' claims. Amazingly, Kerry's Vietnam record is under fire from two lions of the left: Sydney ("Killing Fields") Schanberg and Alexander Cockburn. NZ Bear has a striking chart of the growth in media stories about Kerry's Swiftboat service.

And there's a new issue in town--except that it's three decades old. It's Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony claiming U.S. forces:

had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war.

Now, of course, Kerry praises Vets and bypasses war crimes. Yet another flip-flop. But, as Instapundit says, "this will be harder to spin." Saturday's WaPo spots the problem.

Some [of the Veterans] say they voted for Al Gore in the last election but are still deeply hurt by what Kerry did when he returned from battle. Kenneth Knipple of Erie, Mich., who served three years in Vietnam, backed Gore in 2000 but joined the anti-Kerry movement after leaning about it from a fellow vet. "For him to be wounded that many times and lie as many times as he did, I don't want him to be president," said Knipple, who served on Swift boats, but never with Kerry.

"I wasn't there at the time that happened," said Tony Gisclair, a veteran from Poplarville, Miss., who signed the letter, referring to Kerry's combat in Vietnam. "But look at what the man said about us when he came back."

Tony Snesko, a veteran in Washington, D.C., said he was "devastated" by Kerry's antiwar efforts, prompting him to sign on to the group's anti-Kerry message. Snesko said to see Kerry elected would give credence to the senator's claims that those who fought in Vietnam were reckless baby-killers: "At the point that he might possibly take over this country as president -- it would validate everything that he said about us and would make it appear true."

Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole oozes Senatorial courtesy, but still bristles:

"One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said. "The next day he's standing there, 'I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.

"Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam," said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.

Dole added: "And he's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."

So the second Swiftboat Vets ad, released Friday, is stunning. It focuses on the North Vietnamese using Kerry's testimony to sap the morale of their American POW captives. With Kerry's testimony droning in the background, various former POWs remember:

Ken Cordier [POW Dec. 1966-Mar. 1973]: That was part of the torture, was, uh, to sign a statement that you had committed war crimes.

Paul Gallanti [POW Jan. 1966-Mar. 1973]: John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I, an d many of my, uh, comrades in North Vietnam, in the prison camps, uh, took torture to avoid saying. It demoralized us.

The Dem response shouldn't surprise. Apparently believing that the First Amendment applies only to liberals, the NY Times calls the ad "outlandish . . .flackery" and all but urges censorship. The Kerry campaign sued to force the FEC to forbid the ads. Kerry also asked Bush to stop the ad--which would be impossible since the President didn't fund or create them.

As I've argued before, Kerry himself put Vietnam "in play":

Essentially, Kerry made Vietnam, and these men, the centerpiece of his campaign. Of course, that was when he thought they'd support his candidacy. No matter that he'd never bothered to ask their permission to use them to promote his political career. Now, however, the Kerry campaign is on a search-and-destroy mission to attack the credibility of these same men -- calling them liars, all 60 of them, and saying they didn't serve in the military with him. Really? Then why'd Kerry use their pictures in his ad campaign?

And Deborah Orin in the New York Post understands the potential consequences:

Not one of Kerry's Swift boat crewmates, even the ones backing his candidacy,recalls being in Cambodia in Christmas 1968 -- and anti-Kerry Swift boat veterans cite a host of evidence that he was 50 miles away in Vietnam. Why does it matter? Because Kerry has said the Cambodia incident -- of being sent on a covert mission to "a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops" was "seared" in his mind and changed his view of America.

Kerry's inability to resolve the Vietnam questions is undermining his chances in November, according to Scripps Howard's Martin Schram:

Privately, but no longer quietly, Democrats are beginning to despair. They cannot fathom why their man, John Kerry, cannot seem to fathom how easy it should be to put President Bush away, seize the high ground and take command of the issues of the war on Iraq and the war on terror. . .

Democrats despair because, given all of that, a majority of America's voters still tell pollsters they believe that Bush, not Kerry, can better command the war on terror. And mainly, the Democrats privately despair because they know why the people feel that way. They know it is because Kerry has been pathetically unable to answer, clearly and forthrightly, the simplest questions about the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Kerry cannot explain just what he would have done and what he will do now to better command and win the unwon war on terror.

Democrats say privately they don't know what is wrong with Kerry. Here is what's wrong: The Democratic presidential nominee has no clearly defined conceptual framework that is the basis of what he thinks about the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the race remains essentially tied, with the Republican convention and official campaign ads still to come. And Kerry's strategy is risky, says RealClear Politics: "[Kerry's] provided a big opening for more coverage of Kerry's antiwar past and thus have given up, at least to some degree, control over the narrative of the central rationale for their candidate's bid for the White House." In sum, this week may be remembered as when President Bush turned the corner.

More:

The beginning of the end? The Boston Globe says Kerry's campaign deleted 20 more pages of military records from the website. And the NY Times quotes an unnamed Kerry adviser:

When you're basically running on your biography and there are ongoing attacks that are undermining the credibility of your biography, you have a really big problem.

(via Instapundit) NZ Bear agrees: "it is over. The head has been cut off the Kerry candidacy; the body just hasn't realized it yet."

Still More:

Two more articles Monday. First, Roger Franklin in Business Week:

After 19 years in the Senate, the achievement on which he has chosen to place the most stress in proving he has the mettle to occupy the White House is a four-and-a-half-month tour as a junior officer in a war that America lost.

"Reporting for duty," Kerry told Boston's Democratic conventioneers, snapping a smart salute on the night he accepted his party's nomination. . . Back when George McGovern was their hero and Kerry was accusing his former comrades of tormenting Vietnam "in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan," none of them were hailing the legions of other young men who dutifully reported at recruiting stations and induction centers. Cheering? Jeering, more like.

An observer with an eye for consistency can only be struck by the aspiring President's explanation for that change of heart. That was then, he has said, when he was younger and less inclined to curb his tongue. Those accusations he made of rape and the lopping off of ears, committed by U.S. soldiers, were "excessive," he has said.

Business Week also printed a (less persuasive) opposing column by Thane Peterson.

Second, Mackubin Thomas Owens in NRO:

What seems to offend the Swifties, as well as other Vietnam veterans, is that after having made his political debut as an anti-Vietnam War activist, Kerry is now playing the hero, pointing to his Vietnam service as the reason he should be president, and campaigning with his "band of brothers." This is hypocrisy of the highest order.