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.

From Today's Charlotte Observer

(via Instapundit)

Kerry: Flip-Flopping Away

Does Senator John Kerry stand for anything? Apparently not. Here's Kerry on August 11th, blasting President Bush's proposed troop draw-down in Europe and Korea:

Wednesday Mr Kerry said the president's withdrawal plan was misguided. "Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars, but it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way," he said. "Why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea - a country that really has nuclear weapons?" he added. He said the move risked alienating US allies at a time when the support of such allies is needed in the global fight against al-Qaeda.

And, courtesy of Just One Minute, here's Kerry just ten days earlier (August 1) on ABC’s "This Week":

If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has had very little imagination, enormous sort of ideological fixation and, frankly, took its eye off the war against al Qaeda and the war on terror shifting it to Iraq at enormous cost to the American people and to the legitimacy of the war on terror.

So, yes, Kerry does have principles--he favors whatever George Bush doesn't. Vice President Cheney ridiculed Kerry's waffle:

Just over two weeks ago, Senator Kerry talked about the merits of troop realignment in Europe and Asia. 'There are great possibilities open to us,' he said. Yesterday he said it was a bad idea. The one consistency we have seen from Senator Kerry is that he is willing to take any position on any issue if he thinks it will benefit him politically. As we saw yesterday, these political calculations even include his positions on our national security.

Campaigning without convictions is contemptible. Jim Geraghty on NRO's KerrySpot says:

I suspect this kind of stuff makes the average voter think that if Bush said the sun was going to set in the west, Kerry would insist that was wrong and obviously it was going to set in the east.

I agree with True Blue Gal--Kerry's nuts.

Mouthpiece Meehan & the Lap-Dog Media

Kerry's chosen custodian for his military history and records is Michael Meehan. Two newspapers quote Meehan today. First, the Boston Globe says Meehan's still insisting Kerry was in Cambodia, albeit not around Christmas 1968:

During John Kerry's service in Vietnam, many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of members of a special operations group operating out of Ha Tien," Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said in a statement. The statement did not say when the cross-border mission took place. . . In an interview, Meehan said there was no paperwork for such missions and he could not supply a date.

Second, the Washington Times focuses on Kerry's service records:

Sen. John Kerry's campaign said yesterday that the Democratic presidential nominee is not hiding any of his war records and has, in fact, released them all to the public. "Senator Kerry's entire military service record is posted on JohnKerry.com. His entire record," said Michael Meehan, adviser for communications to the campaign, at a press conference called to defend Mr. Kerry.

Meehan's first statement is both unproven and hotly disputed--including by pro-Kerry Swiftboat vets, as the Globe admits:

Michael Medeiros, who served aboard the No. 94 with Kerry and appeared with him at the Democratic National Convention, vividly recalled an occasion on which Kerry and the crew chased an enemy to the Cambodian border but did not go beyond the border. Yet Medeiros said he could not recall dropping off special forces in Cambodia or going inside Cambodia with Kerry.

Meehan's second claim is a flat-out lie. The official Kerry website starts its summary in February 1969. The site carries spot (after action) reports for February and March 1969, but omits December 1968 and January 1969. This changed quite recently, when Kerry's site removed Navy records and summary information--including the January 1969 spot report. Kerry's cover-up can be confirmed by Meehan himself, who touted the now-vanished data in an April 2004 press release still available on ScienceBlog. Was Kerry's service record "entire" before? Or is the slimmed-down version "entire" now? Disclosing, then deleting--seems like "hiding" to me.

Will the press challenge Kerry? Before answering, consider Senator Tom Harkin's (D-Iowa) widely reported criticism of Vice President Cheney on Monday:

Harkin said that it angered him to hear tough talk from Cheney. "When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil," said Harkin.

But as bloggers John Cole and Donald Sensing reveal, Harkin--Navy pilot who flew between Japan and the Philippines--consistently claimed he was a fighter jock in Vietnam. Not so--he neither flew fighters nor was in Vietnam. Instapundit excerpts the relevant page (182) from "Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History,"which documents Harkin's phony stories of combat patrols over North Vietnam and combat sorties over Cuba. Senator Harkin's been peddling this fib for years, somehow exempt from media fact-checking (outside of a decade-old Wall Street Journal article and a two-paragraph report on Fox News today). Instapundit correctly concludes that, were the press playing fair, Harkin would be "a Senator who, like President Bush, flew fighter jets during the Vietnam era without seeing combat but who, unlike President Bush, lied about it."

Plainly, the press won't investigate, much less challenge, any Dem. Yet they don't hide their hostility toward Republicans or even for Democrats short on team spirit. Consider Deborah Solomon's unintentionally hilarious interview of Ray Fair in Sunday's NY Times. Fair, an economics professor at Yale, developed an econometric equation forecasting Presidential elections, which predicts Bush will receive 57.5 percent of the "two-party" vote this November:

Q: Why should we trust your equation, which seems unusually reductive?

A: It has done well historically. The average mistake of the equation is about 2.5 percentage points. . .

Q: But the country hasn't been this polarized since the 60's, and voters seem genuinely engaged by social issues like gay marriage and the overall question of a more just society.

A: We throw all those into what we call the error term. In the past, all that stuff that you think should count averages about 2.5 percent, and that is pretty small.

Q: It saddens me that you teach this to students at Yale, who could be thinking about society in complex and meaningful ways. . . .

Q: I just want to know if you are a Kerry supporter.

A: . . . I am a Kerry supporter.

Q: I believe you entirely, although I'm a little surprised, because your predictions implicitly lend support to Bush.

A: I am not attempting to be an advocate for one party or another. I am attempting to be a social scientist trying to explain voting behavior.

Q: But in the process you are shaping opinion. Predictions can be self-confirming, because wishy-washy voters might go with the candidate who is perceived to be more successful.

It is impossible to imagine similar hostility toward, say, a pollster predicting Kerry; nor would the press describe Kerry supporters as "wishy-washy voters" wanting only a winner. And, of course, most media denies "shaping opinion." They're simply "genuinely engaged by social issues like gay marriage and the overall question of a more just society." By supporting liberals in "complex and meaningful ways."

So don't trust Meehan; don't assume the media will bird-dog Kerry's lies. If you favor President Bush, forget the press--but spread the word.

More:

The French press openly backs Kerry:

Le Figaro from Paris also praised Kerry's suggestion, but for different reasons. It commented that moving the troops out of Europe to Iraq and elsewhere actually makes those extra 40,000 "unnecessary." But according to the French daily, "any argument that Kerry makes is right, if it means he wins the White House."

(via LGF)

More from Mark Steyn

Haven't had time to celebrate the Administration's decision to cut troop strength in Europe and Korea. Nor the irony of Kerry's team critiquing the draw-down. I agree with NRO's "Kerry Spot":

[The Dems'] viewpoint appears to be a formula for paralysis. Don't change anything without checking to make sure no other country would be "unhappy" with the move.

But Mark Steyn in the Telegraph (U.K.), nails it, as usual:

The basic flaw in the Atlantic "alliance" is that, for almost all its participants, the free world is a free lunch: a defence pact of wealthy nations in which only one guy picks up the tab. . . . [I]n Nato, for generations, whenever the bill's come, there's been a stampede to the washroom . . .

European countries now have attitudes in inverse proportion to the likelihood of their acting upon them. They're like my hippy-dippy Vermont neighbours who drive around with "Free Tibet" bumper stickers. Every couple of years, they trade in the Volvo for a Subaru, and painstakingly paste a new "Free Tibet" sticker on the back.

What are they doing to free Tibet? Nothing. Tibet is as unfree now as it was when they started advertising their commitment to a free Tibet. And it will be just as unfree when they buy their next car and slap on the old sticker one mo' time. If Don Rumsfeld were to say, "'Free Tibet'? That's a great idea! The Third Infantry Division go in on Thursday", all the 'Free Tibet' crowd would be driving around with 'War is not the answer' stickers. When entire nations embrace self-congratulatory holier-than-thou moral poseurdom as a way of life, it's even less attractive. . . .

The US security umbrella, along with the Eurovision Song Contest, was really the prototype pan-European institution. The Americans helped build a continent in which you could sing Waterloo rather than fight it, and, . . in their excessive generosity[, . . .] accelerated an inclination to softness and decadence.

Read the whole thing.

Media Promotes Kerry, Pummels Bush

To deflect attention from Kerry's Vietnam fibs, Dems and the liberal-biased media often revert to the schoolyard: "Oh yeah? Well what about Bush's phony stint in the Guard?" Evading consequences when caught is more juvenile bully than campaign plank.

Bush, of course, released his service records. And the chattering died when the supposed "inconsistencies" vanished. But Kerry supporters and the press prefer the playground to transparency and truth. And so, says Lee Cearnal of the Houston Chronicle, "Even when he's caught in a lie, media aren't scrutinizing [Kerry] the same way they did Bush":

The same news media that demanded George W. Bush release his National Guard records -- and went over them with a microscope -- have shown an appalling lack of interest in John Kerry's military service. And as it turns out, there are far more legitimate questions about the latter than the former. . .

As to the truth of [Kerry's Cambodia] tale, there is only Kerry's word, which the press seems quite willing to take, to the extent of not reporting on the controversy at all. It is not a trivial matter. Kerry has pimped the story repeatedly in an effort to paint himself as a stand-up eyewitness to events that were both illegal and, in his view, immoral.

And that's not the only issue that reporters are curiously incurious about. At least one of Kerry's Purple Hearts has been challenged by his unit's medical officer, who notes that the wound was barely visible and was treated with a Band-Aid. Some questions should also be asked about his Silver Star: Should shooting a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back -- as justifiable as it was as an act of war -- be worthy of the nation's third-highest award for courage?

To those of you who say such questions are unseemly, consider that John Kerry's principal claim on the presidency is that he served four months and 11 days in Vietnam. OK, fine. Let's examine the records -- all the records, which, unlike Bush and contrary to popular perception, Kerry has not released -- and have a debate. We would be if it were George W. Bush. The media would see to it.

(via Instapundit).

Consequences of Kerry's Tale--According to "Day By Day"

Don't miss cartoonist Chris Muir's take on Kerry in Cambodia. Remember, the liberal media still refuses to publish Muir's strip--while many still print the lame "Doonesbury."

Kerry Tales, Part XLV--Another Vietnam Lie

The Democratic convention began dramatically and effectively with the Reverend David Alston's opening night address. Alston, who was a gunner on Swiftboat PCF94, endorsed Kerry on the basis of "my personal knowledge of [Kerry as] a young naval officer." In particular, Alston told assembled Democrats:

I know him from a small boat in Vietnam, where we fought and bled together, serving our country. There were six of us aboard PCF-94, a 50-foot, twin-engine craft known as a "Swift Boat." . . .Lieutenant Kerry had to make quick, life-or-death decisions for the entire boat. . . .

Lieutenant Kerry was known for taking the fight straight to the enemy. I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos.

Once, he even directed the helmsman to beach the boat, right into the teeth of an ambush, and pursued our attackers on foot, into the jungle. In the toughest of situations, Lieutenant Kerry showed judgment, loyalty and courage. Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool.

And when the shooting stopped, he was always there too, with a caring hand on my shoulder asking, "Gunner, are you OK?" I was only 21, running on fear and adrenaline. Lieutenant Kerry always took the time to calm us down, to bring us back to reality, to give us hope, to show us what we truly had within ourselves. I came to love and respect him as a man I could trust with life itself.

Quite a testimonial--if true.

Like so many "Kerry Tales," it's false--another Kerry Vietnam lie. As detailed by The Bandit and Captain's Quarters, if Alston and Kerry served on the same boat at the same time, it lasted only few weeks. Moreover, Navy records--since deleted from Kerry's campaign website--show that Alston was not present during the alleged Kerry heroics Alston describes.

THE CLAIMS:

Alston and Kerry repeatedly said they served together as crew-mates, Alston asserting he observed Kerry under fire:

1. Orlando Sentinel, Jan. 31, 2004:

   BIG BOAT, BIG CREW
   
   Kerry must have commanded some pretty big swift boats in Vietnam, judging from the number of crewmates who keep turning up in his campaign.
   
   On Friday, it was a preacher from Rock Hill, S.C., who turned out for Kerry at a rally for veterans at the University of South Carolina.
   
   David Alston was the gunner atop Kerry's pilot house. Kerry, he told an audience here, was a compassionate commander.
   
   "We were in a lot of firefights," Alston said. "You learn a lot about people. After a firefight, John would come up to me and he would put his hand on me and he'd say, `David, are you all right?' "
   
   "I didn't know then that I had a man of God on my boat," Kerry said. "That's probably why I'm here today."

   (article purchased and quoted accurately.)



2. Kerry Campaign Advisor Michael Meehan, writing in Science Blog, April 21, 2004:

   The Kerry Campaign announced today that online at http://www.johnkerry.com are the official Naval records and the after-action combat reports that are part of the public record at the Naval Historical Center, Operational Archives Branch in Washington, DC. What follows is a summary list of the pages on the website and a summary of the after-action combat reports. . . .
   
   29 JAN 1969 Cua Lon Rivers
   
   Early in the morning seven swift boats embarked on a mission to destroy enemy installations along the Cua Lon River. While Kerry's boat and another (PCF72) were probing a canal along the river, Kerry's boat came under heavy fire and was hit by a B-40 rocket in the cabin area. One member of Kerry's crew -- Forward Gunner David Alston - suffered shrapnel wounds in his head. His injuries were not considered serious and he was sent to the 29th Evac Hospital at Binh Thuy.

3. ABC News, June 24, 2004:

   Feb. 28, 1969, was a day that started out badly and got much worse. Kerry and his crewmates were given a mission to take their Swift boat up a canal off the Bay Hap River, surrounded by thick mangrove brush and many, many Vietcong. There were two ambushes.
   
   "I guess we had gotten 800 yards or 1,000 yards at the most," recalled crewmate Fred Short. "And this time, another B-40 rocket hit, and maybe a couple more. But this one was close aboard. It blew the windows out of the crew cabin. I see out of a spider hole a Vietcong stand up dressed in a loin cloth, holding a B-40 rocket."
   
   "Charlie would have lit us up like a Roman candle because we're full of fuel, we're full of ammunition," said [enlisted crewmate Del] Sandusky.
   
   Protocol at the time would be for Kerry's Swift boat to fire to shore and then take evasive action. But Kerry ordered Sandusky, his second-in-command, to drive the boat onto the beach -- directly into the ambush.
   
   "I knew right away that, you know, uh-oh, we're in the doo-doo now," Sandusky said. "But, yeah, I knew -- you know, John was intent. You know: 'We got to go and get this guy.' There was no way we were going to back down off the beach." Alston recalled: "I know when John Kerry told Del to beach that damn boat, this was a brand-new ball game. We wasn't running. We took it to Charlie."

4. Kerry campaign press release, July 10, 2004:"David Alston, Kerry Crewmate & Gunner from PCF-94. . ."



5. Kerry campaign ad, July 10, 2004:Featuring Senator Edwards and a picture of Kerry and Alston in Vietnam.



6. Charlotte Observer, July 27, 2004:

   David Alston spent four months alongside John Kerry, 35 years ago. But their stint together in Vietnam was time enough to convince the Columbia, S.C., minister and nuclear fuel plant worker that Kerry should be president of the United States.

7. Fox News, July 27, 2004:

   "If John Kerry came up to us and said we had one more swift boat mission and we were going to hell, he would have a full crew," said David Alston, a crewmate of Kerry, who commanded a Navy river swift boat in the Vietnam War

8. The Herald (Rock Hill, SC), July 28, 2004:

   Kerry found his shipmate, and Alston went to a reunion of that swift boat crew years ago, Ida Alston [David Alson's mother] said. Alston has helped Kerry on the campaign trail since Kerry started his presidential run, including stops in South Carolina before the primary in February and television spots. . .
   
   "Kerry was his lieutenant," Ida Alston said, "His commander. He had nothing bad to say about him (Kerry). He said he was a good man. Very, very good."

9. Providence Journal, August 1, 2004: "I saw John Kerry's blood on the deck of that boat [PCF-94]." (behind intrusive registration; quoted by The Bandit)

NAVY RECORDS

1. Many have disappeared from Kerry's official website: Recently, the records Mr. Meehan placed online have shrunk. Meehan originally included "after-action ("spot") reports from two of the combat actions in which John Kerry was wounded [beginning with] Spot Reports for January, 1969 (pdf: 2.4MB)." The "summary of combat actions of [Swiftboat] PCF94" now covers only "February 12 to March 17, 1969." Similarly, the "spot reports" begin in February 1969.--the 2.4 MB .pdf file for January is gone.



2. Remaining reports confirm that PCF 94 was under fire on January 29, 1969: "PCF 94 and 72 came under fire while probing a side canal resulting in 3 USN WIA [wounded in action] and light damage to PCF 94." This account of January 29th squares with Meehan's summary, quoted above.



3. Captain's Quarters saved one official record, now removed covering events of January 29, 1969:

   AWFA: GMG2 DAVID MARION Alston, USN, 99T 57 46
   BRAVO: ACTIVE DUTY, ATTACHED TO COASTAL DIVISION ELEVEN AT AN THOI, RVN
   CHARLIE: INJURY, HOSTILE FIRE
   DELTA: 29, JAN 69, 1030H, SONG CUA LON - SONG BO DE, WHILE SERVING AS FORWARD GUNNER ABOARD PCF 94, ENGAGED IN CORDON AND SEARCH OPERATIONS IN THE ABOVE RIVER, GMG2 Alston RECEIVED SHRAPNEL WOUNDS TO HIS HEAD WHEN PCF CAME UNDER INTENSE HOSTILE ROCKET AND A/W FIRE.
   ECHO: CONDITION GOOD, PROGNOSIS GOOD. PRESENCE OF NOK IS NOT MEDICALLY WARRANTED AS REPORTED BY CORPSMAN.
   FOXTROT: MRS. IDA MCQUILLAR ALSTON, MOTHER
   GOLF: NOK NOT OFFICIALLY NOTIFIED. REQ NOK NOT REPEAT NOT BE NOTIFIED.
   HOTEL: SERVICEMAN TREATED BY CORPSMAN AND MEDEVACED TO 29TH EVAC HOSP. BINH THUY.
   2. PATIENT ABL TO COMMUNICATE WITH NOK.
   3. NO FURTHER INFO WILL FOLLOW.

   The Bandit preserved a .jpg of the same report. There is no record that Alston returned to PCF94; the Kerry campaign says Alston was back when Kerry earned his third (and final) Purple Heart.



4. The events leading to Kerry's Silver Star took place on February 28, 1969: Kerry's website preserves the relevant Command History and combat report, the latter of which reads:

   28 FEB 1969 Bay Hap River
   
   Three PCFs were traveling up the Bay Hap River with 70 South Vietnamese Militia investigating an area where the boats were ambushed the previous night. During the patrol, the boats came under heavy fore from the shore. Kerry, serving as the Officer in Tactical Command of the mission, ordered the units to turn toward the fire and beach. As the boats approached shore, more than 20 Viet Cong troops stood up and ran. They were quickly overrun when the Marines troops reached the shore. While the Militia searched the area, PCFs 23 and 94 left to investigate another site where an Army advisor reported gunshots. Returning from the site, a B-40 rocket exploded close to PCF94, blowing out one of the windows. Kerry again ordered the units to turn into the fire and charge the ambush site. PCF 94 landed in the center of ambush and a man jumped up holding a B-40 rocket launcher and started to run. The forward M-60 gunner on PCF94 wounded him in the leg as Kerry jumped off the boat and chased him inland behind a hooch and shot him. Marines swept the area, and received fire from snipers and small arms that was suppressed with the assistance of mortars and gunfire from the swiftboats. The landing parties found vast stores of rice, ammunition and clothing. The boats were fired on one additional time as they were heading back down the river. The site of the second ambush was believed to be a major Viet Cong supply point. Kerry received the Silver Star for this operation.

   Alston's description of Kerry's "beach[ing]" and taking "it to Charlie" leave no doubt Alston was remembering, and referring to, the February 28th incident.

EVIDENCE KERRY AND ALSTON SIMULANEOUSLY SERVED ABOARD PCF-94.

1. There is no doubt Kerry and Alston knew each other: The Boston Globe reprints a posed photo of Kerry and Alston on a boat. The Globe says the photo was taken in March 1969.



2. The photo seems genuine; its supposed date isn't: David Alston was wounded in the head on January 28, 1969, severely enough to send Alston to a hospital; severely enough to have him replaced on the PCF94 crew. The Bandit includes a photograph of Alston's convention address. His wound is plainly visible.
   
   Yet Alston's wound is invisible in the picture of Kerry and Alston together.
   
   
   This is made clear by a close-up view of Alston.
   
   Given the prominence of the wound today, the joint photograph must have been taken prior to January 28, 1969.



3. Kerry began service on PCF-94 on January 30, 1969, one day after Alston was evacuated to a hospital: Though the Navy records Kerry once posted are gone, Del Sandusky, crewmate and still a Kerry defender, spoke with the St. Petersburg Times on August 8, 2004:

   In January 1969, Sandusky's boat, PCF-94, came under attack during one such ambush. Lt. Ted Peck, the officer in charge, and another crewman were seriously wounded. Sandusky had to take command.
   
   The boat was sinking and on fire, but Sandusky steered it back to safety. They counted 155 bullet holes in the boat and found a live enemy rocket in the main cabin. It had come to rest in a sack of potatoes.
   
   For his actions, Sandusky would receive the Bronze Star.

   Obviously, had John Kerry been aboard that day, he would have senior to enlisted man Sandusky, and thus would have taken command. In fact, Sandusky affirmatively states that Kerry joined the crew only on January 30th, after Alston (and Lt. Peck) left:

   With their officer headed home, the crew of PCF-94 needed a leader. And Lt. j.g. John Kerry, whose crew on PCF-44 had rotated back home, needed men to lead.
   
   "I was sure glad he came along," Sandusky said, "because to be honest, I didn't want to take command."
   
   From Jan. 30 to March 13, 1969, Kerry and the crew of the PCF-94 would conduct 18 missions in the Mekong Delta river system.

4. By February 28th, Fred Short had replaced David Alston on PCF94. According to the Boston Globe:

   The crewman with the best view of the [February 28th] action was Frederic Short, the man in the tub operating the twin guns. Short had not talked to Kerry for 34 years, until after he was recently contacted by a Globe reporter. Kerry said he had "totally forgotten" Short was on board that day. Short had joined Kerry's crew just two weeks earlier, as a last-minute replacement.

   The Akron (Ohio) Beacon Journal confirms:

   Short, 56, wasn't supposed to be on Kerry's boat. A gunner's mate 3rd class, he was assigned to PCF 94 to replace a gunner who had been wounded. That wounded gunner, the Rev. David Alston of South Carolina, was one of the speakers at the convention Monday.

   Yet David Short does not appear in the photograph of Kerry and Alston, further confirming the picture predates the February 28th battle.



5. Alston wasn't decorated for action on February 28th: When John Kerry was awarded a Silver Star, his entire crew received official commendation, according to Captain's Quarters:

   In addition to Kerry's Silver Star PCF-94's performance on February 28 also earned Bronze Stars for Tommy Belodeau and Mike Medeiros and Navy Commendation Medals with Combat V Devices for Del Sandusky, Fred Short, and Gene Thorson.

   Similarly, the Boston Globe published an undated photograph of the PCF94 crew wearing the medals earned on February 28, 1969. Fred Short is in the front row. Alston--who is black--is absent.



6. Meehan knew: Return to Meehan's summary for January 29th, quoted above. In light of the evidence, his careful language seems suspicious:

   While Kerry's boat and another (PCF72) were probing a canal along the river, Kerry's boat came under heavy fire and was hit by a B-40 rocket in the cabin area. One member of Kerry's crew -- Forward Gunner David Alston - suffered shrapnel wounds in his head.

7. The press knows too: The Boston Globe had actual knowledge as far back as April 2004:

   Vietnam combat records posted on John F. Kerry's campaign website for the month of January 1969 as evidence of his service aboard swift boat No. 94 describe action that occurred before Kerry was skipper of that craft, according to the officer who said he commanded the boat at the time.
   
   On the site, the Massachusetts senator is described as the skipper of Navy boat No. 94 during several actions in late January 1969.
   
   However, Edward Peck, who was the skipper of the 94 before Kerry took over, said combat reports posted by the campaign for January 1969 involve action when he was the skipper, not Kerry.
   
   Peck, who was seriously wounded in fighting that took place on Jan. 29, 1969, said he believes Kerry campaign aides made a mistake in claiming Kerry as skipper of the 94 at that time.
   
   On the Kerry website, the report of the combat on that day on the 94 boat is posted as occurring during Kerry's time as skipper of the boat. Peck said Kerry replaced him after the Jan. 29, 1969, event. . .
   
   A Kerry campaign spokesman, Michael Meehan, said in an e-mail that the campaign had obtained the combat reports for the 94 from the Navy. He did not directly address the question of why the campaign describes Kerry being skipper of the 94 at a time when Peck says he commanded the boat.

   And, in retrospect, the January 31st Orlando Sentinel story (quoted above) hinted Kerry was embellishing:

   Kerry must have commanded some pretty big swift boats in Vietnam, judging from the number of crewmates who keep turning up in his campaign.

CONCLUSIONS

• Alston was seriously wounded while aboard PCF94 on January 28, 1969--but Kerry wasn't there.


• Kerry earned a Silver Star aboard PCF94 on February 28, 1969--but Alston wasn't there.


• Fred Short, not David Alston, was with Kerry on February 28th.


• Kerry's campaign knows the truth--and is engaged in a cover-up via weasel words and document deletion. This conduct seems familiar--and dangerous.


• Neither Kerry nor his staff can be trusted.


• Ditto for the "bury-the-bones-on-Democrats" liberal media.

More:

Byron York, National Review's White House correspondent, agrees:

Asked about Alston's length of service, John Hurley, the campaign's national director of veterans' issues, said, "My understanding is that he [Alston] was gone for a month.... Fred [Short] was on the boat for about a month." Hurley said he has not checked the specific dates of Alston's time on PCF-94, but, like Alston, Hurley cautioned, "It's 35 years later, and memories are different."

Powerline picks up the story to ask, reasonably enough, why Kerry hasn't released all his Navy records.

Still More:

The Strib publishes a follow-up by the folks behind the curtain at Powerline. And James Robbins at NRO summarizes the issue so far.

Kerry's Lie--Is it Consequential?

I've always said so. Here's a round-up of pundits other than bloggers who agree and their reasoning:

1. Pat Buchanan:

   Kerry has falsified a central event of his life. For Mr. Kerry has used this story repeatedly, and it has been used by admirers to explain how the idealistic young warrior lost his faith in the U.S. government. Nor is this an unserious matter. For the charges against Mr. Kerry in "Unfit for Command" go to an issue the media failed to address in 1992, to the detriment of this country: the issue of character and credibility.

2. Kathleen Parker:

   What if the single pivotal event of one's life - the moment that altered one's entire course, illuminating the path ahead, providing that critical psychological turning point - turned out to have been an invention of one's very own?

3. Mark Steyn:

   For Kerry, his Yuletide mission was an epiphany: the moment when he realized his government was lying to the people about what was going on. This is the turning point, the moment that set the young Kerry on the path from brave young war volunteer to fierce anti-war activist. . .

4. James Lileks:

   If Kerry’s story is a lie, it’s significant, but not because we have a gotcha moment – gee, a politician reworked the truth to his advantage, big surprise. This is much larger than that. This is like Bush insisting that he flew an intercept mission with the Texas Air National Guard to repel Soviet bombers based in Cuba, and later stating that this event was “seared in his memory – seared” because it taught him the necessity of standing up against evil governments, such as the ones we face today. In other words, it would not only be a lie, but one that eroded the political persona he was relying upon in the election. Kerry has made Vietnam central to his campaign. If he’s making crap up, it matters.

5. [new] Jim Wooten (Atlanta Journal-Constitution):

   Does it matter? It does to those he accused of committing atrocities.
   
   [Kerry's Vietnam record] is fair game, not only because he and his running mate invited it but also because there are legitimate reasons to examine it. "I ask you to judge me by my record," said Kerry in his acceptance speech. "If you have any questions about what John Kerry is made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him," urged John Edwards.. . .
   
   Disagree with the veterans if you like. Think them partisans. Accuse them of bitterness. But in the proper arena for public debate, hear them out.

Anyone disagree?

Other than the War, Mrs Lincoln. . .

Dems often cite the increased Federal Deficit to justify opposition to Bush. Yet according to AEI scholars Eric M. Engen and Kevin A. Hassett, Democrat numbers don't add up, primarily because they ignore Kerry's proposals for increased spending. Hassett says on TechCentral:

According to our analysis, roughly half of this additional spending is attributable to Senator Kerry's health care proposals that would add more than $900 billion in federal outlays. Education expenditure accounts for nearly one quarter of Kerry's new spending, with almost $500 billion added over ten years. A $400 billion expansion of military personnel and benefits for veterans comprises most of the remainder of Kerry's spending plans, with the balance distributed among numerous social programs and increases in international aid.

Hassett concludes:

The Kerry spending promises add up to an extraordinary amount of money. Our best estimate is that Kerry's proposals will add up to between $2 trillion and $2.1 trillion over the next ten years. Since the revenue from his tax proposals relative to the current baseline is actually negative, this implies that the Kerry proposal would increase the deficit by perhaps as much as $2.5 trillion over the next ten years.

On August 3, 2004, the Kerry campaign responded to criticisms such as this with a revised budget plan. The main difference between the first and second plans is that the campaign now claims to be able to save about $300 billion from eliminating corporate welfare. Even if we include this rather implausible savings in our estimate, the net increase in the deficit associated with Kerry's proposals is on the order of $2.2 trillion.

And they say Bush lies.

Hitchens on Kerry

Hitch reviews two recent Kerry bios, and Kerry's autobiography, in Sunday's New York Times Book Review. As usual, Hitchens sees perfectly and says plainly:

If Kerry is dogged and haunted by the accusation of wanting everything twice over, he has come by the charge honestly. In Vietnam, he was either a member of a ''band of brothers'' or of a gang of war criminals, and has testified with great emotion to both convictions. In the Senate, he has either voted for armament and vigilance or he has not, and either regrets his antiwar vote on the Kuwait war, or his initial pro-war stance on the Iraq war, or his negative vote on the financing of the latter, or has not. The Boston Globe writers capture a moment of sheer, abject incoherence, at a Democratic candidates' debate in Baltimore last September:

'If we hadn't voted the way we voted, we would not have been able to have a chance of going to the United Nations and stopping the president, in effect, who already had the votes and who was obviously asking serious questions about whether or not the Congress was going to be there to enforce the effort to create a threat.'

And all smart people know how to laugh at President Bush for having problems with articulation.

Hitchens' summation merits scrutiny:

He still gives, to me at any rate, the impression of someone who sincerely wishes that this were not a time of war. When critical votes on the question come up, Kerry always looks like a dog being washed. John McCain was not like this, when a president he despised felt it necessary to go into Kosovo. We are looking at a man who would make, or would have made, a perfectly decent peacetime president.

Which I take to mean that Kerry's unfit for the job today.