The Swift Boat Saga, Part VI

The Kerry Cambodia Chronicles story is slowly making its way out of the blogosphere, with a significant assistance from the bloggers themselves. For example, the gents at Powerline have published the following Op-Ed piece in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which includes a shot at the mainstream media...

The story of his 1968 Christmas in Cambodia is one that Kerry has told on many occasions over the years. He invoked the story in 1979 in the course of his review of the movie "Apocalypse Now" for the Boston Herald. Most recently, Kerry told the story -- with remarkable embellishments involving a CIA man who gave him his favorite hat -- last year on separate occasions to reporters Laura Blumenfeld of the Washington Post and Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe.

Certain elements of Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story were incredible on their face. Kerry attributed responsibility for his illegal 1968 mission to Richard Nixon, despite the fact that Lyndon Johnson was president at the time. The Khmer Rouge who allegedly shot at Kerry during his "secret" mission did not take the field until 1972.

Moreover, there is no record that Swift boats -- the kind of boat under Kerry's command -- were ever used for secret missions in Cambodia. Their size and noise make them unlikely candidates for such missions. Indeed, the authorized biographer of Kerry's Vietnam service -- historian Douglas Brinkley -- omits from his book, "Tour of Duty," any mention of a covert cross-border mission to Cambodia during Kerry's service.

Over the past few weeks, the Christmas in Cambodia tale, a keystone of John Kerry's Vietnam autobiography, has been revealed to be fraudulent. On Christmas 1968, Kerry was docked at Sa Dec, 50 miles from Cambodia, in an area from which the Cambodian border was inaccessible.

Last week, after the falsity of Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia account became public, the Kerry campaign issued a statement "correcting" the story. According to the Kerry campaign, the mission referred to took place in January 1969, when Kerry "inadvertently or responsibly" crossed the border into Cambodia. However, three of Kerry's Swift boat crewmates have denied entering Cambodia at any time, and no one has corroborated Kerry's claim.

The suggestion that Kerry may have "inadvertently" strayed into Cambodia -- leaving aside whether that was even possible -- constitutes a complete retreat from the point of Kerry's original story: that he lost his faith in government because the president lied about having sent American troops into Cambodia. And, of course, it contradicts his story about ferrying a CIA man to Cambodia.

Given the attention lavished on President Bush's service in the Air National Guard earlier this year, we thought that newspapers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times would want to devote comparable attention to John Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story. We also thought they would want to consider what the falsity of Kerry's story might have to tell us about the uses to which Kerry is putting his Vietnam service in the current presidential campaign.

To date, however, we have been wrong. Neither the influential mainstream newspapers nor the broadcast television networks have reported the meltdown of Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story. Only readers of Internet blogs such as ours have kept current on the exposure of Kerry's tall tale.

The guys from Powerline aren't the only folks finally getting ink stains on the story. The Washington Times (no, not the supposed journalists at the Washington Post) began publishing excerpts from Unfit for Command today, which is still #1 on Amazon's best-seller list. The Times also includes this delightful riff from Tony Blankley...

But the American political jungle is every bit as disorienting and suddenly lethal as the one he emerged from 30 years ago. John Kerry's tangled memory and war braggadocio have been mismanaged by him and his campaign team. They have given too many inconsistent answers, thus forcing the hand of major media outlets such as the Los Angeles Times, U.S. News & World Report, Knight-Ridder and the Boston Globe to start reporting the story.

Even self-admitted Kerry supporter Joan Vennochi wrote in her Boston Globe column this week: "Kerry's statements about Cambodia do have traction for opponents. [His spokesmen's] answer aren't good enough. He should answer every question voters have about it — and he should answer himself."

I love the smell of political lies in the morning. The smell, you know ... smells like ... defeat.

No, the Times isn't the most respected mainstream source of news. But it also includes an editorial that takes appropriate umbrage regarding a mischaracterization of its statements by a Kerry campaign surrogate...

Monday night on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," John Hurley, the Vietnam Veterans for John Kerry spokesman, falsely characterized this paper's assessment of the book "Unfit for Command." He stated: "It is as the Washington Times, said, 'a pack of lies'." While this paper has not yet made a final judgment about all the details in the book, Mr. Hurley's use of the phrase "pack of lies" is a very partial and obviously intentionally misleading quote from last week's column by the editor of this page.

The quote from the column reads, in relevant part: "Either this book is a pack of lies or John Kerry is in fact a reckless, lying man who misrepresented the facts in order to receive medals he didn't deserve, and is indeed unfit to command even a tug boat, let alone the United States military as president."

That column went on to note that "the book has the ring of sincerity to it, and the mark of careful research and writing." While the column didn't reach a final judgment, it suggested that major non-conservative media organizations should investigate and assess the book and its critics.

... It is a measure of the state of their defenses regarding John Kerry's Vietnam and Cambodia assertions that not only are they using ad hominum attacks against their critics, but they feel compelled to resort to such flagrant misrepresentation of other media comments to bolster their position.

Ouch might be an understatement. But at least the Kerry camp is getting some favorable press on the issue, from our friends at the Boston Globe, who headlined their story on the topic, "Kerry Disputes Allegations on Cambodia." But dig a little deeper, and one discovers that the Kerry camp has little more than the candidate's claims to dispute the issue, especially when his own "band of brothers" won't back up his tale...

James Wasser, who accompanied Kerry on that mission aboard patrol boat No. 44 and who supports Kerry's candidacy, said that while he believes they were "very, very close" to Cambodia, he did not think they entered Cambodia on that mission. Yet he added: "It is very hard to tell. There are no signs."

Another crewmate who said he was with Kerry on Christmas Eve, Steven Gardner -- who is a member of the veterans group opposing Kerry's candidacy -- said Kerry was 50 miles from Cambodia at the time. He accused Kerry of lying about being in Cambodia or by the border. "Never happened," Gardner said.

Separately, according to Meehan's statement, Kerry crossed into Cambodia on a covert mission to drop off special operations forces. In an interview, Meehan said there was no paperwork for such missions and he could not supply a date. That makes it hard to ascertain or confirm what happened. Kerry served on two swift boats, the No. 44 in December 1968 and January 1969, and the No. 94, from February to March 1969.

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.

What's humorous is that the Kerry campaign staged a press conference with members of Kerry's band of brothers yesterday, attempting to defuse the Swift Boat Vets' claims by attacking their ad. Soon thereafter, Kerry announced his objection to a response ad by Moveon.org, attacking Bush's military service. Unfortunately, the Senator's supporters at the aforementioned press conference had continued to question Bush's service...

McCain, a decorated Vietnam veteran with the reputation of a political maverick, had called on Bush two weeks ago to condemn an ad in which several veterans accused Kerry of fabricating his war record.

The White House has declined to denounce that ad. Kerry issued a conciliatory statement minutes after McCain told The Associated Press that he wanted Kerry to condemn the anti-Bush ad, sponsored by MoveOn.org.

“I agree with Senator McCain that the ad is inappropriate,” Kerry said in a statement. “This should be a campaign of issues, not insults.”

Hours earlier, at a news conference organized by Kerry's campaign, two veterans accused Bush of using family ties to get out of combat.

Kerry served and fought, said Wesley Clark, a retired Army general. “The other man scrambled and used his family's influence to get out of hearing a shot fired in anger.”

Stansfield Turner, a retired admiral who was CIA director in the Carter administration, said Bush “used his father's influence to get into the Air National Guard and avoid going to war.”

At the same news conference, Jim Rassmann, who credits Kerry with saving his life while under fire in Vietnam, noted that Kerry has said Bush served honorably. However, Kerry also said in February of Bush's Guard service, which included time in Alabama: “The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is: Was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? I don't have the answer to that question.”

What the AP fails to mention is that Bush effectively refuted the credibility of the ads, as noted in this story...

"Senator Kerry is justifiably proud of his record in Vietnam and he should be," Bush said on the CNN television talk show, "Larry King Live." He referred to Kerry's Vietnam tour as "noble service."

...While declining to condemn the ads, Bush said the broader issue was independent groups known as "527s" that fall outside the boundaries of campaign finance laws and can spend unlimited amounts of money on attack ads.

"They've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air," Bush said.

He thinks they should be taken off the air... does anyone need a stronger condemnation than that? It's a nice turn of phrase by Bush to avoid the actual question, but the press would report it the other way if a Democrat (say, Bill Clinton) had made a similar assertion. In addition, the report misses two points.

First, there's absolutely no proof that Bush received preferential treatment in any way, shape or form -- there's just innuendo. The same is true of charges that Bush was MIA in Alabama. However, the Swift Boat Vets have presented a very detailed, persuasive and cogent argument about Kerry's service, and have already proven that some claims (Christmas in Cambodia) were false.

Second, Kerry has made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. Bush does not brag about his service in the National Guard -- and there's any number of reasons why he doesn't do so. But Bush's campaign is based on his record as President, for example, his leadership on the War on Terror and his stewardship of the economy. And in each of these areas, Bush's record has been attacked by the other side. Whether they're right or wrong, these criticisms are counter-points made in response to Bush's arguments for re-election. Bush needs to respond to such arguments; it wouldn't do simply to complain about negative advertising.

Similarly, Kerry's case for being elected, based on his campaign since Iowa and particularly the presentation at the Boston Botox Party (a.k.a. the Democratic Convention), in large part depends on his service in Vietnam, to establish both his character and his claims to be a superior leader in the War on Terror. If he plans to use his service in this manner, it becomes a legitimate issue for examination, particularly if he has lied about or exaggerated key portions of his story. Similarly, if Bush claimed that his leadership in the War on Terror had led to the killing of Osama bin Laden, he would be forced to confront the fact that bin Laden is still alive.

In the end, Kerry's thus far been unable to refute these charges. That doesn't mean they're legitimate. But it doesn't mean he's off the hook, either. And as the New York Post pointed out, the ads may be having an impact...

Vietnam veterans opposing John Kerry have scored a hit with a tough TV ad that claims he lied about his war record — it makes swing voters think twice about backing Kerry, an independent study has found.

The ad planted doubts in the minds of 27 percent of independent voters who planned to vote for Kerry or leaned pro-Kerry. After seeing it, they were no longer sure they'd back him, the study found.

At issue is the ad run by an independently funded group known as Swift Veterans for Truth, which features 14 veterans who served in Vietnam along with Kerry as they accuse him of lying about his war record.

"The whole goal of a negative ad is to plant a seed of doubt — and it did," said Professor Chris Borrick of Muhlenberg College, who did the ad study with the firm HCD Research.

"Obviously, the Swift Boat Veterans' intent was to publicly question Kerry's war record, and it looks like they succeeded," said HCD chief Glenn Kessler, who added that viewers found the 60-second ad more believable as it went on.

We haven't seen any information that indicates the same thing for the 527 ads attacking Bush, but that's neither here nor there. This is an ad by a group that the mainstream press wants to ignore, the GOP basically avoids talking about and the Democratic Party villianizes... and yet, this same group and their ad may have more credibility than the Democratic nominee.

And this was the most "electable" candidate the Democrats had.