Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
DID A KERRY STAFFER REALLY SAY THIS?
The American Spectator's Prowler reports something interesting:
According to a Kerry campaign source, senior campaign advisers tasked two Washington-based campaign staffers to vet the recently published Unfit for Command.
"The purpose was to compare what that book had with what we had on file from Senator Kerry," says the campaign source, who said that the research project developed more than 75 instances where Kerry's recollections, previous remarks, or writings conflicted with the book's reporting.
"We took some of the most glaring examples, like the Christmas in Cambodia story, and presented them to senior staff, and we assume that those things were put in front of Senator Kerry," says the source. "We haven't heard a word about it. All we were told is that it was being taken care of."
The campaign source said that the book was not considered a "serious" problem for the campaign, because, "the media wouldn't have the nerve to come at us with this kind of stuff," says the source. "The senior staff believes the media is committed to seeing us win this thing, and that the convention inoculated us from these kinds of stories. The senior guys really think we don't have a problem here."
Did a Kerry staffer really say to the American Spectator, "the senior staff believes the media is committed to seeing us win this thing"? I suppose this guy (or gal) could be disgruntled adviser, irritated that the "senior guys" aren't listening to his warnings about the book. And I don't want to question the Prowler's reporting. But if this quote is accurate, it conveys a portrait of stunning arrogance and cockiness within the Kerry camp.
On the other hand, if this really is the thinking at the highest level of the Kerry camp, it might explain why they let him dress up in the bunny suit, why the convention speech was so long, why they're not answering the question about Cambodia, and a couple of other gaffes and odd decisions.
UPDATE: I ran this past my guy at the Kerry campaign, who's been honest and reliable with me in the past, and he says this didn't happen. His words: "This smooth talking 'source' is clearly a fiction. Seems more like a conservative's paranoid conspiratorial central casting image of what Democrats must talk like about our Freudian bargain with the media."
Draw your own conclusions.
UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: A couple readers point out that my Kerry campaign guy probably meant "Faustian bargain" as opposed to Freudian bargain. But then again, maybe it's a Freudian slip. Who knows just what's going on in that bargain?
[Posted 08/10 03:56 PM]
but many of them are good:STILL BLOWING SMOKE: This Rassman oped in the Wall Street Journal does the WSJ editors credit -- imagine the New York Times giving one of the critical Swift Boat Veterans an oped slot to state their charges -- but what it's lacking is any response beyond the "how dare you question his heroism?" line.
Kerry has faced specific criticisms and questions. His campaign is responding with ad hominems and generalities. Perhaps they're just hopelessly out of touch with events (Jim Geraghty asks: "don't these people read Instapundit?" -- they'd be doing better if they did!) or perhaps they can't respond with specifics. It's looking more and more like the latter.
And Rassman looks like a poor choice to defend these charges, as he wasn't there much. In fact, here's something that hasn't gotten a lot of attention:
August 10, 2004 -- WASHINGTON John Kerry's claim that he was ordered to conduct an illegal combat mission in Cambodia on Christmas Day in 1968 is made up, Navy vets charge in a new book.
The veterans say Kerry "would have been seriously disciplined or court-martialed had he gone there."
Three of the vets quoted in the book were part of the five-member crew that served on Kerry's own boat: Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch and Steve Gardner.
They deny they or their boat were ever in Cambodia.
Well, that's pretty specific. Where's the specific response?
How badly is the Kerry campaign blowing this? So badly that his best defense comes, believe it or not, from Robert Musil, who argues: "Yes, there is considerable evidence - and always has been - that John Kerry has exaggerated certain aspects of his military record but so have a great many very brave and noble combat veterans throughout history - and it has always been that way, in and after every war."
As John O'Sullivan writes in the Chicago Sun-Times today, the truth is sure to come out:
Even if the major media decided to bury this story, they would probably not succeed -- and they know as much. The "blogosphere" -- that voluntary society of unpaid free-lance journalists -- is following the story avidly, correcting errors, producing original documents, sifting through different accounts. Some bloggers are for Kerry, some against, but all are together advancing the story by winnowing truth from falsehood. Unless the bloggers conclusively acquit Kerry before the story migrates outwards, the mainstream media will eventually be forced to devote serious resources to it.
I think the story has already "migrated outward." But what's astounding to me is that the Kerry campaign seems so disorganized, flabby and unprepared in responding to charges that it should have known were coming for months. Would a Kerry Administration be better organized than the Kerry Campaign? We have to hope so.
MORE: Reader John Frederick observes:
It's interesting to note that when the Bush was AWOL/deserter/liar story was in full play a few months back, the press went so far as to interview a dentist that had signed an exam record to question whether his signature had been forged. I guess the point was to try and establish that the record was altered to help Bush. Now we have the Swift Vets' charges and the press can't even be bothered to look critically at what they say actually happened. And there's 250+ of them! I've always felt there is media bias but even I am astonished by
the utter lack of analysis of anything Kerry has ever done in Vietnam or public life.
"But" gets played into alot of sentences that include John Kerry. "He did this BUT the Republicans did.....", "He lied about this BUT Bush lied about ....", "He said this BUT (fill in a blame)". It seems like I've read so many articles where instead of explaining Kerry's action, we get a half ass answer and a big fat BUT.Robert Musil, who argues: "Yes, there is considerable evidence - and always has been - that John Kerry has exaggerated certain aspects of his military record but so have a great many very brave and noble combat veterans throughout history - and it has always been that way, in and after every war."
