The Biggest SBVT Lie
If you read a few right-leaning blogs about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth...you'll quickly think of 100s of things you'd rather do...wash the outside of your second story windows, clean out the garage, finally start that exercise regime...finish the great American novel you started sophomore year in college...you get the idea.

Still, I do want to emphasize a point I've learned the last couple of days by checking on the right:

The right claims that the SBVT are merely responding to John Kerry, who made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign.

Hmmmm? Is that so?

I followed the Democratic campaign and primaries very closely. Go back and read my archives if you don't believe me.

Wes Clark made his military service the center of his failed campaign, but John Kerry talked about lots and lots of issues during the campaign. Kerry most certainly did not make his Vietnam experience the centerpiece of his campaign.

There, I've said it so it must be true. Actually, I know my readers have a higher standard of proof, so...

Note: Kerry did talk a great deal about security issues, but it was perfectly logical for the candidate to remind voters that he had some personal experience in the military.

Moreover, I acknowledge that Kerry emphasized his Vietnam service at the Democratic National Convention. Presumably, Kerry and his backers wanted to introduce the candidate to the non-party faithful that were paying attention to the candidate for the first time. Those November voters weren't paying much attention during the primaries when the Democrats were discussing health care, energy independence, the Bush tax cuts (and deficits) and other domestic issues, as well as terrorism and, of course, Iraq.

Why did they playup the Vietnam experience at the Convention? My theory is that they didn't want the Republicans to define Kerry...as a liberal Massachusetts Senator who is a threat to national security.

Why would the Dems think that was possible? Well, maybe they recalled the 1988 election, listened to Republicans talk about Ted Kennedy for decades, and watched President Bush's TV ads throughout the spring and summer of 2004.

My question for the right: if Kerry only started emphasizing his Vietnam service at the Democratic National Convention, how did the Swift Vote jokers manage to produce a book about his service in such short order? As The Washington Times reported on July 30, 2004, which was the day after Kerry's convention speech, the Swiftees already had a book in the pipeline. John O'Neill's screed was due September 25, but actually went on sale August 11. Indeed, it was supposedly already #2 on amazon's best-seller list on July 30, and had already been featured prominently on Drudge.

So, right-leaning readers (both of you), does that sound like a reaction to Kerry's convention?

To my mind, Kerry and the Dems were simply striking preemptively in July. As Digby points out, imagine what the Swift Boat stories would sound like if the Dems hadn't seen and heard Kerry's "band of brothers" at the convention?

There was very good reason for the Dems to think ahead. O'Neill has been after Kerry since the early 1970s. He's the same guy that helped Bush/Rove smear McCain in 2000 and has been after Kerry/McCain together since they collaborated on Vietnam MIA issues years ago.

I know that publishers can produce books in a relatively short time frame, but how can a book that was already #2 on the best-seller list the day after Kerry's speech be a reaction to that speech? Obviously, this book was in the works for months, likely initiated sometime in February or March when it was apparent that he would be the Democratic nominee.
- posted by Rodger @ Permalink |

 
Major Wall Street Republican Jumps Ship
Two weeks ago, The New York Times ran a book review by Christopher Caldwell of Peter G. Peterson's RUNNING ON EMPTY How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It.

The author makes a pretty damning charge:

Thanks to three unaffordable tax cuts and an unfinanced Medicare drug benefit that will eventually cost $2 trillion a decade, Mr. Peterson writes, "this administration and the Republican Congress have presided over the biggest, most reckless deterioration of America's finances in history."

Lots of partisan Democrats probably feel this way, so you probably aren't too surprised to read this quote here.

So, why am I bothering to note it?

Well, Peterson is yet another Republican who has abandoned his party in 2004. He was Secretary of Commerce under Richard Nixon and later chaired the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The book, by the way, apparently take plenty of potshots against Democrats, mostly for increasing spending on various government programs. But the most striking criticism is reserved for Bush because of the combined effect of the new spending (represented by the Medicare plan) and the enormous deficits caused by the huge tax cuts.

If you've lost track, I've posted on this Republican thread here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. There may be more.


Note: Thanks to one of my colleages for highlighting the Peterson quote in a recent letter-to-the-editor of the Louisville Courier Journal. I cannot find that letter on-line.


- posted by Rodger @ Permalink |

 
Bush's Youth
The swiftboat controversy has resulted in a great deal of media scrutiny of John Kerry's youth.

In fairness, shouldn't they also be asking about the President's youth?

And perhaps about Dick Cheney's youth?

Of course, in regard to Cheney, Michael Tomasky is on-point:

there exists no Vietnam Veterans for the Truth About Deferments, financed by wealthy Democratic donors and out peddling its wares

Cheney received a series of deferments in response to his country's call to go to Vietnam.

In 2000, the media noted a bit about George W. Bush's life in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This is from the BBC:

Bush's time at Yale is said to have been dominated by drinking and partying with other members of the Skull and Bones fraternity.

After graduation, he joined the Texas national guard as a pilot - despite a poor test grade and a long waiting list - prompting recent allegations that his family pulled strings to keep him out of Vietnam.

He has characterised these years as aimless. "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible," he once said.

Readers who've seen the swiftboad TV ads probably want more information. "Details," you might declare, "we want details!"

On the issue of Vietnam Bush has sometimes been quite candid about his strong desire not to go to Vietnam:

In 1994, the President told the Houston Chronicle, in relation to his joining the National Guard, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment, nor was I willing to go to Canada, so I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

Remember, on his enlistment forms, Bush checked the box that said: "Do Not Volunteer For Overseas" duty.

The former speaker of the Texas state legislature has testified under oath that he was asked by a Bush family friend to help Bush get into the Guard -- and that he did intervene successfully on Bush's behalf. Remember, Bush had the lowest score acceptable (25%) and was sworn in on the day he applied.

Many other bloggers have covered the gaps in Bush's National Guard story, so I'll just note that some interesting unanswered questions remain about a 5 or 6 month period in Alabama, when Bush did not show up for drills -- and apparently did not make them up either. Bottom line: where's the DD214 or NGB22 form that would clearly answer all the important questions, perhaps even why Bush failed to show up for a required physical in 1972?

The AP has sued for more complete records, so there's a chance this story could still go somewhere before the election.

In any event, what else was up with the President in those years? Let's go back to the BBC story from the 2000 election:

Asked by one reporter if he would pass a White House background check, Bush replied that he had not taken drugs for seven years.

That date was soon moved further back to 1974 but he has refused to rule out any drug abuse at any point.

That's right, Kerry is being asked detailed questions about the bullets that were flying at him during an ambush, and how much he bled from particular shrapnel wounds, but the President has historically refused to answer detailed media questions about his own behavior during this same time:

"I've told the people of this country that, over 20 years ago, I made some mistakes when I was younger. I've learned from those mistakes," Bush said....

Bush spokeswoman Mindy Tucker later said the Republican presidential front-runner was saying that he has not used illegal drugs at any time since 1974, when the 53-year-old Bush was 28.

I'm quoting from a story, by the way, that appeared during the Republican primary season when opponents like Steve Forbes were hinting that candidate Bush should be a bit more forthcoming:

The Texas governor is the only major presidential candidate who has not answered the question about whether he has ever used cocaine.

This is why Michael Moore used a bit of Eric Clapton's tune in "F 9/11."

For those trying to recall details of Bush's life, he entered Harvard Business School at age 27, after receiving his early exit from the National Guard.

Bush says his religious conversion occurred in 1986.




- posted by Rodger @ Permalink |

 
Youth Will be Served
Classes have started, so I am again surrounded by young men and women and teaching about American Foreign Policy. I have 2 sections and 85 total students this term.

What do I tell them? Am I biased if I make my views on the war in Iraq crystal clear? What about if I state the administration's case and then attempt to undermine it completely?

Ultimately, I decided to have them read a couple of studies from the US Army War College by Jeffrey Record (one is coauthored with Andrew Terrill): Bounding the Global War on Terrorism and Iraq and Vietnam: Differences, Similarities and Insights. These are in addition to some sections of the State Department's annual Patterns of Global Terrorism and the White House's September 2002 National Security Strategy document.

They are also reading a couple of chapters from the 9/11 Commission Final Report, the Executive Summary of Walsh's Iran/contra report, and a John Kerry speech.

At some point, perhaps I should just appeal to their most basic interests...

After all, as Herbert Hoover(!) apparently once said:

"Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die."

And from Herodotus:

"In peace, sons bury their fathers; in war, fathers bury their sons."

Can anything be done about that reality?

P.J. O'Rourke, who may or may not be kidding, recently advocated for a different system:

Killing is not as physical as it once was. It's time for young, hopeful people to be relieved of fighting duties. War should be fought by the middle-aged men who are the ones who decide that war should be fought anyway. We don't have our whole lives in front of us. We're already staring down the barrel of heart disease and SEC investigations. Being wrenched from home, family, and job would not be that wrenching for many of us.

Albert Einstein was perhaps more realistic:

"The pioneers of a warless world are the youth who refuse military service."

- posted by Rodger @ Permalink |

 
Alfred French Lied in his Affadavit
I haven't commented too much about the slimey swiftboat veteran ads. One after another of the stories by the 13 men appearing in those ads have been completely discredited and I haven't had much to add to that.

However, I saw this today, from ABCNEWS.com.

The swift boat critics signed an affidavit that said this:

"I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief."

It goes on to say that "Kerry has wildly exaggerated and lied about his record in Vietnam" and that he received his Purple Heart medals "in the absence of hostile fire."

Pretty damning stuff, at least potentially.

One of the men appearing in the ad, however, now faces his own political troubles. He's a prosecutor, and probably shouldn't have been swearing to events that he did not personally witness.

Alfred French of the Clackamas County district attorney's office appears in the ad sponsored by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In the spot, French says: "I served with John Kerry. ... He is lying about his record."

In an interview The Oregonian newspaper last week, French said he relied on the accounts of three other veterans in making the statement about Kerry and did not personally witness the events.

Bottom line: Alfred French's account is based almost entirely on hearsay evidence. Heck, here's the quote from French:

"I was not a witness to these events but my friends were," said French.

Personally, I never saw George Bush drink or use drugs, but...you see where this kind of crap can go?

The Oregon county prosecutor's affadavit is quite detailed considering he wasn't even there:

French wrote in his affidavit that two of Kerry's Purple Hearts were obtained under "false pretenses from negligently self-inflicted grenade wounds in the absence of hostile fire."

By way of contrast, here's the first-hand account of Jim Rassmann, the guy Kerry pulled out of the water:

"I don't know if you were ever shot at," said Rassmann, who also appears in a new TV commercial for Kerry, ". . . but it tends to focus the mind wonderfully, and you will never forget it. When you have bullets hitting the water around your head and torso, you know exactly what they are."

These attacks are the lowest form of politics and George W. Bush should be held accountable for them.

Update: I found this in the section on "professionalism" in Oregon Bar Association's rules (adopted October 1990):

1.11 We will avoid unjust and improper criticism and personal attacks on opponents, judges, and others and will refrain from asserting untenable positions.

4.3 We will avoid advertising that is not fair, factual, informative, sensitive to the recipients, or beneficial to the public.

Note too this:

Compliance with high standards of professionalism depends primarily upon understanding the value to clients, the legal system, the public, and lawyers of adhering to the voluntary standards. Secondarily, compliance depends upon reinforcement by peer pressure and public opinion, and finally, when necessary, by enforcement by the courts through their powers and rules already in existence.

This is FYI:

Contacting the Discipline Department
Oregon State Bar
Disciplinary Counsel’s Office
P.O. Box 1689
Lake Oswego, OR 97035-0889

503-620-0222 or toll free in Oregon 800-452-8260

For more information, contact Jeff Sapiro, Disciplinary Counsel, by e-mail at jsapiro@osbar.org, or by telephone at extension 319.

If you make contact, be nice...and specific.

- posted by Rodger @ Permalink |

 
Has Bush Lost His Mojo?
According to the conventional wisdom (or at least Republican talking points), George Bush can win reelection in 2004 because of his leadership fighting the "war on terror." Most presidential elections turn on perceptions about the state of the economy, which is not good if you are the first president since Herbert Hoover to govern during a period of net job loss.

Luckily for the President, polls show that people are going to vote on foreign policy and national security questions, and they still think Bush is doing a good job -- despite the mounting evidence accumulated in this blog and elsewhere.

So, what should the Democrats do about the apparent public perceptions that Bush is a good leader for the "war on terror"?

Can they steal Bush's mojo?

Maybe the Dems should just wait patiently, as at least one source says the President's ratings may be about to slide.

I received a link to the following report in email from Media Tenor today:

President Bush's ratings on anti-terror policies are likely to decrease in the next weeks. A study by Media Tenor, a non-partisan, independent institute analyzing the presidential campaign coverage, shows the connection between TV network coverage of Bush's anti-terror policies and public approval ratings on his handling of terrorism.

While the media has turned more critical of Bush's anti-terror policies, the public, according to the latest Gallup poll, still highly approves of Bush's handling of terrorism. However, this public approval is not likely to persist. Media Tenor's study of media trends and their effect on public opinion has shown that the view of a situation or issue presented on TV usually impacts public opinion within the following two weeks. When TV ratings of Bush's handling of terrorism were high, public opinion followed approximately two weeks later. Likewise, media criticism of Bush's anti-terror policies has also affected public opinion.

The group, Media Tenor, describes itself as "the world's leading provider of international media content analysis and provides in-depth analysis of new and traditional media content worldwide." It has offices in NY, London, Bonn/Berlin, Monaco, Pretoria and Ostrava (CZ).

[Page down for the graphic and rest of this post, which is apparently too wide to fit the space]

Source: Gallup Report, August 9-11: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling terrorism?”

Basis: Total of 408 statements in ABC, NBC and CBS news 3/29 -8/12/2004

Media Tenor also has a page that monitors the media coverage of Bush and Kerry. From August 2-12, the group claims Kerry got slightly positive coverage, while Bush's was somewhat more negative. CBS was the most neutral toward the President, ABC the kindest to Kerry.

Anyone know more about this outfit? They seem to have some interesting material about Al Jazeera, Tony Blair and various demographic groups (age, race, etc.). It's all in the context of mass media coverage.

- posted by Rodger @ Permalink |

 
Bob Dylan: Live And In Person!
From the Bob Dylan: Live And In Person! website, last night's setlist:

Lexington, Tennesee [Kentucky!]
Applebee's Park
August 21, 2004

Maggie's Farm
The Times They Are A-Changin'
Cold Irons Bound
I Shall Be Released [with Willie Nelson]
Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum
Stuck Inside of Mobile With The Memphis Blues Again
Blind Willie McTell
Watching The River Flow
I Believe In You
Honest With Me
The Ballad of Hollis Brown
Summer Days

Like A Rolling Stone
All Along The Watchtower

I heard a lot of people complaining about his voice, and few people could understand the words...but it was fun.

From the Lexington Herald-Leader:

the master pop poet submerged the show in rock 'n' roll.

Dressed in a black suit and white cowboy hat, Dylan remained a mysterious presence onstage. He hardly spoke a word to the audience. He played a small, stage right keyboard instead of guitar. And his voice -- a scorched, raspy wail -- was positively ghostly.

But with the roar of a highly functional quartet to back him up, Dylan ran from the quiet and mostly acoustic menace of 1964's The Ballad of Hollis Brown to the dark, thundering twang (fortified by guitarists Larry Campbell and Stu Kimball) of 1997's Cold Irons Bound.

Best of all, the often detached Dylan looked to be having a ball as he flashed huge grins to his bandmates during the bluesy rumble Honest With Me. Such a moment hardly demystified Dylan. But it certainly presented him as an involved, invigorated and, yes, very human rock 'n' roll voice.

Willie Nelson was good, my wife and kids liked his set better than Dylan's.

We saw Nelson a year or two ago in Louisville, and this show wasn't all that different. Nelson plays his hits in almost sing-along style, and everyone has a pretty good time. He also played a couple of Hank Williams hits, which everyone in this part of the world learns from birth.

The warmup act was Hot Club of Cowtown, which played a lot of Texas swing. Not bad.

- posted by Rodger @ Permalink |

 
"The feel-good hit of this endless summer"
That's a line from "The Ballad of the Kingsmen" by alt.country musician Todd Snider. If you haven't heard the song, find it and give it a listen. Call your local radio station or visit your favorite CD store. Or buy it from Snider's record company.

The title refers to the song "Louie, Louie," by the Kingsmen, which was supposedly the subject of a long-ago FBI investigation because of hard-to-understand lyrics. Even if that's a myth, it serves an artistic purpose for Todd Snider.

According to reviewer Peter Cooper, writing this past Monday (August 16) in the East Nashville Skyline Snider is making a valuable statement about contemporary American life, sort of like the point addressed in Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine":

what messes up kids' heads isn't their music, but a conflicting, war vs. meek-shall-inherit, free-market vs. love-thy-neighbor upbringing that can make the world harder to understand than Louie Louie's garbled verses. ''The next time some latchkey kid goes wrong/ It ain't gonna be because Eminem gets to say the word (expletive) in his song,'' he [Snider] advises.

Cooper called the song "unbelievably, undeniably stunning" and also wrote that "stunning doesn't begin to describe" the CD.

Needless to say, Cooper gave the recording four stars.

Cooper's praise may be a little over the top but it is a damn fine song and I wish I could hear it again.

Right now.



The CD is on Oh Boy Records.

For my DC area readers, note that Snider will be in Alexandria, VA at the Birchmere on August 26 and in Germantown, MD on the 28th at the Black Rock Center for the Arts.


Note: This weekend I'll be taking in Bob Dylan and Willie Nelson, who are touring minor league ballparks.

Cross your fingers for me as they did have one rainout.
- posted by Rodger @ Permalink |

 
Republican House Member Jumps Ship
I've blogged about a number of Republicans who have abandoned the GOP on Iraq and other important issues of the day, such as the environment.

Here's another one, at least on Iraq: outgoing Representative Doug Bereuter of Nebraska.

Bereuter served more than a quarter century in Congress, including many years on the House International Relations Committee and service as the vice chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Here's what he wrote to his constituents recently, as reported by the Associated Press:

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action," Representative Doug Bereuter wrote in a letter to his constituents.

"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action."

There's more, and it's clear that this House member, despite voting for and speaking in favor of the 2002 congressional resolution on Iraq, disagrees sharply with the neocons who hijacked administration policy:

"From the beginning of the conflict, it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force," Bereuter wrote. "Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."

As a result, he said, "our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened."

As Kos points out, Bereuter represents a district Dems could win this November, and, because of Nebraska law, could even win an Electoral vote (Maine also allows electoral vote splitting).

The Nebraska Congressman refused to answer reporters' questions about his missive, but a spokesperson said the letter "speaks for itself."

Indeed.

- posted by Rodger @ Permalink |

 
Ha Ha Ha
The San Jose Mercury News had an interesting story Monday about political humor and this year's presidential race.

The journalist, Mark de la Viña, found some academics to play up the importance of comedy:

Comedians, unlike many mainstream media outlets, can -- and increasingly do -- express what the average citizen is thinking, says Frederick Turner, assistant professor of communications at Stanford University.

``Sometimes, information is too hard to take in all at once, and that's one thing that comedians do in a culture -- they serve as early warning systems. They're the clowns who can tell the truth, the clowns who can say the emperor has no clothes,'' notes Turner, who specializes in media and American cultural history.

One scholar even thinks comedians constitute a "fifth estate" and help make the press (the "fourth estate") accountable:

Those jokes and more like them are playing an important role in the run up to the election, [Robert J.] Thompson [professor of popular culture at Syracuse University] maintains. Though journalism was long ago dubbed the ``fourth estate,'' helping keep the three branches of government in check, humor is now doing something that far transcends escapism, he argues.

``I'd go so far to say that comedy is the fifth estate,'' Thompson adds. ``It's able to report certain ideas in keeping up with what the government is doing. In some ways, the fifth estate of comedy is able to keep the fourth estate of journalism in line.''

This may be overstated, but it is interesting...

A good portion of the article talks about the importance of Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" (which is perhaps most important to relatively younger audiences):

Leading the charge is Comedy Central's ``The Daily Show'' the news-program satire hosted by Jon Stewart. It has a ``huge influence on what other comedians are doing,'' according to Robert J. Thompson, professor of popular culture at Syracuse University, ``and political leaders, the establishment and the intellectual minority are paying attention.''

``The Daily Show'' has been broadcasting hard-hitting pieces that, though laced with humor, take leaders to task at the same time. On June 21, the program ran a June 2004 clip of Dick Cheney saying he had ``absolutely not'' linked 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta with Saddam Hussein's government, and then followed it with a December 2001 clip where Cheney says a meeting between Hussein and Atta was ``pretty well confirmed.''

``Mr. Vice President,'' Stewart said, staring into the camera, ``I have to inform you: Your pants are on fire.''

Of course, the old guys are getting into the act as well:

Perhaps no mainstream entertainer reflects the postwar shift in tone more vividly than Letterman. Last September, in one of his most pointed jokes, the ``Late Show'' host said, ``President Bush is asking Congress for $80 billion to rebuild Iraq. And when you make out that check, remember there are two L's in Halliburton.''

Great stuff.


- posted by Rodger @ Permalink |