Bush: 86 the 527s
"Never murder a man who is committing suicide," Woodrow Wilson once said. President Bush seems to be following that advice, refusing to be drawn into the controversy over the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's allegations about John Kerry's Vietnam War record. Yesterday the president did, however, make a procedural criticism of the group, as the New York Times reports:

In response to reporters' questions, the president once again condemned the so-called 527 groups, which can raise unlimited donations and run attack ads, but cannot directly coordinate their efforts with the campaigns. . . .

"All of them," the president said, when asked whether he specifically meant that the veteran's group's ad against Mr. Kerry should be stopped. "That means that ad, every other ad. Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527's. I can't be more plain about it, and I wish--I hope my opponent joins me in saying--condemning these activities of the 527's. It's--I think they're bad for the system."

For once we'd have to say Bush is actually vulnerable to criticism from civil libertarians. Does he really mean to suggest that no group except a campaign or a political party has the right to express its political views? And of course Bush is substantially to blame for the rise of 527s as an alternative to campaigns and parties, whose fund-raising and free speech are severely restricted by the McCain-Feingold law, which he signed.

The Kerry campaign, meanwhile, is still demanding that the president defend their man:

"Again the president did the wrong thing today,'' said Chad Clanton, a [Kerry] campaign spokesman. "He has refused to specifically condemn the smear campaign against John Kerry's military record.''

Has anyone stopped to ponder just how pathetic this is? For years we've been hearing from the Democrats that President Bush is a dummy, an illegitimate president, a liar, a military deserter, a "moral coward" and another Hitler--but now Kerry is begging Bush to use his moral authority to get him out of a fix that he himself created by running a campaign based almost entirely on "war hero" braggadocio.

Bush, of course, is wise not to do so. This isn't his battle; it's Kerry vs. Vietnam veterans--and Bush, as the Democrats never tire of reminding us, is not a Vietnam vet. The president has graciously given Kerry the benefit of the doubt, as the Times notes:

Asked if Mr. Kerry had lied about his war record, Mr. Bush said, "Mr. Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record.''

That's real class. But it can't be emphasized enough that the same is true of the men who make up the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Over the years Kerry has trashed them, first as war criminals and now as liars--but in terms of service to their country, every member of this group is at least Kerry's equal. It wouldn't hurt if President Bush, without endorsing their charges against Kerry, said a good word about their service in Vietnam.

The Heart of the Matter
Blogger Edward Morrissey notes a report from Fox News's Major Garrett that the Kerry campaign has acknowledged one of the key allegations in John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi's "Unfit for Command":

Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2nd, 1968. But an entry in Kerry's own journal written nine days later, he writes that, quote, he and his crew hadn't been shot at yet, unquote. Kerry's campaign has said it is possible his first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound.

Which, of course, is precisely what "Unfit" says happened.

A Man With No Plan
Blogress Ann Althouse makes an excellent point about the political pickle in which John Kerry finds himself (emphasis hers):

It seems that Kerry's idea for how to deal with this huge Swift Boat Veterans problem is to churn up a swirly mass of impressions and imputations and then hope that he is the one who looks clean in the end. The Kerry people seem to be hoping that people are too dim to understand that a group of Bush supporters could operate independently or conspiracy-minded enough to think they all coordinate behind the scenes in plain violation of the law. There is a separate point Kerry has made that Bush should openly denounce the ads and that his failure to do so signifies a willingness to reap the advantages they bring him. That's the clean point, but it has been made, and it apparently hasn't done well enough, because we now see the campaign boat steering over the border into right-wing-conspiracy land.

But what is the solution for Kerry? I'm sure his people are racking their brains now. But they should have thought this through earlier, back when they were so sure that if the candidate stood up at the convention as a war hero that he would be greeted with candy and flowers. They convinced each other that what they wanted to believe was true, and, as a consequence they never had a plan for how to deal with the attacks that they should have known were there.

The Washington Post's David Broder explains the thinking behind Kerry's campaign: "In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that 'I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War,' apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record." It doesn't exactly bolster your confidence in Kerry's ability to approach other cultures with subtlety and nuance, does it?

Here's a hilarious headline from the Canadian Press: "Democrats Worry About Runaway Focus on John Kerry's Vietnam War Service." Of course, way back in December 2002 we noted Kerry's own "runaway focus" on his war service (though we didn't use the clumsy Canuck mixed metaphor). The Dems must be ruing the day they didn't listen to us.

What Liberal Media?
Here are a couple of nice examples of the bias that creeps into coverage of the Kerry war controversy. An Associated Press dispatch refers to "the Republican-bankrolled Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." This is an accurate description, inasmuch as the group has indeed taken money from people who are Republicans. But do you recall ever hearing a "mainstream" media reference to, say, "the Democrat-bankrolled MoveOn.org"? Neither do we.

A piece in yesterday's New York Times, meanwhile, notes that "some Democrats close to Mr. Kerry said they feared that the very thing that had led the party to see him as its strongest challenger to Mr. Bush, his record as a decorated combat veteran in Vietnam, was now threatening to undermine his candidacy because of criticism raised by some former Vietnam veterans."

"Former" Vietnam veterans? So according to the Times, if you criticize Kerry, you lose your veteran status?

Dem Attacks Bush's War Record
Yesterday we noted that despite Democratic whines that criticism of John Kerry's war record is some sort of unprecedented smear, in 1996 The Nation published an article questioning Bob Dole's war record. National Review's Jim Geraghty reminds us that in 1992 The New Republic published an article by Sidney Blumenthal--later a "correspondent" for The New Yorker and then a hatchet man for the Clinton White House--that quoted tail gunner Chester Mierzejewski, who served in the Pacific with George H.W. Bush and who disputed the latter's campaign account of his wartime activities.

Geraghty has a long excerpt from the article, which doesn't seem to be available online, followed by his own conclusion:

One can believe that Sid Blumenthal's article, citing Mierzejewski and some differing versions of Bush's story raises legitimate questions about the former president. And one can believe that the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, all 264 of them and their sworn affidavits, along with Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story, raise legitimate questions about Kerry. But it is hard to contend that the former is legitimate hard-nosed journalism while the latter is just a smear campaign.

Elizabeth Edwards, Muslim Fundamentalist?
John Edwards's wife, Elizabeth, "comes to Tucson on Sunday to reach out to female voters--and a female reporter," reports the Arizona Daily Star. "The wife of Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards specifically requested that an Arizona Daily Star female feature reporter interview her while she is in town."

It's a bit reminiscent of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, where male doctors were not allowed to examine female patients. Of course, this is America, where we do not tolerate sex discrimination. Maybe the male reporters at the Arizona Daily Star should file a class-action lawsuit against Mrs. Edwards. But who would represent them? Well, we can think of a certain trial lawyer who may be looking for work next January.

This Just In
"McGovern Embraces Liberalism"--headline, Sarasota (Fla.) Herald-Tribune, Aug. 24

Timothy Leary Lives
"Clear Channel jettisoned KPOP's longtime Adult Standards and heritage call letters [Monday] morning to becomes KLSD, 'San Diego's Progressive Talk,' " reports RadioandRecords.com. "KLSD's new lineup of left-of-center talk personalities includes Air America's Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and Janeane Garafolo along with Jones Radio Network's Ed Schultz and WOR Radio Network's Lionel."

KLSD? We guess that's appropriate for these acid-tongued liberals.

The Angry Left
"North Korea has described US President George W Bush as an 'imbecile' and a 'tyrant that puts Hitler in the shade,' " the BBC reports (ellipsis in original):

President Bush explained in a speech in Hudson, Wisconsin, last Wednesday, his decision to ask other countries in the region to help him persuade the North to disarm.

"I felt it was important to bring other countries into the mix, like China and Japan and South Korea and Russia, so there's now five countries saying to the tyrant in North Korea, disarm, disarm," he said.

A North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman, in comments carried by state news agency KCNA, responded: "This clearly proves that the DPRK [North Korea] was right when it commented that he is a political imbecile bereft of even elementary morality. . . .

"Bush is a tyrant that puts Hitler into the shade and his group of such tyrants is a typical gang of political gangsters," he said.

What's the difference between a Democrat and a North Korean communist? One thinks President Bush is a stupid Hitler, and the other--oh wait, never mind.

Reuters Blames the Marines
On Sunday we bought a tank of gas and paid $2.12 a gallon. Why so high? According to the Reuters "news" service, it's the fault of the U.S. Marines: "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."

What Would We Do Without Detectives?
"A BBC archivist was stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack by someone with the desire to kill, detectives said last night."--Daily Telegraph (London), Aug. 23

Life After the Vice Presidency
"Gore, Violence Splash Film in Traditional Horror"--headline, Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press, Aug. 23

This Pew Ain't Big Enough for the Two of Us
"Two Members of Clearwater Church Vie for Same Seat"--headline, Florida Baptist Witness, Aug. 19

Rage in a Kg
Columnist Dave Barry is usually described as a humorist, but every now and then he makes an entirely serious, and quite incisive, point. Here's an example, from a column he filed from the Olympics in Athens:

The weightlifting competition I saw was the women's 63 kg class. I'm not sure whether this means the actual women weighed 63 kg or the weights they lifted weighed 63 kg. Or possibly the temperature in the weightlifting hall was 63 kg. There's no way to know for sure without finding out what a ''kg'' is, and my belief, as an American, is that if I have to start understanding the metric system, then the terrorists have won.

Thank goodness there are only 16 days until toe meets leather as the 2004 NFL season kicks off.

Not Too Brite--CLVII
"The family of a 17-year-old Vietnamese boy who died 36 years ago kept his body in their home after a fortune teller told relatives they had buried the teenager alive by mistake," Reuters reports from Hanoi.

Oddly Enough!

(For an explanation of the "Not Too Brite" series, click here.)

Truth or Consequences
"John Kerry's presidential campaign, which slighted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic convention last month, now wants the former first lady to lead its 'truth squad' at next week's GOP convention," the New York Post reports. Remember the cattle futures and the missing law-firm records? Could anyone be better qualified to lead a "truth squad"?

The caption on the Post's photo of New York's junior senator reads: "Sen. John Kerry wants Hillary Clinton to keep an eye on the GOP's convention." If she does as good a job as she did keeping an eye on her husband, the Republicans will be able to get away with murder.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to John Steele Gordon, Scott Roy, Alisa Duncanson, John Matthews, Michael Segal, Ray Hendel, Tom Linehan, Jim Kirkwood, Mark Wallace, David Farkas, Raghu Desikan, Michael Nunnelley, Barak Moore, Bennett Ruda, Scott Offen, Steve Prestegard, Sol Cranfill, Jim Driskill, Jim Poje, Dan Hood, Robert Woodard, John Pierce, Jason Riggs, Lee Harris, Jennifer Ray, Roger Congdon, Bob Krumm, Paul Dyck, M. Gilbertson, Steve Shineman, Rosanne Klass, R.M. Eagle, Alan Ogletree, Christopher Coleman, Skip King and David Anderson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: John Kerry's "war crimes" libel returns to haunt him.
• Brendan Miniter: Bush and Kerry won't even bother campaigning in 30 or more states. That's good.
• Jimmy Carter: Hugo Chávez won fair and square.
• Paula Zakaria: You don't have to be a great writer to get into Harvard Business School.