The Island of Balta

1 other VMA note
This one is more of a basketball note than it is an actual VMA award, but I should take a second to say it. The first people that they brought out on stage tonight in Miami were Will Smith (obvious), who brought Shaq, recently traded to the Miami Heat, out on stage with him. And, just looking at it from the perspective of a basketball fan...the NBA should be scared s**tless about playing the heat this year.

Having watched the NBA Finals, just from the way Shaq looked on stage tonight, it's obvious that he's pissed. He's damn pissed at the way the Lakers treated him; letting Phil go and deciding that Kobe was the most important part of the team. He didn't have to say a word about it either.

You could tell Shaq was pissed because just on stage tonight he was in better shape than he's been in for at least the last couple years, where he ballooned to well over 300 pounds. The last few years he's slowed down and had his body start giving out on him.

Tonight, just looking at him on stage, he's lost a heck of a lot of weight. Tens of pounds - couldn't tell exactly. But he's already getting himself in shape, and he looks better than he has any time over the last few years.

He's pissed. He's already getting himself in shape, and he's dropping weight. Now, he's still going to be a giant oaf like he always is, but if he's playing a solid game and playing hard, he's still the best oaf in basketball, and I think that the rest of the NBA needs to worry. If Shaq's on a mission, Miami's going to be quite a force.

|

VMA's
A few comments on the MTV Video Music Awards, held tonight in Miami. Now, as usual, I could care less about the large part of the show. But there were a few cool moments.

First of all - good work, Polyphonic Spree. The least-known group that night put on quite a cool performance...expecting a good 2nd album from them.

Secondly...Wayne from the Flaming Lips in a giant hamster ball - precious.

The thing I actually want to complain about though is the MTV2 award. Usually, this is the only award, or at best one of the 2 or 3 awards I actually care about, because it's usually the only one with actual songs I like in it. And you know what? MTV keeps pissing me off royally on this award.

How, you may ask? Very Simple...every single darn year, it seems that MTV pulls a Ralph Nader with the bands I like. This year...there were 3 groups I wanted to see win - Modest Mouse, Franz Ferdinand, and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. There was also 2 hip-hop acts I could care less about, and Yellowcard, an annoying new-cheap-punk-rock type band. Now, this award is one of the awards that the public gets to vote on. Personally, I saw 3 classes of music there - the good alt-rock bands, the hip-hop acts, and the annoying-punk-rock band.

So now, if I wanted to have just 1 of the bands I like win, I'd have to find a way to overcome having a 3-way vote split, while Yellowcard was standing alone in their category. And Guess who won? That's right. Yellowcard - the one who didn't have their vote split.

And the really obnioxious thing? MTV does this to me every year. Can't remember the exact videos, but I know they did that to me last year too. And now it's pissing me off.

|

A warm welcome
Welcome to New York, RNC.



(~50 arrests total on the day. Remarkably calm, it seemed. Haven't seen any offical number estimates yet.)

|

VICTORY!
In yet another of those topics I haven't hit upon this week because of the Swift Boat liars...

60 years ago in the last week, the event that I would call the single greatest parade in history took place. And last-week, a smaller reenactment took place.

In 1940, an army flush with victory goose-stepped down the Champs-Elyses, in front of the Arc de Triomphe. It's quite a sad piece of footage, in retrospect. The British and French generals were totally out-maneuvered, out-planned, and their poor planning ended up causing the capitulation of a country that was once one of Europe's great powers.

4 years later, General Jacques LeClerc and General Charles DeGaulle led a unit of the Free French Army, supplied with American tanks and weapons, in a victory march down that same street in Paris. Following them, the American army, which the French troops had supported, continued the march, before heading back out into combat.

It took days of fighting for Paris - the French Resistance opened up on the Germans when the Allies closed in, killed hundreds...eventually their actions played a part in the decision of the German commander to surrender rather than burn the city to the ground, as he was ordered to do.

On that day, the United States, the nation that France had helped save in the 1770's, had returned to truly save France. American and French flags flew side-by side. French women threw flowers upon the American tanks. There were parties. People risked being killed by snipers just to celebrate. It was truly a great spectacle.

Today, much is made of how the French supposedly are our new enemies. A select few have even advocated making them real military enemies. But if you watched closely, last week you could really see what France thought of America itself.

Last week, the French people re-enacted the parade. People dressed up in 1940s costume. People dressed up as Americans and rode down the street. A free show was performed by 1500 actors. American Flags and French flags flew side by side again.

There may be some in that country who hate America, yes. But I think that deep down, that country loves America. But the problem is, they love America, but are willing to disagree with America's policies, especially when America bases those policies on lies.

We launched a war based on a mistake; we said that Iraq was loaded with WMD, the French didn't believe us, and they were right. And because they didn't believe a word out of Bush's mouth, we renamed French Fries "Freedom Fries." And so on.

These are not people who hate America. Not yet anyways. They are still an honorable nation. And while they may not have the power they once did, they are still a country worth some respect. If nothing else, they were a lot closer to the truth on Iraq than our own government was.

The people who dressed up as Americans last week certainly don't hate America. Those who were there in 1944 don't hate America. Those who learned about those times don't hate America. France is America's oldest friend, and it showed through last week.

I just wrote this as a reminder; just because France disagrees with the liar at the top doesn't mean France hates us all. France is not the enemy, and it only hurts America to treat her as one. Name one other nation that is celebrating the arrival of American troops these days. They may disagree with our policies, but they are not our enemy. And sometimes, I think this country needs to be reminded of that.

In 1917...General Persching arrived in France with the words "Lafayette...we are here." One of these days, America may remember that feeling, and regret having unilaterally changed it.

|

Convention Protest Bet thread
Ok, none of my open "discuss this topic" threads have really worked that well before, but my audience has grown by a decent amount in the last few weeks, so I'm going to try it again.

In this thread, I want you to take your best guess on 2 numbers; first, what will the NYPD say that the total number of protesters at the RNC convention this week is, and second, how many people will the organizers claim to have brought together to protest?

My money; between all the protests, the police will claim 200k, the organizers will claim 500k. Reality will probably be somewhere inbetween.

|

TURNABOUT IS F***ING FAIR PLAY!
Ben Barnes. Former Speaker of the Texas House. Go watch the video.

Let’s talk a minute about John Kerry and George Bush and I know them both. And I’m not name dropping to say I know ‘em both. I got a young man named George W. Bush in the National Guard when I was Lt. Gov. of Texas and I’m not necessarily proud of that. But I did it. And I got a lot of other people into the National Guard because I thought that was what people should do, when you're in office you helped a lot of rich people. And I walked through the Vietnam Memorial the other day and I looked at the names of the people that died in Vietnam and I became more ashamed of myself than I have ever been because it was the worst thing that I did was that I helped a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get into the National Guard and I’m very sorry about that and I’m very ashamed and I apologize to you as voters of Texas.

(Saw video this morning, TPM wrote the text)

Update: WaPo piece from 99 on this guy. You'll note the fun statement by a guy who went on to become the chief WH propagandist.

|

Summary
They laughed at me when I said earlier that the big media outlets were giving more coverage to the RNC Convention than to the DNC, when I had just 1 piece of Evidence. Atrios gives us a few more. CBS will have an extra half hour. MSNBC will also run more. In addition to the extra free time on ABC mentionned before.

|

Beaten by Ginobili
Man, was I excited about basketball at the Olympics in 92 - the Bulls had just finished up their 2nd championship, beating the blazers, and then I got to see Jordan, Pippen, Malone, Stockton, Johnson, Barkely, et al. all playing for the same team. That was one hell of a show. It didn't matter that we blew everyone out of the water - just seeing those players all on the same side was a marvel.

Argentina 89. United States 81. Neither the Gold nor the Silver will the 2004 United States Basketball team earn. Many Ginobili, who also plays for the Spurs, scored 29 points to lead his team. Once again, they were back to missing shots - 36% shooting in the first half. Didn't hit a 3 pointer until right before halftime.

If you wanted to know why Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Allan Iverson, etc. are not the next Michael Jordan...if you needed more evidence you now have it.

America should be ashamed of the NBA today.

|

More proof that the swifties are lying
Ok, in terms of Kerry's bronze star again...now we have even more proof that the Swift Boat vets are liars. THus far, we've already got...

Thurlow says they weren't under fire. Except the WaPo dredges up that Thurlow's own bronze star said they were under fire.

The NYT says that THurlow's boat had bullet holes in them (clearly self-inflicted, I'm sure).

Reports written that day say they were under fire, and aren't signed by Kerry.

The other guy who got the bronze star that day comes out and says he was certainly under fire. (And that he pulled Thurlow out of the water under fire)

And now to top it all off...not only do we have all that, but Newsweek has a document that not only continues to confirm Kerry's side of the story, but it also contains details that Kerry's boat could not have seen as it was on the far side of the river when they happened. In other words...the whole idea that Kerry wrote the report that won him the medal and made up the "Under fire" part is simply a lie - he can't write a report that's not signed by him and includes details he didn't see.

Oh, and Thurlow is now listed as "Traveling and out of contact." hahahahahahaha.


|

White House Refuses FOIA request on contacts between them and Swift Boat Vets for Revenge
Well, now here's a shocker if I ever saw one (sarcastic tone)...the Bush Administration doesn't want to give up information to a public organization on whether or not there are contacts between them and the swifties.

Earlier today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) received a letter from the Executive Office of the President denying CREW's Aug. 24 request for records detailing White House contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT). As grounds for the denial, the White House claimed that it was exempt from having to disclose the information.

CREW had asked the White House to release information regarding contacts between the Executive Office of the President and members of SBVT and others associated with the group, including public relations, advertising, detective and fundraising organizations.

Upon receiving the denial of the FOIA request, CREW's Executive Director Melanie Sloan stated "If the White House really had nothing to do with SBVT or its ads, then there was no reason for it to deny CREW's request. The White House could have released the records and silenced its critics. Its refusal to respond suggests that there is information the White House would prefer not become public."

|

Breakin the law, breakin the law
Earlier this week, I posted about the fact that the Bush Administration was bragging about the Afghan and Iraqi teams in the olympics in a campaign ad. The Iraqis were pissed off at it, calling Bush a butcher. The IOC was also pissed, as they basically own the copyright to the words Olympics. Turns out its slightly more detailed than that - in 1999, Congress actually passed a law giving the IOC exclusive rights to the word olympics, derivatives of that word, and the 5 ring sign. The law also said that the olympics "shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office."

Now, when people asked about this ad, the Bushes simply refused to drop it until the end of the olympics. Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure that the people who wrote the legal opinions justifying Abu Ghraib could find a way around that act, but it seems that this ad is basically in blatant violation of the law.

In other words, the President's campaign is only following the law when it suits them to do so. If the Kerry Campaign doesn't do something about this, they're stupid. Ditto the IOC. If you can't complain to the FEC when a campaign ad clearly breaks the law, then when can you complain to them?

Oh and by the way, I know Der Spiegel isn't exactly what I would call the most un-biased source, but if you can believe their ability to quote things, Bush's ad could cost NYC the olympics.

One of the members said of the upcoming decision who will host the Olympics in 2012

"The chances of New York to host the Olympic games in 2012 were not that good. But now they were lowered to zero."

Update: Full Translation from Kos here.


|

Learning something new every day
A little bit more education on unemployment numbers. Right now, the U.S. government actually puts out a bunch of different employment numbers; a payroll survey based on a much larger sampling of workers, and the household survey, which is taken from a much smalelr sample.

Over the past year, the Household survey has often shown growth while the Payroll survey has not. So, in all of those months, such as July, the Republicans have been out there saying we should only trust the Household survey, while in the few months when job growth actually looked solid, they were saying we should only trust the Payroll survey.

Thanks to Jesse Taylor over @ Pandagon, I actually think I have a better understanding of where the divergence between the two surveys actually is. Here's something that's worth remembering whenever people talk about the 2 surveys. The Payroll survey isn't perfect; it includes that Birth/Death model that smooths out high-frequency variation, and so on, but it's gotta be better than this.

Using the BLS study to which the writers refer, how does the household survey work?

The CPS uses a much broader definition of employment. It includes persons working in agriculture and nonwage and salary workers, that is, the unincorporated self employed and at least some unpaid workers in family businesses.

The CPS classifies people as employed if, during the calendar week that includes the 12 th of the month, they did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees, worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm for profit, or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm.

So, if you go in to work a couple of hours a week at your uncle's store for fifteen bucks, that's a job. If you work 15 hours and don't get paid at all, that's a job. Might we now be getting an inkling of why the household survey isn't used as the official measure of employment?

|

Hehe
One of the Swift Boat liars is about to lose his job. For lying. About the same thing that got Clinton in trouble.

Clackamas County prosecutor Alfred French, who called Sen. John Kerry a liar in a political commercial, acknowledged Thursday that he lied to his boss when confronted about an extramarital affair with a colleague.

Hours later, the Clackamas County district attorney's office said French had been placed on a 30-day paid leave while it conducts an investigation into his conduct.

French's former boss, James O'Leary, said he asked French about the rumored affair with a secretary about 10 years ago, but French denied it. O'Leary said he would have fired French if he'd admitted the relationship because it violated office policy.

Had he not gotten all this press coverage, he'd probably have sat there for another 20 years. His problem was he admitted the affair in a press interview.

|

XP SP2
After hearing that it's been out for a couple weeks now, my computer finally told me that I should upgrade to Windows XP Service pack 2 yesterday. And while the install was one obnoxious battle (35 minute download time my arse - I'm on a T3 and it took about an hour and a half to finish the "Pre and Post" download junk before it could actually install), thus far I'm at least not having any problems.

And I do have 1 thing to say for it - the Google popup blocker I use has been failing to block Drudge's popups for months. Windows is stopping them, at least for now.

|

Well deserved
Given all the monetary and manpower assistance given by Republicans to the Ralph Nader campaign, wouldn't you say its clearly appropriate for Mr. Nader to be on the speakers list at the Republican National Convention? Petition here.

(Thanks to one of the WM guest-posters)

|

Wow
More Americans have now died in Iraq in 2004 than 2003. And there were 287 days between the start of the invasion and the end of last year; we've only passed through 239 days this year.

|

Call for removal
In response to one of J.Scott's posts in the comments and a link to this article, I think it would be highly appropriate for this man to be removed from 1 of his jobs.

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.

I think that, in my head, the line that should be drawn between a 527 and a campaign should at least include forcing the 2 groups to have different lawyers and advisors up and down the line. I'm uncertain whether or not members of campaigns should be able to appear at events/fund-raisers held by 527 groups. Both sides have done it; Bush has appeared at fundraisers for Republican 527 groups, several Democrats have as well. But if nothing else, they need different advisors, otherwise the fact that they know exaclty what each other is planning (through the fact that 1 person is giving advice to both and knows what advice has been given to each) constitutes to me an example of coordination.

My advice to readers would be to use this link and suggest that the Kerry Campaign casually remove this lawyer from their list of advisors. I just did so myself.

|

Isn't this nice?
Man, here's one prime example of the party of tolerance.

"I’m not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children." - Donnie McClurkin, GOP Convention entertainer speaking about gays.

He is also on record as calling homosexuality a curse. And as saying it is thrust upon people by abuse and neglect.



|

Ugh
You know what's sad? There are 3 issues or so that I've been wanting to get to all week, and I've been so preoccupied with trying to paint a picture of how poor the credibility of those swift boat folks is that I haven't had time to get to them. Guess if nothing else, that part of the campaign is doing its job.

On Monday, the Bush administration imposed (I'm pretty sure without a vote) new overtime rules that have been chewing around for years in the Department of Labor. Probably the most remarkable thing about the new rules is this; I have simply no idea at all what they're actually going to do. None at all. Not one iota.

This article puts together a good summary of what I mean; no one anywhere seems to know exactly how many people are going to gain overtime and how many could lose it under these rules. The government says 100k could lose it, while millions could gain it. Labor says that 6 million could lose it. Even the Heritage foundation is saying that at least 300,000 could lose it - tripling the administration estimate. And there are estimates all over that spread.

On Monday, I caught a portion of Lou Dobbs's program on this subject, and I think that a pair of exchanges were particularly illustrative. First, Dobbs had on as a guest a person in the department of labor. She sat there and said over and over that this initiative will help Americans, more people should get overtime, and so on. Repeated the talking points. But then, Lou hit her with a question she didn't expect at all. She kept insisting that only 100k would stand to lose overtime, and it might not even be that high. Then Lou asked something to this effect; if the numbers who would stand to lose overtime are so small, why can't we just write the law so that instead of it being 100k, it's zero? Why can't we let people who have overtime keep it and also expand the program?

He asked it several times. And remarkably, I didn't hear a single coherent answer; she kept trying to change the subject. She had no explanation other than saying the rules were outdated to tell us why some people did need to lose their overtime.

Lou's next guest after her was Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. He went on there from the opposing side; that these were bad news, that they were going to cost milliions their overtime, and so on. Honestly, I sat there still not having a clue who's numbers to believe. But 1 thing that did get me from Harkin's talk was this; when the DOL came up with these new regulations, they didn't exactly go and see what labor interests really thought of them. If they held meetings on them, they did it in Cheney-Energy task force fashion; they didn't bother getting outside opinions. If they let anyone in, it was business interests, but I'm not even certain about that. What is certain is this; these regulations were written totally in private, unveiled, and eventually enacted without any real debate; the Congress had blocked it a couple times, and may still do so again, but no one sat there and bargained on the rules.

Now, I still don't know who's numbers to believe. I'm sure it depends on how exactly you do the math; it almost certainly won't be the 6 million, it almost certainly won't be only 100k. But it's somewhere in there, and the real truth is that it seems no one has a real clue where the number falls.

The real issue, and the real problem here I feel, is not that new overtime regulations were implemented, or even that some people might lose overtime, it's that there wasn't debate at all on what the regulations could do.

If you want to come out with good legislation that everyone can agree with, there are better ways to do it than writing it in a back room, and I think the confusion in numbers is a direct result of that. These new rules came out without both labor and business having a fair say in how they were constructed. This left no balance in perspective at all; no meeting of the minds whatsoever. So on one side you ended up with 1 interpretation of the rules saying nurses were going to lose overtime, and on the other you had people saying most nurses wouldn't. And neither I nor the media outlets seem to know who to believe. The extreme Partisans on each side followed their line: the Dems all said 6 million, the Repubs all said 100k. And the truth just has to be somewhere in between.

The reality, and the real potential disaster, is that no one seems to have a clue in the end. Each side has its opinion, but it seems that the numbers really don't add up. And I'm afraid that its hard to say this isn't a standard Bush administration way of doing business.

Right now, I'd like to follow labor's lead and criticize the Bushes for trying to take away overtime protection, but I'm not confident enough in Labor's opinion to follow their lead. Likewise, I don't trust the Bush administration at all when they say they're not working hard to help big-business, for obvious reasons. Put together, I don't know which one to trust.

There needed to be far more debate on this issue. I wish that the regulations had actually gone before Congress with a chance for debate, amendments, conference committees, and real analysis. Or at least hold some committee hearings on them. It could have at least cleaned up what people say the rules were going to do. Instead, it became an all-or-nothing thing, with the DOL trying to impose the rules and Congress trying to block them. And that lack of real analysis and negotiation strikes me as having a habit of producing poor legislation (see the PATRIOT act).

That's about how I feel about the new rules; confused, and wishing for more. I can say 1 thing though. The DOL lady kept trying to stress how few people would lose their overtime, but had no answer for why anyone had to lose it in the first place. This is not a trustworthy perspective, and its a sign that they're trying to hide something. The only reason why DOL would insist that they make some people lose their overtime and then go out on talking points saying its a small number is that the number is probably going to be larger. If the true number wasn't larger than the one the DOL was pushing, then they'd have no problem following Lou's suggestion and writing the rules so even fewer lost overtime. The only reason to force those rules in is to open up larger loopholes for people to fall through. And I'm pretty sure that's the reason Lou asked the question in the first place.

How many people will gain and lose from this proposal? No clue. But when Heritage is giving numbers that say the Bush Administration is on the sunny side by a factor of 3, I'd say that's a pretty good sign that the DOL's spinning their numbers. This proposal should not have been put in place yet. There should have been a lot more work and negotiation first. If for no other reason, that way people could actually understand what is really in there.

Sadly, I think I can say this; the confusion between Labor and Business on this issue is going to be a bonanza for those people Bush loves to tell you to despise; lawyers. When no one has a clue what the actual law means, there is going to be a huge number of cases generated where people lost their overtime and sue to get it back. And I can't say I blame them; if I lost mine and I believed the DOL, I'd probably sue too. The confusion on this issue is probably going to dump cases into the court system for years until they're rewritten again.


|

Terrible news
Have work to get to, but I'm going to leave you with these for the time being. 27 people were killed in Iraq in a blast in front of the main mosque in the city of Kufa.

And as I'm sure you've heard already, a man who was just informed that his son had died in Iraq went out to the garage, grabbed some propane, climbed into the van of the Marines who came to inform his family, and lit it all on fire.

A sad day in Iraq. And a sad day in America, brought on thanks to our being in Iraq. Like so many others.

|

Vote or Die
Interesting work by the First Lady.

Sean (Puffy) Combs hasn't had a day like this since J.Lo kicked him to the curb. His Diddiness scrubbed last night's scheduled performance at the new Ohio slavery museum over what the rap mogul feels was a snub by the First Lady's office.

Combs reportedly was on his way to the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati to play at the museum's dedication concert when somebody told him Laura Bush would not feel comfortable sharing the stage with him.

"He was planning on doing it," a Combs aide told us. "But we don't understand why she wouldn't want to stand with him. He hasn't been partisan at all."

|

Difficulties
If I stop posting randomly at some point in the next day or few days...blame Dell. Having computer problems; its working variably right now but it has this odd habit of shutting down without warning & not being too happy about restarting; thankfully its still under warranty and I should be having it repaired soon. But if this page goes dark all of a sudden, that's why. Hopefully won't happen. But just wanted to warn y 'all.

|

Fascinating
The Bush Legacy. The number of people in poverty increased by 1.3 million people last year. 1.5 million more people are now without health insurance. These numbers have been worse every single full year of the Bush Administration.

But Kerry was in Cambodia in January not December! They were celebrating Tet not Christmas! He's clearly evil! I don't care if I'm in poverty and without insurance, the difference between December 68 and January 69 should be the issue that decides the election!

|

Piling on and Piling on and Piling on
Back to Mr. Kerry's Bronze star, the award that the Swift Vets have hung their hat on in saying he didn't deserve becasue none of the boats were under fire the day that Mr Kerry pulled Mr. Rassman from the water. Thus far, we've already got Mr. Thurlow, who earned a bronze star that day as well for being under fire, saying he wasn't actually under fire but not explaining convincingly why he deserves a bronze star for pulling people out of the water when not under fire while Mr. Kerry does not. We've got records of bullet holes in his boat that were repaired after the exchange, which are there from Lord only knows what reason if the boat wasn't under fire. Now we also have the other guy who won a bronze star that day.

Robert E. Lambert doesn’t plan to vote for John Kerry.

But the Eagle Point man challenges claims by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that there was no enemy fire aimed at the five swift boats, including the one commanded by Kerry, on March 13, 1969 on the Bay Hap River in the southern tip of what was then South Vietnam.

Lambert, now 64, was a crew member on swift boat PCF-51 that day. The boat was commanded by Navy Lt. Larry Thurlow, a now-retired officer who questions why Kerry was awarded a Bronze star for bravery and a third Purple Heart for the March 13 incident.

"He and another officer now say we weren’t under fire at that time," Lambert said Wednesday afternoon. "Well, I sure was under the impression we were.".....

Thurlow says his citation for a Bronze Star, which states the boats were being fired upon, was based on an initial report written by Kerry.

Lambert doesn’t know who wrote the documents.

"They took what everybody said after they got in, piled it altogether and shipped it off and somebody wrote that, either at the division level, squadron level or commander of naval forces, Vietnam level," Lambert said. "They decided what kind of medal was going to be put on it.

"Mine was for pulling Lt. Thurlow out of the river while we were under fire," he said.....

According to Kerry’s Bronze Star citation, he was awarded the medal for rescuing Special Forces officer Jim Rassmann, who had been blown off his swift boat. Rassmann, who lives in Florence, has repeatedly stated the boats were under fire.

"We were done with our OPs and on the way back out to sea," Lambert recalled. "We were exiting the river. Kerry’s boat went through, then the 43 boat."

Then PCF-3 hit a mine.

"The mine was right underneath it, just lifted it right out of the water," he said.

The six-member crew was stunned and shaken by the blast; the boat was running free.

"It was running wide open — we were all running wide open, trying to get out of there," he said.

But while PCF-3 was running at full throttle, there was no one at the helm.

Thurlow pulled his boat up along the PCF-3 boat and told Lambert to take control of the PCF-51 boat, Lambert said.

"Everybody was shooting back," he said. "After my boat officer (Thurlow) jumped on the 3 boat, he was looking at people (the crew). His boat hit a sandbar and he was knocked overboard. So we went in and got him out."

Lambert, who reached down to help Thurlow aboard, was awarded the Bronze Star for his "courage under fire," according to his citation.

"We went right back to the 3 boat and he (Thurlow) went back on the boat," he said. "We got the 3 boat off the sandbar, got a boat tied to each side of it and down the river we went."

So now we have multiple officers, multiple official naval documents, Mr. Thurlow's own award, and even a guy who isn't voting for Kerry but also received a bronze star that day saying they were under fire.

Someone care to explain to me why exactly I should believe the Swift Boat Vets for revenge?



|

Insanity
Um...I think Al's losing it.

In the spirit of Paddy Chayefsky's classic movie monologue from "Network," the liberal comedian Wednesday urged New Yorkers -- and other Americans -- to simultaneously scream the all-purpose local wisecrack at the moment that President Bush accepts the nomination.

"This is a form of protest that is very non-disruptive," Franken said at a press conference in the Park Avenue office of Air America radio network, where he hosts a talk show.

Franken said the September 2 protest, called the "Great American Shout-Out," will not "tax our public safety system at all."

"This is our way of venting," Franken added. "It will be a catharsis."

Franken said he expected the shouts to last less than five minutes. Out of "respect for the office of the presidency," he asked that participants quiet down once Bush begins speaking so "people can hear him give a bad speech."

Franken said he expects 100 million people nationwide to participate, adding: "Anything less would be a horrific failure."

Sadly, I'll probably participate. Here's their actual web page.

|

By the way
I think this may be the least offensive thing I've heard Dick Cheney say in years.

Resorting to unusually expansive language to address an emotional campaign issue that has proved divisive for Republicans, Cheney said he believes individual states rather than the federal government should decide whether to sanction marriage between homosexuals.

"My general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want," Cheney, 63, said in response to a question at a campaign "town hall" meeting in Davenport, Iowa.

Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian and works for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said during the 2000 presidential race that be held homosexual marriage to be a state issue.

But he has been circumspect about gay marriage in the current election year, while Bush has appealed to social conservatives by backing congressional efforts to enact a constitutional ban.

"I made clear four years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide, that that's how it ought to best be handled," Cheney said.

"But the president makes basic policy for the administration. And he's made it clear that he does in fact support a constitutional amendment on this issue," he added.

He suggested the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which recognizes heterosexual marriage for purposes of federal law, could help resolve the gay marriage issue.

Must be hard when your boss tries to declare your own daughter to be a second-class citizen. For once, I'm impressed, although it would have been nice for someone to ask him that question back before the first Senate vote on the subject.

|

Some Good news from Iraq
After a couple weeks of phony cease-fires and negotiations with Sadr, the one guy who could actually shut him up is back in the Country. Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani is back in the country and calling for a march on Najaf in order to rescue the city.

Unfortunately, CNN doesn't tell me if he wants to rescue the city from Sadr or from the Americans. I'm just going to hope he meant Sadr.

|

And oh by the way
The Swift Boat Vets have one of the same lawyers as the Bush/Cheney Campaign. He says that he's kept his advice separate. And as I'm sure my Republican commenters will be happy to explain, we can always trust the words coming out of a lawyer's mouth. And he's probably about to be removed from the B/C campaign.

Update: Yes he has resigned. And of course, this one gets better too. From the WM.

What's also true is that Ginsberg himself has attacked what he characterizes as the impropriety of individuals holding dual roles with campaigns and 527s.

An article that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer just two weeks ago included this bit about Ginsberg: "Ben Ginsberg, a legal adviser to the Bush campaign, specifically condemned the dual roles played by Democrats Harold Ickes and Bill Richardson, who had official roles at the convention and also within prominent friendly 527s. 'They're over the coordination line,' Ginsberg said of Ickes and Richardson. 'The whole notion of cutting off links between public officeholders and soft-money groups just got exploded.'"

To make things even better, Ginsberg doesn't just advise the Swift Boat Guys -- a role he will no doubt seriously downplay over the next few days. He serves as the official chief counsel to Progress for America, another 527 that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, exists to "form 'issue truth squads' that respond to Democratic attacks on President Bush."

So not only was he potentially in violation of the law by working directly with the Swift Boat group, he was potentially in violation of the law with another group, and at the same time he was saying that there were Democrats who were too close to 527's.

Funny stuff.

|

And another one bites the dust
I'm actually starting to enjoy this - these guys are so pathetic on their lies that it's just shooting fish in a barrel. Remember that idiotic story about how Kerry supposedly earned himself the bronze star by lying about the boats being under fire, that we've already disproven a couple times through the fact that Larry Thurlow's boat had bullet holes in it? We've got Even more! The AP unearthed the weekly report for that week from the Task force Kerry was in, commanded by an Admiral Hoffman, one of the swifties who praised Kerry in the past but now says that they weren't under fire.

Guess what that report says about whether or not they were under fire?

The Navy task force overseeing John Kerry's swift boat squadron in Vietnam reported that his group of boats came under enemy fire during a March 13, 1969, incident that three decades later is being challenged by the Democratic presidential nominee's critics.

The March 18, 1969, weekly report from Task Force 115, which was located by The Associated Press during a search of Navy archives, is the latest document to surface that supports Kerry's description of an event for which he won a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart.

The Task Force report twice mentions the incident five days earlier and both times calls it "an enemy initiated firefight" that included automatic weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats that included Kerry's.

Task Force 115 was commanded at the time by retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the founder of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been running ads challenging Kerry's account of the episode.

Hehe. Oh and by the way, we also have even more to discredit Thurlow now.

Thurlow, the commander of another swift boat who won a Bronze Star for helping the crew of PCF-3, insists there was no enemy gunfire during the incident. The citation and recommendation for Thurlow's Bronze Star, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, also mention enemy fire, however.

Thurlow's medal recommendation, for example, says he helped the PCF-3 crew "under constant enemy small arms fire." That recommendation is signed by George Elliott, another member of the anti-Kerry group. It lists as the only witness for the incident Robert Eugene Lambert, an enlisted man who was not on Kerry's boat who also won the Bronze Star that day.

Thurlow stood by his claim that there was no gunfire that day and said his Bronze Star documents were wrong.

So yeah, it wasn't Kerry's report which said they were under fire, it was the other 2.

This is some funny stuff, once you actually start getting to the documents. So badly wrong on so many points.

|

Oh Yes Precious
OH GOD YES! 2 weeks of being taunted by all of my commenters on the Cambodia issue, and finally I can sit here and say "Ni" or "Nyah" or something like that. John O'Neill and Nixon. Supposedly played on Newsnight. If they post a transcript I'll link to it later.

CNN's Newsnight just played the O'Neill-Nixon tape, with text graphic on screen:

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

Update: Full Transcript. God I'm gonna enjoy this.

JOHNS: Behind the scenes, Kerry's aides were fighting the swift boat charges with unusual ferocity. They say they have evidence one of the top members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an outright liar.

The co-author of the book "Unfit for Command," former swift boat commander John O'Neill said Kerry made up a story about being in Cambodia beyond the legal borders of the Vietnam War in 1968.

O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon.

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JOHNS: Now, O'Neill may have an explanation for this but he has not returned CNN's calls. What does seem clear is that a top member of the swift boat group is now being held to the same standard of literal accuracy they've tried to impose on John Kerry -- Aaron.

As Stewie once so eloquently put it in responding to a criticism of the show "Jolly Farm Revue": Hey. Shut up.

|

More like this please!

CNN showed less relish over the Swift boat clash, but it was not much more helpful in separating fact from friction. Wolf Blitzer's interview with the tart-tongued Mr. Dole made a lot of news on Sunday, but CNN allowed him to make misleading assertions without pointing out where he was in error. Mr. Dole suggested that Mr. Kerry was in a rush to obtain his Purple Hearts to meet a regulation that allowed soldiers to leave the war zone after winning three. "I mean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple Heart - he got two in one day, I think. And he was out of there in less than four months, because three Purple Hearts and you're out." ( Mr. Kerry did not receive two Purple Hearts for events of the same day. He received them for the events of Dec. 2, 1968; Feb. 20, 1969; and March 13, 1969.)

Finally, yesterday afternoon, Mr. Blitzer spoke to Mr. Dole by telephone and asked him if he regretted any of his statements. Mr. Dole said he did not.

"I wasn't trying to be mean-spirited," Mr. Dole said. "I was just trying to say all these guys on the other side just can't be Republican liars."

That kind of air-kiss coverage is typical of cable news, where the premium is on speed and spirited banter rather than painstaking accuracy. But it has grown into a lazy habit: anchors do not referee - they act as if their reportage is fair and accurate as long as they have two opposing spokesmen on any issue...

At best, cable news programs swing into action when a crisis or major news development occurs, marshaling their resources to give viewers instant, live access. At their worst, they amplify the loudest voices and blur complexities. People can blame the confusion of combat for some of the discrepancies over Mr. Kerry's war record, but cable has done little to clear the air.

NYT.

|

Air Force vs. Cambodia
George W. Bush in 1978.

When AP asked Bush if he had been justified in claiming service in the Air Force, Bush, then the governor of Texas and a presidential candidate, said, "I think so, yes. I was in the Air Force for over 600 days." Karen Hughes, his spokeswoman, maintained that when Bush attended flight school for the Air National Guard from 1968 to 1969 he was considered to be on active duty for the Air Force and that several times afterward he had been placed on alert, which also qualified as active duty for the Air Force. All told, she said, Bush had logged 607 days of training and alerts. "As an officer [in the Air National Guard]," she told the AP, "he was serving on active duty in the Air Force."

If you can believe David Corn of the Nation....Bush also repeated the assertion in 1999, although he does not provide a source for this.

|

Oops
The Liberal Media is scheduling more press coverage for the RNC than was given to the DNC.

|

And finally
I usually don't link to Robert Scheer's weekly essays in the LAT very often, mainly because I find them a bit simplistic. But today, he's handed such a softball that it actually works well with his writing style. If you haven't seen it yet, the Bush campaign is currently running ads bragging about how they're helping bring democracy to the world, and how 2 more teams are now competing in Athens; Iraq and Afghanistan.

Turns out, the Iraqi team wasn't all too happy with being used in a political ad by Bush, and they responded by basically calling him a butcher.

But members of the very successful Iraqi Olympic soccer team beg to differ, blasting Bush's attempt to use their participation in the Games as justification for the U.S. occupation of their country. "My problems are not with the American people," Iraq's soccer coach, Adnan Hamad Majeed, told the Associated Press. "They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American Army has killed so many people in Iraq." His star midfielder, Salih Sadir, agreed: "Iraq as a team doesn't want Mr. Bush to use us [in an ad] for the presidential campaign…. We don't wish for the presence of the Americans in our country. We want them to go away."

These are not anonymous bomb throwers sending notes to the media. These are Iraq's favorite sons, stars of the national sport. Yet they all seem to be saying the same thing: America's military is not wanted on our land. Another team member, Ahmed Manajid, demanded to know: "How will [Bush] meet his God having slaughtered so many men and women? He has committed so many crimes." The athlete added that were he not playing for his country he would "for sure" be fighting in the Iraqi resistance. "I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists?" Manajid asked.

Oh by the way, Mr. Bush's campaign's response to the ad is just freaking classic.

"We're very proud of that ad," campaign director Ken Mehlman said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." The creation of what he called two new democracies, Iraq and Afghanistan, is "something all Americans should be proud of. It's not about politics. It's about the fact that our nation has been successful in helping spread freedom all around the world."

So yeah, we're running a political ad, but its not about politics! That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week. If you were really proud of it and it wasn't about politics, then why not sit there in silent pride at the accomplishment?

Oh, and the Olympic Committee is concerned the ad may have violated their copyright.

|

On Fox News
People could actually do this every day if they wanted to - a brief look at how Fox (and others, the Journal, the traitor-owned Washington Times) has spun the swift boat story and nearly ignores reports that would counter it.

Last Thursday, the Washington Post reported that the military records of Larry Thurlow, one of John Kerry's major accusers among the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, contradicted Thurlow's version of events and confirmed Kerry's. At the very least, this cast severe doubt on the charge that Kerry fabricated the events that earned him one of his Vietnam War medals.

The conservative media had been pushing the fabrication story energetically. How did it deal with this new evidence undermining it? As it turns out, at almost every turn it soft-pedaled the new evidence or outright ignored it, showing its bias throughout...

On TV and radio, all the action came Thursday. On the Fox News Channel, the afternoon news show, "Studio B With Shepard Smith," offered a three-minute report on the "ongoing spat" over Kerry's military record without mentioning the new evidence about Thurlow's contradictions. The imbroglio over Kerry's Vietnam record led "The Big Story With John Gibson" and, again, not once in the five-minute segment was the Thurlow discrepancy discussed.

Next came Fox's "Special Report With Brit Hume," which opened with the teaser: "And despite Navy records, the dispute goes on about whether Kerry earned one of his medals under fire or not." Addressing the claims in the Washington Post article, there was a pre-taped interview with O'Neill, who asserted that Thurlow's "Bronze Star citation is based on the report that John Kerry wrote." The fact that there is no evidence that Kerry wrote that report was not mentioned. Military analyst Bill Cowan appeared to answer questions like, "If you yourself wrote an after-action report … would that be taken into consideration?" This discussion of Kerry's alleged report left no time for comment on the controversy over whether Thurlow deserved his Bronze Star and why he waited so long to examine the citation's language.

Later, on the "Fox Report With Shepard Smith," Laurie Dhue introduced a segment about Kerry's reaction to the ads of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The report made no mention of Thurlow or the Post's story. Half an hour into the show, a second Kerry segment mentioned the Post story and summarized it in a fair-minded way. This was the first "fair and balanced" treatment of the story after hours of derision or avoidance on Fox....

That attitude, with its blithe dismissal of opposing evidence, perfectly describes the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and its enablers in the right-wing media. What proof there is supports Kerry, and yet to the right-wing media the burden of proof falls on him.

Thurlow's explanation is accepted readily — the KJW after-action report becomes "Kerry's report," and the contention that Thurlow's citation is derived from Kerry's self-glorifying lies becomes a given. The member of Thurlow's own crew who served as the eyewitness for Thurlow's citation is not mentioned. Only once, when Thurlow was interviewed on "The O'Reilly Factor," was the unlikelihood of a man not knowing for 35 years exactly why he received a Bronze Star even mentioned.

Perhaps sensing that some truths really are self-evident, on Friday the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth changed tactics from denigrating Kerry's Vietnam record to distorting his antiwar record. According to a Nexis search, Thurlow's name was not uttered all day on the Fox News Channel.

So the day after he's discredited, his name simply disappears. Remarkable.

|

Secondly
On Bob Dole...

Why would Dole put that makeover in jeopardy — and tarnish his own heroism and sacrifice — by starting a grotesque game of wound one-upmanship on behalf of George W. Bush, who never suffered anything worse during his (intermittent) service in the Texas Air National Guard than a hangover?

|

Great work
The La Times's op-ed page today was particularly good. 2 Op-Ed pieces thrashing Dole and the Swift Boats. 1 piece thrashing Fox News. And an actual decent piece by Robert Scheer.

To Start off, here's what they say about the media and the Swift Boat peoples. It's almost as if the LATimes is the only news source with a late enough deadline to catch the Daily Show and have lightbulbs go off in their heads.

The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times"; "there are [pick a number] Communists in the State Department." But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.

Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on now) by these laboratory concoctions.

It must be infuriating to the victims of this process to be given conflicting advice about how to deal with it from the same campaign press corps that keeps it going. The press has been telling Kerry: (a) Don't let charges sit around unanswered; and (b) stick to your issues: Don't let the other guy choose the turf.

At the moment, Kerry is being punished by the media for taking advice (b) and failing to take advice (a). There was plenty of talk on TV about what Kerry's failure to strike back said about whether he had the backbone for the job of president — and even when he did strike back, he was accused of not doing it soon enough. But what does Bush's acquiescence in the use of this issue say about whether he has the simple decency for the job of president?

Whether the Bush campaign is tied to the Swift boat campaign in the technical, legal sense that triggers the wrath of the campaign-spending reform law is not a very interesting question. The ridiculously named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is being funded by conservative groups that interlock with Bush's world in various ways, just as MoveOn.org, which is running nasty ads about Bush's avoidance of service in Vietnam, is part of Kerry's general milieu.

More important, either man could shut down the groups working on his behalf if he wanted to. Kerry has denounced the MoveOn ads, with what degree of sincerity we can't know. Bush on Monday — finally — called for all ads by independent groups on both sides to be halted. He also said Kerry had "served admirably" in Vietnam. But he declined an invitation to condemn the Swift boat effort.

In both cases, the candidates are the reason the groups are in business. There is an important difference, though, between the side campaign being run for Kerry and the one for Bush. The pro-Kerry campaign is nasty and personal. The pro-Bush campaign is nasty, personal and false.

No informed person can seriously believe that Kerry fabricated evidence to win his military medals in Vietnam. His main accuser has been exposed as having said the opposite at the time, 35 years ago. Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation. His accusers have no evidence except their own dubious word.

|

Blast
Nice...my undergraduate collegiate hometown's newspaper just won the contest for most embarassing misinterpretation of Mr. Bush's remarks yesterday.

|

Here it is
Thanks to Atrios for the text of Stewart's interview with Rob Corddry last night.

STEWART: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven't been disputed for 35 years?

CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.

STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.

CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontravertible fact is one side of the story.

STEWART: But that should be -- isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?

CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' -- might wanna look it up some day.

STEWART: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?

CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well -- sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] 'Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.' Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.

STEWART: So, basically, you're saying that this back-and-forth is never going to end.

CORDDRY: No, Jon -- in fact a new group has emerged, this one composed of former Bush colleages, challenging the president's activities during the Vietnam era. That group: Drunken Stateside Sons of Privilege for Plausible Deniability. They've apparently got some things to say about a certain Halloween party in '71 that involved trashcan punch and a sodomized piñata. Jon -- they just want to set the record straight. That's all they're out for.

STEWART: Well, thank you Rob, good luck out there. We'll be right back.

P.S. Yes, confirmed (unless Stewart is being Punk'd) Kerry tonight.

|

Rumor
I haven't seen the ads myself yet to confirm it, but I'm reading rumors that Comedy Central's running ads saying Kerry, Daily Show, Tuesday night.

|

More voting Machine fun
In another sent over by J. Scott...(I think I've got him woken up on this one) - the WaPo took a look at the New Mexico results from 2000, in a state that was testing E-voting machines at the time and was very close, and found that more than enough votes disappeared randomly from the machines to also make that state uncertain within the margin of error. The E-Voting machines simply didn't record nearly 700 of the 2300 votes cast on them. The state's margin of victory for Gore was about 300 votes. The same votes were missing from the House and Senate candidates. And the error wasn't discovered until days after the election.

N.M.'s votes wouldn't have been enough to sway the election; it would still have come down to Florida. But if you do some simple math, you'll note that almost 1/4 of the votes cast on those machines didn't show up. 1/4. Now, even given a few years of technological development...would you call yourself confident in the performance of those machines if you didn't have a verifiable paper trail?

|

Update
After another official recount and a check on the electronic voting system, Chavez is now believed to have actually won the Venezuela recall election.

You'll note that the recount was only made possible by the presence of paper-copies of votes as a backup.

|

It just got more interesting
Remember that crazy ex-Special Forces guy who was arrested in Afghanistan for running his own little torture chamber, and then said that he was doing it with the knowledge and encouragement of the DOD? Well, he's on trial now, and now we're seeing the first piece of his "Evidence" on his side. And frighteningly, it's a decent piece.

Jonathan Keith "Jack" Idema got into Afghanistan in 2001 after an official at the U.S. Embassy in Uzbekistan wrote a letter identifying him as a contractor with the Department of Defense.

Three years later, Idema stands accused of running an illegal jail in what has been termed a freelance search for terrorists. The U.S. government says it did not sponsor or employ him.

A hearing in Idema's case is expected to resume in Kabul on Monday. Idema, Ed Caraballo of New York and Brent Bennett of Fayetteville are accused of kidnapping and torturing Afghan citizens in their makeshift jail. They could face 15 to 20 years in an Afghan prison.

Idema, a former Green Beret from Fayetteville, has said he tortured no one. He maintains he was only trying to elicit information from suspected terrorists using methods he learned in the Special Forces. The American and Afghan governments, he says, knew what he was doing and supported him.

The U.S. government has not explained why Idema had a letter from the U.S. Embassy in Uzbekistan. The letter, dated Nov. 2, 2001, asks Uzbekistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs for help in issuing visas to Idema, Gary Scurka and Greg Long. It identifies the three men as Defense Department contractors.

So while the DOD still may not have known about these guys, if this letter is as explained in this news report, then someone has some serious freaking explaining to do.

|

Hehe
Bob Dole received a purple heart for getting a piece of shrapnel in his leg from a grenade that he threw.

|

Fun-Piece
Fact Checking a Swift Boat column.

H & J claim: "Kerry attributed responsibility for his illegal 1968 mission to Richard Nixon, despite the fact that Lyndon Johnson was president at the time." Fact: Indeed, at Christmas 1968, Nixon had been elected but wouldn't take office until January. The discrepancy is understandable, even the more after Kerry corrected the record to say he'd been in error; his runs into Cambodia came in early 1969. H & J have an accurate but niggling criticism -- Kerry was off by a month.

H & J claim: Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley omitted a mention of the Cambodian runs from his account of Kerry's life. The implication is, of course, they never happened. Fact: Brinkley, who had access to all of Kerry's journals, told the London Telegraph that, indeed, Kerry was wrong about Christmas 1968. But, Brinkley added, "Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off U.S. Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys." Brinkley said, "He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn't use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off."

H & J claim: "The Khmer Rouge who allegedly shot at Kerry during his 'secret' mission did not take the field until 1972." Fact: The Khmer Rouge, military wing of the Communist Party of Kampuchea, began its armed combat against the government of Prince Norhodom Sihanouk in 1967, five years earlier than H & J claim. Such a sweet touch, too, by H & J, that use of "allegedly."

H & J make much of the illegal nature of such trips into Cambodia to further imply they likely didn't happen. They also use loaded words like "embellishment" and snidely employ quotation marks to imply that Kerry made up the story. Aside from Brinkley's testimony, Kerry's story seems quite plausible to me, for a number of reasons.

First, there was no established border. Both Vietnam and Cambodia claimed parts of the Mekong River delta, a watery area of rivers, tributaries and canals. It was quite easy to slip across, especially by boat (whether inadvertently or with a purpose -- perhaps both).

Indeed, at the hands of a careless Air America pilot, I flew numerous miles, illegally, into a more northern area of Cambodia in 1971, and nothing was said. My commander, acting on an American POW sighting from one of the indigenous agents I oversaw, got an Air Force forward air control pilot to take him on a reconnaissance flight over the area, for which he received only a mild rebuke.

That report generated a cross-border raid by a team from MACV-SOG -- a secret group drawn from every service for clandestine operations. They sought, unsuccessfully, to locate the POWS. Such clandestine trips by military and intelligence teams were common; they were the reason MACV-SOG existed. In 1968-69, their main goal in the Mekong probably involved stopping infiltration from Cambodia.

H & J claim: Passage by Swift boats into Cambodia through the Mekong Delta from their base at Sa Dec was impossible. Fact: Clearly they have no knowledge of the delta. The Swift boats were stationed at Sa Dec precisely because of easy access to the Mekong River complex and the approaches to Cambodia.

(You'll note how many of those points I got precisely right as said by this particular writer - the only thing I missed was the fact that Kerry seems to have confused Christmas with Tet.)

|

Interesting
Kos gives us another little nugget this mornin...The Texas Air National Guard gave out medals/ribbons to anyone who completed 3 years of service to that state. Mr. Bush, according to both photos of him in his dress uniform and the documents he has released, received none of those medals.

And, as usual, this note could again be cleared up by Mr. Bush releasing one of his discharge documents, a DD214, that records all of the awards given to a serviceman. And guess which other candidate has already released his DD214? I bet you can guess. It's not Nader.

|