QandO: NYT v. Swifties

August 20, 2004

NYT v. Swifties
Posted by Dale Franks

I have a rather different take than Jon on the New York Times piece on the Swiftvets.

First, with all due respect to Jon, I'm not sure that a little "shooting the messenger" in this case isn't appropriate. It's interesting timing that this article comes out the day after John Kerry unloaded on the swifties. And, since we have a headline over on the right sidebar, even as I write this, that says, "The New York Times--should be ashamed of the one-sided, misleading reporting Bob Herbert is doing lately," it looks like a little messenger-shooting is already happening.

Now, if memory serves me correctly, the reason some swifties came out supporting Mr. Kerry in 1996 was that he was being hammered with accusations of war crimes, atrocities, and the like. The swifties position was that they did not participate in war crimes. Although that seems not to have been the position of Mr. Kerry in 1971), some swifties came to his aid anyway. Which, considering his "rapists and baby-killers" line of the early '70s, was nice of them, I think.

Admiral Hoffman, in 2003, appears not to have been all gushy about Kerry. He said "I'm not going to say anything negative about him. He's a good man." That is, you should note, not exactly the same as saying, "There isn't anything negative about him." It's merely a refusal to do so, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Then there's the "indoctrination session", as it was called by Mr. Lonsdale. «pause» Who did not attend. But, there's something strange about this construction:

About 10 veterans met in Ms. Spaeth's office in Dallas in April to share outrage and plot their campaign against Mr. Kerry, she and others said. Mr. Lonsdale, who did not attend, said the meeting had been planned as "an indoctrination session."
What might have been loose impressions about Mr. Kerry began to harden.

If they met to share outrage and plot against Mr. Kerry, then who, precisely was being indoctrinated? And, if they're already outraged, and prepared to wage a campaign against Mr. Kerry, how much harder could their impressions have gotten? Maybe "indoctrination session" isn't exactly the phrase Mr. Lonsdale was looking for. To me, the way that Zernicke and Rutenberg phrase this seems overly tendentious.

So, several of the swifties don't like talking to the press. Well, if I hadn't spent a couple of years as a member of it, I probably wouldn't either. Unless you've been subjected to the kind of treatment the press can dish out, you should probably cut these guys some slack. The Arkansas State Troopers who came out against Bill Clinton in the early 90s were savaged by the press to such an extent that now, a decade later, hardly anybody even remember that their stories were, uh, actually true. It seems to me that what the swifties need is a PR spokeshole, because the average person--and, for the most part, that's what these guys are--gets spooked by constant pressure from the media in conversations that run more or less like this:

Reporter I: How do you respond to your critics, who allege that you butcher puppies for amusement!?

You: I don't butcher puppies!

Reporter II: When did the puppy-killing stop!?

You: But, I never killed puppies!

Reporter III: So, the puppies were already dead before you butchered them!?

You: No, I--

Reporter IV: So the puppies were alive then!? But you've just said the opposite! Which is it, sir!?

You: No, it's all untrue!

Reporter V: Then how do you explain these serious allegations!?

Unless you've got a lot of patience and a good bit of experience, you're just not going to win in that conversation. There's a reason why-when pros do it--press events are very scripted, and press statements use such precise language.

So, when someone who is not a public figure refuses to talk to the press, I don't automatically assign bad motives to them. Maybe they're just spooked, because the press is kinda creepy.

The article concentrates a lot on the Silver Star Kerry won. But it seems to me the real controversy is over the Bronze Star he got for the Amazing Rassman Rescue, and whether or not one of his Purple Hearts was self-inflicted. I know that some have questioned the circumstances surrounding the Silver Star, but it's the lesser medals that seems to have drawn the lion's share of controversy, and for some reason, the Times just slides right by that.

Naval reports do seem to contradict some the of the swifties' stories. But, since the swifties contend the naval reports are, if not fraudulent, at least factually incorrect, that's exactly what we would expect.

I don't know who wrote the citations for what, 35 years ago. But I do know who wrote the citations for my own Air Force Achievement Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, and Joint Service Commendation Medal.

I did.

So it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Kerry wrote the citations, or that other medals handed out for the same action would use the language from Kerry's citation.

Now, we come to Secret Cambodia and the Magic Hat (which is, I believe, also the title of the upcoming Harry Potter book).

Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward.

Wow. That's a rousing confirmation for Mr. Kerry. Brinkley believes that Mr. Kerry was probably in Cambodia. At some time. Probably. Despite the fact that numerous Army, Navy, and diplomatic officials have stated flatly this is highly implausible, Mr. Brinkley believes it. Mr. Brinkley, one notes, has no evidence of it, however. Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry's memory has been far more highly specific. He has stated he was in Cambodia at Christmas. He's sure it's Christmas, 1968, because that memory is seared in him.

Of course, he's also got the memory of Nixon being president in 1968 seared into him, so, who knows.

Finally, the Times tries to play a little gotcha with Larry Thurlow, saying, "Ha, see!? He won't release his records either!" Thurlow plays right back, by releasing them, and signing the AF 180. Perhaps Mr. Kerry will respond by doing the same.

Although I doubt it.

So, maybe these aren't minor problems. But I don't think this Times story is anywhere near as damaging, or even as credible, as Jon seems to.

TrackBack

Comments

It's interesting timing that this article comes out the day after John Kerry unloaded on the swifties

And less than a week after he opened up with small arms fire at MoveOn. I siad at the time that his effort seemed half-hearted... strained at best. It's now clear that I was right at the time... That blast was a setup for his going after the Swiftees, now.

Kerry's credibility is stretched well beyod hte breaking point here, however. As someone else pointed out this morning; To accept Kerry's version of things, is to suggest atht the hundreds of vets who think Kerry unfit for the office because they saw what he did, and that he claims don't match his actions, have less credibliy somehow than the 18 who are willing to stump for him.

Or is it 17, now? Funny; we don't see Alston, anymore, do we?

Posted by: Bithead at August 20, 2004 11:33 AM

You make good points. I'd point out that I don't think the NYT article is nearly as conclusive as many on the left seem to think.

I grant[ed] that it's a rather one-sided piece, and some of their criticisms suffer (greatly) as a result of that. My impression, though, is that it raises legitimate concerns that the SBV really need to address convincingly. If they offer anything less than convincing rebuttals, I think that will mean something.

From a PR perspective, of course, the NYT article is a complete disaster for the SBVs. They'll never be able to get into the specifics--the nuance--of their disputes with the NYT.

I'd be interested in a bit more rational discussion from the left and right on this issue. Unfortunately, the left seems willing to close the books on this without closer investigation, and the right seems willing to take the SBVs at their word.

I'm sorta stuck in between, skeptical of both.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 20, 2004 11:41 AM

My only real questions are - accusations and counter-accusations aside - why is the NTY only running with the story now and why have they decided to run their first article about this whole story as an attack on the SBVs?

That's really what sticks in my craw.

Posted by: Jimmie at August 20, 2004 11:57 AM

This post takes the cake. For weeks now, the right side of the blogosphere bitches about the fact that the "mainstream" media is not picking up this story. Then, when they do, Dale complains that the timing is suspicious.

Dale, unlike bloggers, journalists take time to investigate a story, write several drafts of their article, fact check, and re-confirm their sources. I suspect that's what they did here. They got on the story when the right wing bloggers told them to, like good little soilders, did what they were supposed to do as journalists, and then published their story. Sorry, but real journalists use an oven, not a microwave.

Remember all that whining when liberals complained about the timing of certain terror announcements? Remember how whiny they sounded? Remember?

Ones opinion of the NYT piece will depend on ones political outlook, of course. But for the record, the Swifties just got bitch slapped. Just like Matthews did to Malkin. Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.

Posted by: mkultra at August 20, 2004 12:13 PM

mkultra-

What we were complaining about was mainstream media was ignoring the story- not bothering to report it, or check into the facts, the allegations, etc.

So the NYT published a hit piece after consulting with the Kerry camp. Big deal. They've still ignored the story.

But that's ok. Looks to me like it's getting out anyway. And thats means they can't control the message on this.

Besides, the Times made it all up anyway. They've run fabricated news before, why do they get the benefit of the doubt now?

Posted by: shark at August 20, 2004 12:19 PM

PS- Chris Matthews is a fricking moron, what a breakdown...Olbermann is no better. They surely earn those low ratings

Posted by: shark at August 20, 2004 12:20 PM

No.. the timing in addition to the content.
Wherethehell was the NYT last January when his story was just starting to make ripples? The only time the TIMES will be heard from on those attacking Kerry is when Kamp Kerry issues a press release; all others get ignored, that much is clear.

Posted by: Bithead at August 20, 2004 01:02 PM

Jon:

From a PR perspective, of course, the NYT article is a complete disaster for the SBVs. They'll never be able to get into the specifics--the nuance--of their disputes with the NYT.

The SBV aren't running for president. It's much more of a PR disaster for Kerry who now has this albatross hanging around his neck with the imprimatur of the NYT on it.

I'm not for or against Bush at this point, and I'm just honestly trying to assess the damage this does to Kerry's campaign, and I actually think Kerry's team has handled the whole situation with SBV quite badly. For starters, Kerry's relentless focus on his naval career in Vietnam looks more like "naval gazing" to most people. The Kerry campaign strategy was obviously to get voters to compare Kerry's Vietnam record with Bush's Vietnam non-record. But Bush doesn't run on his Vietnam non-record, and Kerry has skeletons in his Vietnam foot locker. Plus, as evidenced by the fact that Bush was elected in 2000, most of the electorate could care less about Bush's non-record. So why is this strategem at the forefront of Kerry's campaign in the first place? It's a low value high cost target! This was an extreme strategic miscalculation on Kerry's part also because it magnifies the damage done to him by the specific criticisms of the SBV. And if you believe the NYT article, it was Brinkly's book that actually helped motivate at least two of the founding SBV members in the first place!

When this crisis first started up, I felt that the best thing Kerry campaign could have done was to simply point out the obvious: that the SBV were essentially criticising Kerry because he did not get shot at enough in Vietnam and didn't go on enough dangerous missions. This line of argument makes the SBV look like meanies right off the bat, much easier to file under "crazy right-wing kooks", and all without getting into specifics of record which is where Kerry gets in trouble. Then they should have quietly started running away from the Vietnam issue.

Instead, after a pregnant silence from the Kerry campaign where Kerry refused to meet with reporters, they jumped right into battling the specifics on Kerry's Vietnam record, which is exactly where they don't want to go. "Watery borders between Cambodia and Vietnam?" Give me a break! And by publishing this story, the NYT is just making it worse for Kerry: Thurlow called their bluff and released his records today. And a zillion bloggers are calling the NYT to the mat. And yet all indications are that Kerry still runs on his Vietnam service record. It's an anchor at this point. Drop it already!

Someone is playing rope-a-dope here, and it ain't Kerry.

Posted by: pdq332 at August 20, 2004 01:03 PM

MK-Ultra;

Let me get this straight: In an eleven hundred word post on the story, the one big issue you concentrate on is a brief sentence about the timing, mentioned in passing? That's the key point you find important?

Whatever.

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 20, 2004 01:08 PM

That press conference example is excellent. Nails the press right on the head.

Posted by: The Monk at August 20, 2004 02:01 PM

Dale:

I would have made other comments, but the rest of your post is full of what you don't know, what you are guessing about, and what you think might be true, etc. A lot of innunedo and speculation, but nothing definitive. Kind of like Michelle Malkin. It's really not worth commenting on, with all due respect. Don't believe me? Well, let's look at what you have to say:

***

"First, with all due respect to Jon, I'm not sure that a little "shooting the messenger" in this case isn't appropriate."

***

"Now, if memory serves me correctly, the reason some swifties came out supporting Mr. Kerry in 1996 was that he was being hammered with accusations of war crimes, atrocities, and the like."

***

"Although that seems not to have been the position of Mr. Kerry in 1971), some swifties came to his aid anyway."

***

"Admiral Hoffman, in 2003, appears not to have been all gushy about Kerry."

***

"To me, the way that Zernicke and Rutenberg phrase this seems overly tendentious."

***

"It seems to me that what the swifties need is a PR spokeshole, because the average person--and, for the most part, that's what these guys are--gets spooked by constant pressure from the media in conversations that run more or less like this:"

****

"But it seems to me the real controversy is over the Bronze Star he got for the Amazing Rassman Rescue, and whether or not one of his Purple Hearts was self-inflicted"

***

"Naval reports do seem to contradict some the of the swifties' stories"

***

"I don't know who wrote the citations for what, 35 years ago."

***

"So it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Kerry wrote the citations"

***

And after making all these strong assertions, what is Dale's conclusion, or what does it seem to be,

"So, maybe these aren't minor problems."

Gosh Dale, forgive me if I find it hard to comment, but here goes:

It seems to me Bush was AWOL. It appears he was. It wouldn't surprise me though. I don't know if he was. But if he wasn't, maybe it is not a minor problem, if memory serves me correctly.

Posted by: mkultra at August 20, 2004 02:02 PM

MK, that's got to be among the Top 10 dumbest criticisms I've ever read.

Please try to do better. It would be nice to have a thoughtful dissenter around here to challenge us on the merits of our arguments, but you're just not living up to the position.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 20, 2004 02:08 PM

Jebus, you're criticizing me on language? On my writing style?

Wow, that's substantive.

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 20, 2004 02:39 PM

What's ironic is that the purpose of Kerry's Cambodia story was not to locate him at a precise place and time but to point out the fact that numerous Army, Navy, and diplomatic officials right up to the President deny such things. Well, what do you know, they're denying them still.

And the Nixon reference is not indicated as being contemporaneous to the event. That was obvious right out of the gate and should have been dispensed with as a talking point a long time ago. Propagating this serves only to detract from the credibility of those who persist in promoting it.

Posted by: Wm D at August 20, 2004 04:18 PM

Wm D: Do you work hard at missing the point, or is it a natural talent? John F'n Kerry, HISOWNSELF (as we would say back home), has made that idiotic Cambodian Christmas the centerpiece of his political transformation. Now it turns out to be a total fabrication (lame attempts at moving the date or the area or which particular "secret decoder ring" mission he was hypothetically on), and all you can say is that you think it was a debating ploy? That has to be the single lamest response I have seen to date (gotta leave room for some of your competitors -- no 10.0s given out here).

Also, they quit denying the Cambodian incursions some decades ago. Much like Eisenhower quit denying U-2 flyovers of the USSR after they shot one down (remember Gary Powers anyone?) and provided proof with a piece of the plane. (Maybe Kerry is just waiting for the appropriate moment to provide proof for his whiz-bang Cambodian secret missions or how he got his "magic hat?")

You know, picking a huge number of nits still doesn't add up to real refutation material, like, you know, the complete records.

Gee. I wonder why the Keeper of the Gate of Kerry's Wonderful Service Records only allows a select few out if they're such dynamite proof of his side of the case? You don't suppose . . . ?? Nah. He wouldn't lie to us, would he?

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at August 20, 2004 04:30 PM

Dale:

Sorry if you missed the point. It has nothing to do with your style. It is fine. So too your grammar.

The point is that your are speaking Malkinese.

When you say that it seems something is true, it is weasel speak. You are not saying its true, you are saying that it seems that it is true. By saying that it seems something is true, it allows you to rely on the worst innuendo, rumor, and gossip. And yet at the same time it allows you a way out later, should you be proven wrong.

"Well, based on what I have heard, it seems Kerry shot himself."

A little later ...

"Well, I did not say Kerry shot himself."

I think you're speaking Malkinese, I really think so.

Posted by: mkultra at August 20, 2004 04:33 PM

When Bush releases his records in the archives in Austin, those criticizing Kerry on his military records will have a point. Until then, it is all wasted words.

Posted by: mkultra at August 20, 2004 04:36 PM

McKie, are you locked in some sort of mind-meld? It certainly wasn't a total fabrication. His diary supports some details. It sounds to me like two truthful stories fused into one. Not unusual. Certainly not damning. The precise details of the story aren't what's important. What's lame is the hyperbolic, hyper-ventilating attempt to portray this as a monumental, defining act of character.

Posted by: Wm D at August 20, 2004 04:48 PM

Look, when I write:

Although that seems not to have been the position of Mr. Kerry in 1971, some swifties came to his aid anyway.

I expect my reader to understand that John Kerry did, in fact, refer to American soldiers, by and large, as war criminals. I'm not weaseling, as you seem to think. It's merely my style of writing. Moreover, it is a commonly accepted usage of the word "seems":

To appear to one's own opinion or mind: Kerry can't seem to get the story straight.
To appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain. He seems to have worked in sales for several years.

Since you are, apparently, unaware ofthese common usages, I am curious as to whether English is your first language.

So, when, I say "it seems", you can categorically accept it as my own, personal opinion, with no intention of equivocation, or, similarly, that I believe it to be both true and apparent to the casual observer.

Just like the dictionary says.

Happy now?

Jebus.

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 20, 2004 04:49 PM

It sounds to me like two truthful stories fused into one.

So, when the stories were seared into Kerry's mind, they were also welded together?

Posted by: Steverino at August 20, 2004 06:44 PM