Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Oh no! Someone tell Glenn Reynolds that Franks has been indoctinated by Big Media:

"The story's moving fast, but so far Big Media outlets seem to be ignoring it or explaining it away. And, of course, it may be that there's nothing to it -- but I feel certain that if President Bush were being denounced by an equivalent number of people who served with him, we'd be hearing a lot more about it. As Evan Thomas noted: 'Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win.' It's becoming more obvious every day."

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/

"but I feel certain that if President Bush were being denounced by an equivalent number of people who served with him"

Gee Reynolds, that's the PROBLEM. Bush can't find ONE that served with him.

Yes!! Let's get back to the important issues, like Bush's National Guard attendance records.

Tommy Franks has no direct knowledge of Kerry's Vietnam exploits, and so quite properly he bases his statement on the public record as it is currently known. The Swift boat vets, OTOH, were right there with Kerry and are stating the facts as they know them regarding the aspect of his entire career of public employment that John Kerry chose to highlight during the DNC as his fundamental qualification for office.

It's really quite telling that you consider on-the-record assertions of fact about central campaign issues to constitute "slime."

It seems to me that the Democrats have a golden opportunity to neutralize Franks (not make him pro-kerry, but just to keep him neutral for this election). They should have invited him to the Demo convention. Too late for that, but a nice chat with Kerry could still be helpful. By all accounts, Franks looks like a straight shooter and an independent guy.

Also. note that the large bulk of Democrats should support Franks successful war operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact that post-war Iraq has been a disaster is not Franks' fault -- he had notbing to do with that.

More air-tight InstaLogic!:

"STEVE VERDON says the economy is slowing down. Mickey Kaus, on the other hand, isn't so sure. Neither, apparently, are a lot of other people... On the other hand, Megan McArdle thinks the economy is softening and it's very bad news for Bush. Who's right? Beats me. But given the rapid pace of growth in the past few months, a bit of a slowdown might be a good thing for the country, if not for Bush, as it means that we don't have to worry about inflationary pressures."

Link: http://instapundit.com/archives/017070.php

note to Sandy:
Please check how many of the swift boat veterans signed affidavits, then check if any recanted later. If they are facts then why aren't 100% of these guys signing and standing by their accounts of what happened ? In the future, be careful with phrases like "right there" and "on the record assertions of fact".

Sandy, no offense, but the "on-the-record" assertions that matter are the ones that kerry's commanders provided in real time. The idea that guys busy on other boats, or doing other things, suddenly, 30+ years later, when prompted by a chuck colson-designated sleazeball, have accurate accounts is frickin' ridiculous on the face of it.

As Tommy Franks knows.

But since Franks also acknowledged, to hannity, that Kerry was basically correct in his famous Senate testimony, i'd suggest that Tommy watch his back: the slime machine will be after him soon.

Brad: noting that prof instanitiwit says foolish things is like noting that the sun, again, rose in the east today. When man bites dog, then it's worth the time to even read him. Otherwise, we know he's a jerk, he's proved it many times, and we need not spend any more time concerning ourselves with how ill-informed and foolish he is.

It must be somewhat disheartening to have the general who fought the two wars which are the centerpiece of your national security policy, a fellow Midlander no less, publicly decline to say whether he will vote for you for a second term.
Bushworld must be furious with him.

erg wrote, "Also. note that the large bulk of Democrats should support Franks successful war operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact that post-war Iraq has been a disaster is not Franks' fault -- he had notbing to do with that."

Evidence?

First, to what extent was Franks connected with the decision to use proxy (Pashtun) troops at Tora Bora, which very likely is what let bin Laden get away there?

Second, to what extent was Franks connected with decisions on the number of troops to use in the invasion, and the connection of that number to the number used in the occupation? (The fact that the occupation was undermanned by a factor of, say, 4 was a primary cause (if not the sole cause) of the current mess in Iraq.)

Third, if one believes Bob Woodward, Franks was complicit in Bush's preparing for the Iraq war with funds designated for other uses, which is contrary to the constitutional principle that funds will only be spent pursuant to appropriations by Congress.

alter "the number of troops to use in the invasion," to "the number of troops to use in the invasion of Iraq"

"Please check how many of the swift boat veterans signed affidavits, then check if any recanted later."

No one recanted an affidavit. When a Kerry-Edwards operative, Michael Kranish--author of "Kerry and Edwards, Their Plans and Promises" ISBN 1-58648-314, and ghost writer of "Our Plan for America, Stronger at Home, Respected in the World ISBN 1-58648-314--called Capt. Elliott he almost certainly only identified himself as a Boston Globe reporter.

Then he concocted a retraction out of thin air and published it. Elliott then RE-AFFIRMED his charges in another affidavit.

Btw, how many of the Swift Boaters for Kerry have signed affidavits for their stories?

"Sandy, no offense, but the 'on-the-record' assertions that matter are the ones that kerry's commanders provided in real time."

And now, the one who provided the Silver Star recommendation says he was misled at the time and wouldn't have done it if he'd known the truth. In fact, says it under oath. Twice.

" The idea that guys busy on other boats..."

Busy fighting along side him, you mean. And back in 1996, when David Warsh accused him of being a war criminal Kerry was only too glad to use the testimony of comrades who hadn't served in his boats to defuse that. And that included Tom Bellodeau the machine gunner from an ajoining Swift Boat.

Btw, Larry Thurlow who is saying Kerry is a liar served onshore right along side Kerry prior to the incident for which Kerry won the Bronze Star.

" or doing other things, suddenly, 30+ years later, when prompted by a chuck colson-designated sleazeball..."

As usual this is wrong...and sleazy. John O'Neill publicly challenged John Kerry to a debate in 1971 on the Dick Cavett show on his own iniative. After that was accepted, Richard Nixon wanted to meet him (and found that O'Neill was a Democrat. Today, O'Neill says he'd vote for John Edwards if he was nominated--and he just might get that opportunity, ha ha)

Patrick,

Please oil your beanie. The propeller is starting to squeak.

Tom, would you care to point out to me the specifics of any errors I have made above?

Well, Pat, you haven't pointed out that other guys who also fought alongside Kerry say flatly that the SBVTers are liars. Jim Rassman called Larry Thurlow exactly that during their Paula Woodruff interview about Kerry's Bronze Star. At least one of the other three Swift Boat captains in that affair -- and, if Douglas Brinkley is right about their identities, all three of them -- also sided with Kerry.

Nor have you pointed out that there are some signs that some of the SBVTers have changed their stories suddenly during the last few months. In Aril, Thurlow was still telling USA Today that there was no doubt that Kerry was "extremely brave". Now he's telling Woodruff that Kerry "fled from the scene" of the first mine explosion during that affair, without there even being any enemy fire at all (Rassman calls him a liar on both points). SBVT's co-founder, Admiral Roy Hoffmann (as the LA Times discovered in July) had repeatedly sent Kerry letters of commendation, without a word of printed criticism; and he told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel in May that he "had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally." Then, last week, he suddenly switched to telling the NY Times that" We were on the same operations, we were operating within 25-50 yards of him all the time, and for them to suggest we don't know John Kerry is pure old bull", and telling Sean Hannity that "I knew him well, because I operated very closely with him and, uh, many of the operations, uh, most of the operations were-were conducted with multiple boats."

Then there's the matter of John O'Neill's co-author on the book, Jerome Corsi. For some of his -- er -- interesting recent comments on various subjects, see http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010 . (Since then, he's confirmed again that he really did write those things: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1186749/posts?q=1&&page=51#99 .)

In short, virtually all of the SBVTers hate Kerry's guts for saying that war crimes were frequent in Vietnam -- and while the case isn't settled yet, there are indications that some of them are lying about his military performance for just that reason. (As for whether war crimes actually were frequent, Kerry is now saying that he may have "exaggerated" that -- but clearly the SBVTers are understating it, as Tommy Franks flat-out told Sean Hannity last week.)

"Tom, would you care to point out to me the specifics of any errors I have made above?"

How about Eliot and Lonsdale flying in to support Kerry in a press conference during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign when a Boston Globe story made similar allegations against Kerry as the SBVTers are doing now?

Incidentally, according to CNN's account of the Elliott Affair ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/06/vet.kerry.reut/index.html ):

"In Friday's Boston Globe, Elliott was quoted as saying: 'It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here.'

"Elliott told the Globe that Kerry did deserve the medal.

"Inundated with calls to verify the statement, Elliott grew media shy and said through his wife he would not talk.

"Earlier in the day, Mrs. Elliott said her husband was playing golf and would call back when he returned in the afternoon.

"Elliott later issued another affidavit -- witnessed and notarized -- this time saying he was misquoted by the Globe and reaffirming his belief that Kerry has 'not been honest about what happened in Vietnam.' "

Thank you, Bruce, for doing the heavy lifting, so let me just add:

a. the shocking news that Patrick is wrong about John O'Neill's emergence, and that "chuck-colson-deignated sleazeball" remains the correct words (read this account in the communist msnbc, Patrick: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4534274/, and once again, let us give thanks for the nixon tapes, without which, no one would believe what the guy was really like), and the idea that he might "vote for Edwards" is, frankly, bu)sh)it;

b. Eliot, in fact, is no longer a reliable source in 2004 about anything in either direction, but the idea that the US was simply cavalierly handing out medals back during the war, that there were doubts that Eliot never heard about, defies the imagination, especially as Nixon, Haldeman, and Colson were so intent, in 1971, to take Kerry down;

c.) jeez, it's nice to know that patrick thinks the fog of war is such a phony cliche that everyone had a glorious opportunity to do nothing but watch john kerry all day. somehow, no military reporter, no soldier in his memoirs, no first-person accounts of battles past, has ever made it clear that actually, war is a spectator sport for its participants.

One more note, for whatever it's worth: Brinkley (whose account of the Bronze Star incident is flawed according to both Rassman AND Thurlow) says that Thurlow won his Bronze Star in the same incident as Kerry, although Thurlow insists that there was "no enemy fire at all there". Patrick says Thurlow won his Star in "another action"; but I can't find any data on the Web one way or another -- and despite repeated requests, Pat still hasn't told me where Thurlow DID win his Star. So, once again, Pat: where?

Howard, the MSNBC story by itself does nothing to prove that O'Neill is a deliberate liar. As for the frequency of US war crimes in Vietnam, however, see http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE
and
http://www.tnr.com/politics/cnote/lane041795.html .

Howard, the MSNBC story by itself does nothing to prove that O'Neill is a deliberate liar. As for the frequency of US war crimes in Vietnam, however, see http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE
and
http://www.tnr.com/politics/cnote/lane041795.html .

Thanks, other Tom et al.

Patrick: No, I would not care to point out to you the specifics of any errors you have made above, though I appreciate that others have done it. To me, the innate absurdity of the situation speaks for itself. Franks' statement is yet more icing on the cake.

Bruce, if i wasn't clear to you, then i certainly wasn't clear to Patrick, so mea culpa.

The point of the MSNBC article was to debunk Patrick's notion of John O'Neill, citizen with a cause who heroically aroused the curiosity of richard nixon for his simple desire to debate john kerry.

That said, my description of O'Neill is a sleazeball, not a liar, which i reserve for better applications.

Ah. So what you're saying is that Patrick is wrong when he says that Nixon didn't know about O'Neill before the Cavett debate; he knew about him long before then and in fact encouraged the debate (and a lot of O'Neill's other activities).

Of course, that still doesn't do anything to prove that O'Neill was lying. Compare, though, the Kerry statement that aroused O'Neill's indignation:

"This is the same little man who on nationwide television in April spoke of, quote, crimes committed on a day to day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

...and then compare that to the detailed accounts by Charles Lane and the Toledo Blade that I mentioned above. Whether O'Neill knew it or not, there WERE a large number of war crimes of the sort Kerry described with "the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." (With those officers possibly including Colin Powell, according to Lane -- who is most definitely not a far leftist.)

Tommy Franks' comments to Sean Hannity regarding Kerry's accusations can be found at http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080504.shtml . (Contrary to Somerby's interpretation, though, I think Franks was a lot less ambiguous in his first statement than in his second.)

Also notice the absolutely fascinating amount of unhappy hemming and hawing Franks does during this interview. Clearly he does think such incidents were fairly frequent (as the accounts I cited above also show), but he's very reluctant to admit the fact publicly. How many of the SBVTs fall into the same category?

Three more updates:

(1) I have to retract my statement that there's confirmation indepndent from Brinkley's article that Skip Barker was definitely one of the other three Swift Boat captains in Kerry's bronze Star incident -- I misread the newspaper account that I quoted. Douglas Brinkley's listing of all three skippers' identities still needs to be separately confirmed.

(2) There is further solid confirmation that Pat Sullivan is wrong in saying that Nixon only heard about O'Neill and wanted to meet him after he "challenged John Kerry to a debate on Dick Cavett on his own initiative". Joe Klein in the 11-25-02 "New Yorker" ( http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?021202fa_fact1 ):

"Years later, Chuck Colson — who was Nixon's political enforcer—told me, 'He was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group.' " As the tapes mentioned in the MSNBC article that "Howard" cites prove, Colson and Nixon were plotting to do this weeks BEFORE O'Neill's debate on Dick Cavett's show.

(3) I'm still trying to sort out whether Drudge is correct in saying that Michael Kranish (the Boston Globe reporter who quoted Elliott as retracting his original affidavit) actually did write an introduction to Kerry's campaign book. More on that shortly.

"I'm still trying to sort out whether Drudge is correct in saying that Michael Kranish (the Boston Globe reporter who quoted Elliott as retracting his original affidavit) actually did write an introduction to Kerry's campaign book. More on that shortly."

Looks like the Globe is indeed right and Drudge is wrong.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408100001 :

"On the same day that Kranish's article was published, Drudge wrongly reported that 'Boston Globe journalist Mike Kranish has been commissioned to write the foreword of the Kerry-Edwards campaign book.' Drudge's report included a link to Amazon.com's listing of the book, which had mistakenly credited Kranish as its author.

"The Globe set the record straight in an August 7 article by Globe staff reporter Susan Milligan: 'Kranish had no connection to the Kerry campaign book and did not write its introduction.' Milligan noted that 'Amazon, the online bookseller, apparently contributed to the confusion with a listing for the Kerry-approved campaign book indicating Kranish as the author. PublicAffairs [the book's publisher] officials said yesterday that Amazon had agreed to revise the listing immediately.' Amazon.com has corrected the book's listing, now indicating Senators John Kerry and John Edwards as the sole authors.

" 'Our Plan for America: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World' (Public Affairs, 2004) was commissioned by the Kerry-Edwards campaign. As Globe editor Martin Baron noted in a statement (which the Globe reported on August 7), while Kranish initially signed on to contribute an introduction to an independent and unauthorized account of the Kerry-Edwards platform and policies, 'when PublicAffairs [the would-be publisher of the proposed independent account] subsequently struck an agreement with the Kerry campaign to do an official campaign book, Kranish's relationship with the project immediately ended.' Kranish did not contribute to Our Plan for America, but he did contribute the introduction to a planned unauthorized book, "Kerry and Edwards: Their Plans and Promises" (Perseus Books Group, 2004).

"According to an August 6 article in the New York Daily News, plans for that book have now been shelved.

"Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, however, Drudge continued to push the false claim. After the Globe exposed that Kranish did not write the introduction to 'Our Plan for America' and Amazon.com corrected the error on its website, on August 9, Drudge posted the headline 'Boston Globe "reporter" Kranish still listed as Kerry/Edwards book author..." with a link to a Barnes & Noble description of the other book -- 'Kerry and Edwards: Their Plans and Promises' -- to which Kranish did in fact contribute and which, as the Globe reported but Drudge ignored, was independent and not commissioned by the Kerry-Edwards campaign. The link has since been amended by Barnes & Noble to link to 'Our Plan for America'."

OK. Drudge still has that link on his site; it does indeed now point to Barnes & Noble's description of "Our Plan for America"; there is indeed not a word there (or in PublicAffairs' official description of the book on their own website) about Kranish writing an introduction to the book; and that August 6 "NY Daily News" article does indeed say that Kranish wrote the introduction to PublicAffairs' now-shelved independent appraisal of Kerry, "Their Plans and Promises" -- NOT the introduction to "Our Plan for America" (which the article also mentions).

So, unless PublicAffairs has suddenly scrapped all its initial printing of "Our Plan for America" and is now suddenly carrying out an entire new printing with Kranish's introduction removed just to cover up for Kranish and Kerry -- which seems a wee bit unlikely -- the whole thing stemmed from one slip-up by Amazon which it has now corrected. And Kranish is still innocent of the accusation, which means there's no independent evidence to doubt his account of what Elliott supposedly told him (before Elliott refused to talk to anyone for several hours and then re-issued a new affidavit). SBVT looks more and more genuinely peculiar.

Speaking of the slime machine, if I had raised an adopted Bangladeshi daughter, and that Bush-Rove-approved machine had asserted that she was the product of a liaison with a prostitute, I would find the culprits and put staples in their necks. And yet the victim of that slime and other things just as bad, is now out campaigning for Bush and will give a rousing endorsement in New York. Just what kind of a man is John McCain, anyway.

"(1) I have to retract my statement that there's confirmation indepndent from Brinkley's article that Skip Barker was definitely one of the other three Swift Boat captains in Kerry's bronze Star incident -- I misread the newspaper account that I quoted. "

What a surprise.

"How about Eliot and Lonsdale flying in to support Kerry in a press conference during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign when a Boston Globe story made similar allegations against Kerry as the SBVTers are doing now?"

Again, not a surprise that the usual suspects can't get even the most basic facts correct. As I have told you before, David Warsh of the Boston Globe had suggested that John Kerry had committed a 'war crime' by shooting the fleeing, wounded, VC.

That's what Elliott, Lonsdale, Elmo Zumwalt, and Tom Bellodeau were in Boston to refute. Not "similar allegations against Kerry as the SBVTers are doing now". And, note the irony, Kerry was relying on 4 men who didn't serve under him on HIS boat. Ha ha.

Still here, Patrick ? A week back, you were spinning all sorts of loony conspiracy theories based on the fact that one of Kerry's medals appeared to be signed by John Lehmann.

Me: "(1) I have to retract my statement that there's confirmation independent from Brinkley's article that Skip Barker was definitely one of the other three Swift Boat captains in Kerry's bronze Star incident -- I misread the newspaper account that I quoted. "

Patrick: "What a surprise."

Yep. Now, Patrick, would you mind mentioning your own mistakes (as unveiled by Howard and myself), or replying to any of my other points, or answering any of those questions I asked you to answer? If not, then we're just going to have to draw the logical conclusion. Naughty boy.

If Patrick doesn't start owning up to his own mistakes (as I do), I suppose we'll have no choice but to found Delong Blog Veterans Against Cowardly Trolls (DeBVACT).

Still not a peep from Patrick here, I see. If he doesn't respond by tomorrow, then I recommend that you really DO kick him permanently off your blogsite, Brad, on the grounds that he dishes out insults without being willing to respond to questions himself. He can, after all, always go whine to Tom Maguire or Beldar about how unfairly you've treated him.