Sunday, October 31, 2004

Packers 28, Redskins 14 - Bad News for Bush

The Green Bay Packers defeated the Washington Redskins today, 28-14 in Washington. This is bad news for President Bush and good news for Senator Kerry. Read the article to see why. This has been as reliable as the Iowa Election Markets in predicting the presidential election, although the Redskins have been at it longer.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Kerry's the One

That's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of the writer of this article from The American Conservative magazine. I thought about quoting parts from the article, but the entire thing is wonderful. It deals with President Bush's deficit problem, as well as the problems of letting the neocons control our foreign policy. And it comes from a traditional/conservative perspective! Read the entire thing.

Friday, October 22, 2004

Why I'm For Kerry

I think that Bob has abandoned CwR, and I am not sure why. I number of possible reasons come to mind:

  • He has gotten really really busy.

  • He didn't pay his ISP bill.

  • He got tired of the low quality of the competition.

  • He realized that in fact I have been right all along.

I think the last one is the most probable, especially when my predictions about the Swift Boat Vets and the lack of WMDs have come true.

At any rate, back when Bob was participating, he used to accuse me of being for "Anybody But Bush" instead of being pro-Kerry. Then Bob would attack John Kerry for being a "liberal (strike 1) Senator (strike 2) from Massachusettes (strike 3)" and so forth, without giving very much in a positive statement for our current president.

Well, today, David Corn has published on his blog an entry entitled Why I am for Kerry. I couldn't agree with it more. This explains why I think John Kerry would make a great president. Enjoy the read.

Friday, October 08, 2004

No WMDs - what a shock

Well, the Duelfer Report is out, and the final conclusion is that there were no WMDs in Iraq, nor did they have any programs in place to create them.

I can honestly say that I am a little surprised.

I mean, I was skeptical that we would find "stockpiles" of WMDs when we attacked Iraq, but I thought we would find little pieces of something. We haven't. And it appears that we won't. It appears, as I have been saying, and as the more reasonable pundits on the left have been saying, that the Bush Administration seriously mislead us into the War in Iraq, which they continue to associate with a completly different war - the War on Terror.

John Dean wrote this article last June about what a serious offense against the nation and the world this misleading really is. I highly suggest reading the entire piece. It is even more poignant now that the Duelfer Report is out. These paragraphs at the beginning are particularly important in my mind:
Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

Well, the story was "far from over" in June of 2003, but I hope that America will wake up and that it will be over on November 3. The article then goes on to list many of the statements that President Bush made to the world concerning the certainty of these WMDs. Near the end of the article are these paragraphs:
To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.


Exactly.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Debates

Well, the first two debates, including the one and only VP debate, are over.

There seems to be a general consensus that John Kerry picked up some significant ground in the first debate against President Bush. That is, he kicked butt.

The VP debate is closer. I was personally disappointed in John Edwards in that he kept answering "the previous question" and I wish he hadn't. FactCheck.org has a pretty good breakdown of some of the major points made by both sides, and it appears that although both Edwards and Cheney distorted reality, Edwards was generally closer to the truth.

From my perspective, it appears that of the four principles, three of them are smart enough for the jobs they are trying to hold. The fourth is our President.

I also noted that both President Bush and VP Cheney continue to try to tie 9/11, Al Queda, and Saddam Hussein together, which is a continuation of the misleading rhetoric which they used to get into the war in Iraq. In my opinion, this type of "leadership" is morally corrupt and self serving. I honestly believe that Cheney and Bush had a goal on January 20, 2001 to attack Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein. They distorted the facts and discarded all of the evidence which didn't support this goal, especially after 9/11. This course of action was reckless and irresponsible, and they continue it in these debates.

This people have to be fired.

Sunday, September 26, 2004

Before the Fall

That is the title of this opinion piece by Pulitzer Prize winning author and Stanford University history professor David M. Kennedy.

I was lucky in that I got to read that opinion piece in today's Mercury News since I am staying in the Bay area for a few days.

At any rate, the article describes exactly why I don't want George W Bush to be re-elected as our president.

Bob likes to criticize me for being "anti-Bush" instead of "pro-Kerry" when in reality I am both. And one of the main reasons that I am "pro-Kerry" is that he has stated that he would pursue policies which are antithetical to the policies of GWB, and for that I am in 100% support. Other Democrats would have done the same thing, and I would be for them because of it if that were the case.

Prof. Kennedy's opinion piece specifies one of the main reasons that I am "anti-Bush" which is that I believe that his decisions in realm of foreign policy have been mostly wrong for this country (with the exception of attacking Afghanistan). I believe that we attacked Iraq because it was one of the goals of the administration from the very beginning, and although the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, the United States is possibly LESS safe because of that action. Prof Kennedy agrees:
The Bush administration's path to war in Iraq is but the most dramatic example of a set of policies that has put at risk the kind of international leadership that has served both America and the world so well for the past half-century. The policies of the past four years have made America and the world less safe, not more.


The entire article is worth a read. And go John Kerry, if for no reason other than he will behave different than George W. Bush (alhough that is not MY only reason).

Monday, September 20, 2004

Belmont Club on Iraq

Coffee With Rhoads readers interested in keeping up with Iraq should keep up with the posts at Belmont Club. The latest posts relate to the patterns of US troop deaths and the number and nature of Iraqi casualites. Read, scroll, and learn.

Squeeze Me

Arnold Kling linked to a Washington Post article on the so-called middle class squeeze. The data don't seem to reflect the tone of the story, though. Kling put the data from the WaPo in tabular form:














Income DistributionPercent of Households
Range19672003
$75K and up8.226.1
$50K - $75K16.718.0
$35K - $50K22.315.0
$15K - $35K31.125.0
under $15K21.715.9

Kling called this squeezing up. To me it looks like if the middle class was getting a sqeeze it was more like a sqeeze from Jessica Simpson. Hence the title of this post!

[Not sure why there's a big gap above my table. Maybe BRG's CTO knows a trick for removing the space.]

Saturday, September 18, 2004

Not Good

I'm hearing too many stories of destruction of Bush or Bush/Cheney signs, bumper stickers and so forth. A few representative links here, here, and the second letter down here. I'm not hearing similar stories of destruction of Kerry or Kerry/Edwards signs, bumper stickers, etc. Perhaps the former reports are more noteworthy to the sources I tend to read and listen to, and the latter reports are more common in the sources Rhoads reads and listens to. If Rhoads gets the time to let me know if he's hearing reports of abuse of Kerry/Edwards signage or people I'd appreciate it.

It looks to me people on the left in America aren't quite as tolerant of opposing political views as they should be. Considering what I've seen on college campuses (including the one down the hill from my home) for the last twenty-plus years, I must admit it doesn't surprise me that people on the evil, intolerant right appear more tolerant of opposing political speach than those on the left.

Rhoads' response: Well, I personally know of one person, who is a regular reader of CwR, who had his John Kerry signs vandalized in his yard. He doesn't live in the People's Republic of Boulder like Bob, though. He lives in Colorado Springs. So it probably depends on whether you are going against the prevailing winds as to whether your sign gets vandalized or not. I think that this means that there are jerks on both sides, as well. Perhaps I should get a JK sign for my front yard to see what happens.

Interesting Morning Reading

Another great day in Boulder. The Mrs and I enjoyed a little coffee (without Rhoads, unfortunately) in the backyard this morning, accompanied in my case by some intersting reading on Iraq. Specifically I printed out and read four, brief informative pieces.

First was a post from Varifrank titled "Iraq: It's not for us". Varifrank addresses four issues regarding why we're fighting in Iraq.

The second was a piece from FoxNews.com by Claudia Rossett and George Russell titled "Possible Saddam-al Qaeda Link Seen in U.N. Oil-for-Food Program". The title pretty much describes the content of the article.

The third piece was from National Review Online by Victor Davis Hanson titled "See ya, Iraq?". The subtitle is "Leaving now would be a disaster."

Finally I read an email from a "Major in the USMC serving in the Multi-National Corps' staff in Baghdad." The title of his email is "Doom & Gloom about Iraq's future...I don't see it from where I'm sitting."

The series covers broadly why we're there, a specific element of why we needed to go, why we need to stick it out, and how things are going as of now. I recommend the whole series to CwR readers.

[Most if not all the links were initially pointed out by Glenn Reynolds I think.]

Friday, September 17, 2004

Pro Kerry Posts?

In response to Rhoads' claim that he has blogged about his reasons for voting FOR John Kerry (as opposed to "anybody but Bush"), I took a walk down Blog Memory Lane courtesy of those Archive links to the left.

Holy smokes I've posted a lot! Anyway, here are the results of my search of the archives, post by post.

Rhoads wrote nothing in support of John Kerry in February, March or April. There were a couple of noteworthy posts in April, though. First, was my link to Robert Tagorda's search for a blogger or somebody who'd written something in support of Kerry rather than "we need to get rid of Bush" or "Kerry is better than Bush". That post is here.

The next post was this one by Rhoads where he said he sent money to Kerry. His reason?
"I am so scared to have George W. Bush continue as our president that I sent money to the Kerry campaign."
Anybody but Bush.

Moving on to May, June and July I found no positive statements of why Kerry was the man from Rhoads. Rhoads was busy with baseball. On to August...

Rhoads sited General McPeak on "why we need to get rid of Bush" in this post from Monday, August 15th.

On the brink of exhaustion from my walk down Archive Lane, finally I found something from Rhoads about Kerry's positions. In a response to my question about Kerry's Iraq policy, Rhoads' linked to the Kerry web site. That came in a reply to this post of mine on August 16th. Rhoads endorsed some of the particular sections, then nearly gave us a reason to vote for Kerry (rather than against Bush):
I think John Kerry has a better chance of putting together the right team to get that job done. It will involve the cooperation of many other nations, and at this point I think that quite a number of them just don't want to work with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.
He said Kerry "has a better chance" than the current administration. It doesn't meet the Tagorda Standard, but perhaps it qualifies as a "pro-Kerry post" on a blog where it's mostly anti-Bush from Rhoads.

That wasn't all I found in August, though. In this post Rhoads linked to a Forbes magazine story saying that we experience gretater prosperity under Democrats than Republicans. Rhoads concludes we should elect a Democrat. Then adds the Democrat is John Kerry. Close. But I can't count that one as pro-Kerry since it seems the argument is any Democrat will do.

In this post Rhoads linked to the Kerry Plan and specifically mentioned the section on restoring fiscal responsibility. I'll give you this one as a pro-Kerry position, but it seems equally plausible to me that it's a reaction to Bush's fiscal irresponsibility. I don't know how big a deficit fighter Rhoads was in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s when the deficits were much larger as a fraction of the national economy. I know John Kerry has not been a noted fiscal conservative in his twenty year career in the US Senate (where was he on Gramm Rudman, for example?). But John Kerry, fiscal conservative, got a plug from Rhoads in this post.

After all this, I guess Rhoads hasn't been completely silent on why a person should vote FOR Kerry as opposed to why a person should not vote for Bush. That last post was sort of pro-Kerry, a fiscal coservative Kerry. But pro-Kerry, I guess.

A CwR reader could certainly be excused for thinking Rhoads hasn't exactly made a strong pro-Kerry case, as opposed to the anti-Bush case. Nor has anyone else as far as I can tell, Kerry included.

Which is why the election isn't shaping up to be particularly close, and why any policy discussions should now be about how to get the second Bush Administration to do some of what you think Kerry would have done as president. Dreaming about a Kerry Administration is just that. I doubt even Kerry thinks he's going to win at this point.

Sorry if I'm unimpressed by the "we need to engage our allies" argument on Iraq. I particuarly don't like the dismissiveness toward the sacrifices made by the countries that have stepped up and joined us. Sure more cooperation from more nations would be nice. It would have been nicer if those nations had been on board from the start. Instead, some countries (France, Germany, Russia) chose continued trade with Hussein over liberating Iraq.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Real Issue #1: Iraq

OK, although I have blogged before about my reasons for voting FOR John Kerry, Bob continues to say that I don't. So I submit John Kerry's plan for Winning the Peace in Iraqas my first real issue. John Kerry is going to work with the rest of the world to get us to peace in Iraq, something that George W. Bush has steadfastly refused to do. President Bush allows other nations to send us a couple of dozen of soldiers so that they can say they are on our side, but he makes it clear that we are in charge, which I think is a bad plan.

John Kerry, on the other hand, wants to build alliances with other nations, (through the auspices of the gasp United Nations) and do this WELL. He also recognizes that our Armed Forces need to come home so that we can have them available in case we have to attack a country which is actually a threat to us. John Kerry recognizes a bad war when he sees it, and he should know because he saw a bad war 30 years ago.

That's #1. More to come.

Real Issues

Once again Rhoads fails to present a case for John Kerry as a president. In Rhoads' email to me, he asked if I was getting bored with CwR. My answer was no. After reading Rhoads' posts during my hiatus, the answer is yes. Too much argumentum ad hominem, too much faith in CBS News, and too much faith that John Kerry will win in November.

I'll give Rhoads credit for highlighting a significant difference between the people who will vote for Bush and the people who won't (including those who choose to make their non-Bush vote a Kerry vote). Rhoads says that the key difference is that people not voting for Bush don't see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror. I think that's right. He says that people who do see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror are under the spell of Bush marketing and propaganda (argumentum ad hominem). Even though Rhoads carves out an obvious and critical distinction between the Bush and non-Bush camps, he cannot resist the argumentum ad hominem. Disappointing.

At the risk of having my person attacked rather than the arguments I present, I'll reproduce the substance of Rhoads' post below on the Iraq-war on terror connection, or lack thereof:
I think that Novak is wrong in the first part of his statement, in that many liberals (myself included) DO want (if not like) the war on terror. That is to say, we do believe that it is the responsibility of our government to do its best to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States. In the second part of his sentence, however, he says that we "refuse to see the vividly clear connection between the two." That is because THERE IS NONE.
I don't have time to post the hyper links, but let me summarize why I think Rhoads is wrong.

I think that we in the civilized world are under attack, a declared jihad, from radical Islamists who want to kill all infidels. These radical Islamists have killed innocent people in the name of their religious cause for roughly thirty years. The U.S. has been the target of these attacks going back to at least the 1980s. Israel has been the target of these attacks for longer than that. Murders of civilians in east Africa, Jakarta, Afghanistan, Spain, Italy, Russia, the Phillipines, and on and on have been part and parcel of a global war that as of September 11, 2001 the U.S. began to take seriously.

The first retalliatory battle waged by the U.S. and its allies in this global war (aside from missile strikes in places like Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. in years past) was in Afghanistan. The next battle was waged in Iraq. Rhoads denies a connection between the two. I'll examine his reasons below. Suffice to say that I think there is ample reason to think that the war in Iraq is part of the global war on terror, or the war against radical Islamists. Why do I say that?

  • Our government has said so. Absent some very broad conspiracy, I don't think that the president, the congress (including Mssrs Kerry and Edwards), and very many outside analysts would have said that ousting Saddam and attempting to establish democracy in the Middle East was part of a war on terror if that were not the case. This may be a poor strategy or a poor tactic at this time. But I don't think that all these people made false public statements to intentionally mislead us into a war. Rhoads apparently thinks that.

  • I think Saddam did provide safe haven for Islamist terrorists of all stripes within Iraq

  • I think there is reason to believe Saddam diverted Oil for Food money to terrorists

  • I think the fact that Saddam used WMD (specifically chemical weapons) against his own people and invaded his neighbors demonstrated that he was a threat to the world outside his borders

  • I think that Iraq attempted to acquire uranium from Africa, demonstrating an interest in nuclear weapons.

  • To me the cost of removing Saddam and the liberation of Iraq is justified by the benefits gained, specifically: removing Saddam (and Uday and Qusay) from power and permanently removing one particular threat, beginning the process of democratization in the Middle East, sending a message to other tyrants (Quaddaffi, e.g.) that there is no more free reign of terror inside "sovereign" borders, bringing the fight to the radical Islamist terrorists in a place and at a time of our choosing rather than theirs, removing one more safe-haven for training, funding and organizing for radical Islamist terrorists.

  • Rhoads continues:
    There are no WMDs.
    I agree. We and the rest of the western intelligence agencies failed in our intelligence gathering efforts regarding the development of WMD in Iraq. I think that the cost of going in and finding that their were no WMD is less than the cost of not going in and finding out the hard way (sooner or later) that there were. But I'll concede that we were wrong on WMD in Iraq, especially as to specific locations, specific weapons and so forth.
    The 9/11 commission report states very clearly that there was no direct connection betweem Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11.
    Note the careful wording of Rhoads' point: "The 9/11 commission report states very clearly that there was no direct connection betweem Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11." [bold added by Bob]. The report very clearly finds no direct (how about indirect?) connections between Saddam Hussein (any other Iraqi agents or surrogates? -- for the record I'm not convinced that Iraqis played a role in 9/11, but I'm not sure they didn't) and 9/11 (what about Iraqi involvement in other acts of terror carried out by radical Islamists?). I don't think the 9/11 commission statement is quite as emphatic on the lack of any connections between Iraq and the global war against radical Islamists as Rhoads' statement implies.
    And we are no longer even fighting Saddam Hussein. And as far as I am concerned, even if Saddam were in power (and I think it is a good thing for the world that he is not) I do not think that the terroist threat against the United States would be any higher than it is now. In fact, I tend to believe folks like Richard Clarke, whom the president discounted, who say that the threat may even be higher now that we have attacked Iraq than if we had not.
    Maybe. I guess we won't know that. We do know that since we attacked Afhanistan and Iraq, we have not been attacked by radical Islamist terrorists. We do know that Spain and Russia have been attacked quite recently. We probably will be attacked in the future. This war is not over.
    George W. Bush misled us into a bad war. The ends do not justify the means in this case. I don't blame him entirely, though. Congress should never have handed over the authority to declare war to him in the first place.
    I disagree that Bush "misled" us into anything. For what it's worth (certainly not much to Rhoads) John Edwards doesn't think so either. But just because I or Edwards or any number of people think something it doesn't make us right. Rhoads has his opinion and he's clearly not going to be swayed. Fair enough. That's why he's not voting for Bush.

    I think there are reasonable disagreements to be had with Bush on the war in Iraq. I've seen plenty of pieces pro and con on whether that was the right tactic, whether it was planned well, whether the troop levels and make-up were right for the invasion and afterwards, whether the goal of democracy is realistic or not for Iraq, whether this engagement stretches us too thin, costs too much (in lives and dollars), whether things are going poorly or well over there right now, the nature and issues surrounding modern warfare, the nature and issues surrounding intelligence in this modern war, and so forth. I'm not expert in any of this, but I have been reading a lot about most of this over the last few years. I conclude that George W. Bush is committed to fighting and winning this global war against radical Islamists. I cannot conclude that about John F. Kerry. I have trouble concluding much about John Kerry, maybe that's his goal. But given what I know about the two candidates, and the presidency of one, I'm voting for Bush in November.

    No, the Iowa Electronic Markets (and other vote markets) don't decide elections. Neither do opinion polls. But the markets are not jus "as good as" any other method of predicting the results ahead of time. Based upon history and research, they are better. In any case, the polls also show Bush winning. The state by state polls and markets show Bush with a lead, a growing lead, in the likely electoral college votes. New Jersey and Illinois, once considered extremely safe Kerry states (still considered pretty safe in the electronic markets) are now statistical dead heats in the polls. Iowa is very close. Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona, at one time considered toss up states are now pretty clearly in the Bush column.

    Is that because Kerry is a bad candidate? Without even going into specifics (e.g. stealing a Howard Dean line-"wrong war at the wrong time" that he had previously criticized strikes me as dumb) of Kerry's positions (can you succintly state his position on Iraq?), he is a liberal (strike one) senator (strike two) from a liberal northeastern state (strike three). That combination has proven to be electoral suicide for Democrats for a generation. That makes Kerry a bad candidate, and a bad nominee, aside from the many policy disagreements I and others may have with him. From the perspective of a party that wants desperately to win back the White House, I judge Kerry to be a poor nominee. What are your reasons for judging him not to be a bad candidate or a bad nominee?

    Can Kerry rally? Anything's possible. I deal in the probable. I'm moving on to productive things like the issues, not Kerry vs. Bush. To me, the 2004 presidential campaign is now boring.

    Iowa Electronic Markets

    Did I miss something? Did we pass a Constitutional Amendment saying that the Iowa Electronic Markets are our avenue for the presidential elections? If not, well, I guess that's as good a predictor as any.

    Bob says that John Kerry is a bad candidate. He hasn't really given any hard evidence to back that up. I say that George Bush has PROVEN himself to be a bad president. Here are my reasons:

    • He has ignored the economy, other than to pass huge tax cuts for people capable of giving him large campaign contributions.

    • He has ignored the fact that so many people are having a hard time getting health care in this country.

    • He got us into a war in Iraq for no good reason, but he assured us that the reasons were valid.

    • This war is costing both American lives and BILLIONS of dollars, and yet he cuts taxes, causing the National Debt to skyrocket out of control.

    • He is just plain not smart enough to continue in this job. He just happens to have a GREAT marketing staff which manages to convince people (like Bob) that there really was a strong connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queada.


    Iowa Election Markets aside, I think America will figure it out be election day, especially if the 18-25 year olds get out and vote. George will be fired. Thank goodness.

    Wednesday, September 15, 2004

    I'm Back, sort of, part II

    Rhoads emailed to see if I was still breathing. After announcing I was back from NYC, I haven't had my usual Coffee With Rhoads. I've been quite busy, but should be back to my hyper blogging by early next week.

    By then I shouldn't have to respond to some of Rhoads' posts, most notably anything relating to the hoax CBS fell for. The damage from that story won't be to Bush (see graph below), it will be to Dan Rather, the reputation of CBS News and to whomever passed those documents to CBS.

    When I return, I'll probably do much less purely political-type blogging, though, since the 2004 presidential race is looking like a blowout of monumental proportions:




    [source: Iowa Electronic Markets]

    Rhoads could get more votes than it appears Kerry is going to get. In the spirit of good sportsmanship, I'll stop beating up on John Kerry. Sure he's been a bad candidate, but as I said before, nominating this guy was silly from the get go. The Democratic Party will have to rethink its nominating process to avoid this sort of nominee in the future.

    Mr. Bush's Glass House

    That's the title of this OP-ED piece in the New York Times. I couldn't agree more. All of the broo ha ha about the President's National Guard service would be a big yawn if he would just own up to it and quit lying about it. In other words, he "served honorably," but only for SOME of his miltary service, and then he pulled strings to finish without completing his service. He should admit that so that we can move on. Maybe he will once he is fired in November.

    Tuesday, September 14, 2004

    Partisan Media

    For those of us who are still a little skeptical about the whole "liberal media" moniker, I think that this latest issue with the President's National Guard records is a good litmus test for which media outlets are "liberal" and which are "conservative" based on whether they start with the assumption that the documents are real or forged. Fox News, for example, is showing us their colors, much of it in the name of "news."

    Now I still think there is a possibility that the documents are not real, but I will fall on the side of them being real unless there is some really strong evidence to the contrary. At this point, there doesn't seem to be any strong evidence to the contrary. Of course, Rush says that there is no question that the documents are fake, but Rush also says that Global Warming is "malarky." Rush is an idiot. Too bad so many people listen to him.

    You can say that CBS was being partisan when they created this story, but I would argue that the Bush Administration forced them into it. The Administration was asked why the President didn't show up for a required physical, and they refused to answer the question. The claimed to release the President's "military" records, and they didn't. So CBS went in search of them and came up with some. If they created them from whole cloth, then you will see me blast CBS in the future. At the moment, it isn't obvious to any thinking person (Rush doesn't fall into that category) that they are fake.

    Media Matters has done a pretty good job of debunking the claimed reasons for knowing that the docs are forged. The best article on those lines is available here. Another good one, discrediting William Safire (whom I admire and respect) is available here.

    Ah, and a good article on Rush's Global Warming lunacy is available here.

    Friday, September 10, 2004

    Bush's National Guard records

    Well, CBS News has unearthed some old memos which they continue to stand by indicating that Goerge Bush was indeed missing during some of his service time with the Texas/Alabama Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. Of course, Fox News has probed into the memos and seems to thing that they might be forgeries. This will be interesting. Why? Well, because if the documents turn out to indeed be real, then it indicates more about the shoddy character of our President. The biggest problem as I see it is that he lied about it when asked about it a few months ago. If the documents are forgeries, then CBS should be ashamed of themselves, and they should be harshly reprimanded.

    Tuesday, September 07, 2004

    The crux of the matter per Michael Novak

    Bob posted an article by Michael Novak at the National Review about Zell Miller. Ignoring the laughability of anyone trying to seriously say that Zell Miller has anything useful to say, I pick out this particular quote from the Novak article which is one of the main differences between me and Bob, and quite possibly between people who will be voting for George Bush and people who will be voting for John Kerry come November.
    The left wing of the Democratic party doesn't like either the war on terror or the war in Iraq, and refuses to see the vividly clear connection between the two.

    I think that Novak is wrong in the first part of his statement, in that many liberals (myself included) DO want (if not like) the war on terror. That is to say, we do believe that it is the responsibility of our government to do its best to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States. In the second part of his sentence, however, he says that we "refuse to see the vividly clear connection between the two." That is because THERE IS NONE. There are no WMDs. The 9/11 commission report states very clearly that there was no direct connection betweem Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11. And we are no longer even fighting Saddam Hussein. And as far as I am concerned, even if Saddam were in power (and I think it is a good thing for the world that he is not) I do not think that the terroist threat against the United States would be any higher than it is now. In fact, I tend to believe folks like Richard Clarke, whom the president discounted, who say that the threat may even be higher now that we have attacked Iraq than if we had not.

    George W. Bush mislead us into a bad war. The ends do not justify the means in this case. I don't blame him entirely, though. Congress should never have handed over the authority to declare war to him in the first place.

    But people like Michael Novak who say that there is a "vividly clear connection" between the War and Iraq and the War on Terror are plain wrong. They have listened too much to the Bush propaganda. It is time for this president to leave, ESPECIALLY because of this extremely aggredious error.

    Zell and the Democratic Party

    Michael Novak gets it.
    Rhoads' response: What's to get? An old Dixiecrat rants and raves, trashing the name of another Democrat for his own personal gain, when just a few years ago he praised that very same person, also for personal gain. Perhaps he is as pissed as the SBVAJK, and so uses similar logic - i.e. none at all. Fine. But then to challenge Chris Matthews to a duel? Come on, Bob. The guy's a total lunatic, and when Rush and Novak praise him at all, they are just tarnishing their own credibility. Well, Rush doesn't really have any credibility any more, but Novak is usually pretty level headed.

    Bob's reply:
    Aside from missing or ignoring the point of the Novak piece, and despite accusing Zell Miller of using "similar logic - i.e. none at all," Rhoads resorts to his own favorite logical fallacy, the argumentum ad hominem. Goodness, the above is almost a classroom example of argumentum ad hominem.

    Rhoads first questions Zell Miller's character by calling him a derogatory name ("old Dixicrat"). Then Rhoads questions Miller's motives ("for his own personal gain"). Then Rhoads again questions Miller's character by calling him another name ("a total lunatic").

    Rhoads continued reliance on the argumentum ad hominem is most unbecoming, especially from a Princeton educated man.

    Saturday, September 04, 2004

    Look What's Cooking

    I jus put two loaves of Rachel's famous banana bread into the oven. For those of you who may not have the recipe, here it is:
    Rachel's Famous Banana Bread
    1 1/2 c. flour
    2/3 c. sugar
    2 t. baking powder
    1/2 t. baking soda
    1/4 t. salt
    3-4 very ripe bananas [the blacker the better]
    1/3 c. softened butter
    2 T. milk
    2 eggs

    In large bowl, combine 1 c. flour, sugar, baking powder, baking soda, and salt. Add bananas, butter, and milk. Beat on high for 2 minutes. Add eggs and remaining 1/2 c. flour. Mix until blended. Put in greased load pan. Bake in 350 degree oven for 55 minutes.

    Only 48 minutes to go...

    Today it is coffee and banana bread with Rhoads.

    Thursday, September 02, 2004

    Zell Miller: flip-flopper?

    Well, Democratic Senator Zell Miller from Georgia burned a bridge or two last night at the RNC. My guess is that we won't be calling him the "Democratic" Senator from Georgia for very much longer. I doubt that the Democratic Party will be giving him a whole lot of support in the future after his attacks on their presidential nominee. I didn't actually see his speech, but I have read the text. Powerful stuff. Of course, it directly contradicts his statements from a few years ago at the Democratic Party of Georgia Jefferson Jackson dinner:
    Kerry An "Authentic Hero": "My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders -- and a good friend. He was once a lieutenant governor -- but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984. -- U.S. Senator Zell Miller [Remarks to the Democratic Party of Georgia Jefferson Jackson Dinner 2001]

    Kerry "Strengthened Our Military": "In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment."

    This guy is obviously quite the politician. Welcome to the Republican Party, Senator Miller. I guess it is a good thing that you are not running for reelection. Perhaps you can retire in Minnesota, since you are such a loon.

    Air America in Denver (Boulder)

    It appears that Air America Radio is now available on AM 760, which used to carry Rush every so often. Apparently that station has now moved to Boulder. Now of course, the reasonible citizens of Boulder don't really need it (except maybe the Boulder staff of the BRG) but luckily the broadcast covers the suburbs as well. Go Air America!

    Wednesday, September 01, 2004

    I'm Back

    The wife and I just returned from a wonderful long weekend in New York City. We were there to see some of the US Open tennis tournament, to see a Broadway show (42nd Street--very good), to have a couple of beers at my old haunts (Chumley's and McSorley's) and to eat wonderful food (the best was at Spark's). We were joined there by some friends from the Boulder area and their two sons. A great time was had by all.

    Now I'll have to see what Rhoads has posted in my absence...

    Niwot Soccer makes its debut on the worldwide web. Cool. Now if there were some way for players to score a bit more often.

    The Princeton Tigers will be in Laramie, WY in November. Awesome! I'll be sportin' my sweet black Princeton t-shirt.

    Rhoads watched High Society with Bing Crosby, Grace Kelly, and Frank Sinatra. Probably my second favorite movie behind only It's A Wonderful Life starring Jimmy Stewart.

    And finally Rhoads resorts to ad hominem yet again rather than answering the Swift Boat Vets' charges. Telling. Some things never change.

    Oh well. Three quality posts out of four ain't bad. Sean Ratliff-like success rate.

    Rhoads' response: Welcome back, Bob! The coffee just doesn't taste the same without you! I am not sure how catching someone red-handed in a huge lie when he is attacking someone else by accusing that other person of lying is ad hominem, but I guess that's just the way you see it.

    Bob's reply: Regarding John O'Neil, Rhoads wrote: "The guy's a lying scumbag, and he is a pissed off lying scumbag." I referred to that as resorting to ad hominem. To help the readers decide if my accusation of argumentum ad hominem against Rhoads is justified, let's define the term.

    Definition of argumentum ad hominem: "The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself." [Reference source]

    With that, I'll leave the verdict to CwR readers.

    Tuesday, August 31, 2004

    Niwot Soccer

    There is a new web site in the world as of today. Check out Niwot Soccer.

    Monday, August 30, 2004

    Tiger Hoops in Laramie

    Mark your calendars. November 22. Princeton @ Laramie. Time TBD.

    Sweet!!

    Sunday, August 29, 2004

    Have you heard, it's in the stars...

    ...next July we collide with Mars...

    Just finished watching High Society. Great flick. I'm sure Bob will agree.

    Friday, August 27, 2004

    O'Neill in Cambodia?

    Hmm, this article from Media Matters seems to indicate that John O'Neill admitted to Richard Nixon back in 1971 that he was in fact "in Cambodia" on a Swift Boat, or at least on the border (in a Swift Boat).
    O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

    NIXON: In a swift boat?

    O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
    This certainly brings up a credibility issue with Mr. O'Neill, who earlier said that Swift Boats were never withing 55 miles of the border. The guy's a lying scumbag, and he is a pissed off lying scumbag, and I hope that Bob stops giving any credibility to this group of people who are taking a page from an old Lee Atwater play book. Pathetic.

    Survey, Quiz

    I tend to get a different score every time I do these sorts of things, but on this political survey this time I scored +0.3357 (+.0202) on the Left/Right axis, and +4.8274 (+0.2906) on the Pragmatism/Idealsm axis.

    On the Estimation Quiz I scored a very disappointing 35%. Pathetic.

    Your results may differ.

    Rhoads' responseI got -3.2724 (-0.1970) on the left/right. I lost the page before I wrote down the pragmatic one.

    Wednesday, August 25, 2004

    Why Credibility Matters

    I admit that the Center for American Progress is a very liberal source. That means that Bob will generally dismiss them like I tend to dismiss most of the ulra conservative blogs that he links to regularly. However, I think this article bears reading anyway. It explains one of the big problems I have with President Bush-- he host lost credibility both at home and in the world. This quote sums it up:
    Why is credibility so important?  The conventional wisdom focuses on credibility for credibility's sake, but misses the real point: the war on terrorism cannot be won if the rest of the world mistrusts the United States.  
    Now I know that Bob will continue to point at John Kerry's credibility - or what Bob sees as a lack thereof. However, I also believe that information will come out that both John Kerry and John O'Neill were involved in covert operations in Cambodia. And to deny that there ever were such covert operations is putting your head in the sand. There is plenty of evidence in the Nixon Archives that such operations were happening.

    Bob's reply: No time to go read the link, but there's no need. No, not because I don't trust the source. The source is liberal, but I've found a few things on their site that I agree with. From Rhoads description this is another. Well, not totally. I think any blanket statements about "the rest of the world" are not meaningful. But the basic point that the Bush Administration has credibility issues is legitimate. I have big problems with President Bush and the Bush Administration, too. That's why I keep, hysterically, griping about the nominee of the Democratic Party. Why did they nominate THIS GUY at this time? It just seems like such a big mistake to me. At the time the story was his electability. Argh. Senators have trouble winning presidential elections. Liberals from northeastern, liberal states have trouble winning presidential elections. Anti-war activists have trouble winning elections. What made the Democratic Party think John Kerry was so electable? Polls?

    Regarding credibility and the Swifties. I take nothing they say at face value. I realize they have an axe to grind and they'd like to grind it in Kerry's skull. However, I am eager to check out the things they say. Rhoads may be surprised to learn this, but the main source for their criticisms is Douglas Brinkley's book on Kerry, Tour of Duty. The inconsistencies between stories in that book, stories told elsewhere, and the written records from Kerry's time in Vietnam led them (along with an intense hatred of the man's betrayal of them when he came back to the U.S.) to come forward to challenge Kerry's account of his service, a service that he unwisely made the centerpiece of his campaign.

    Rhoads, there is ample evidence that covert operations were going on in Cambodia. Contrary what appears to be what you think, there is also documentation of said operations. Many people admit to having participated in said covert operations. They've described them in detail. None of what they've said supports Kerry's claim. He wasn't running the sort of boat (when they used boats on very rare occasions) that were inserted into Cambodia.

    The evidence, screw the Swifties, just does not support Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia, ever, much less when "the president said I wasn't there" as he claimed on the floor of the US Senate. Do you or any of your sources know of a time when Nixon or Johnson claimed no soldiers were in Cambodia at a time when Kerry was in the region? I don't know of such a source. I'd like to know of one. It may exist, but I haven't seen it yet.

    The whole Cambodia tale appears to be a fraud from the very beginning. It looks like Kerry doesn't even support his claims any more. Cling to some changing version of Kerry's story if you want to.

    It looks like the Kerry Campaign may be admitting that his first PH was self-inflicted and that there may not have been enemy fire that day. Kerry's own journal is certainly ambiguous on that score.

    Further evidence, which I've posted below, casts doubt on whether Kerry and Rassman were under enemy fire when Kerry rescued him from the water after the mine blew Rassman's boat from the water. There was shooting, as Rassman says, but the shooting came from, among other places, Kerry's own gun which jammed. What we don't know is if shooting came from the shore, from enemies. If it did, they missed their targets with every shot. Odd.

    Likewise the evidence indicates that Kerry and Rood did not turn into an enemy position that was superior in strength as thought when the Silver Star was issued.

    Kerry opened the door to this stuff by using his service in his campaign. He kicked the door wide open in Boston when he saluted and said "Reporting for duty." The Swift Vets walked through that door. Now Kerry wants the door shut again. Too late.
    Rhoads' reponseWell, Bob, you told me about the Swift Boat Vets long before Senator Kerry said anything about "Reporting for duty." And I think that they are the ones making this the centerpiece of his campaign. He is just defending himself against some unscrupulous attacks from them. But, it is something that he is most well known for until now - his record of speaking out against the Vietnam War - and so it is understandable.

    Bob's reply. I first heard of the Swift Boat Vets back in April, I think. The CwR archives show when I first heard of them. I mentioned them here. [I went and looked: May 5th] Kerry used "his service in his campaign" long before he "reported for duty" in Boston. Remember the debates during the primary season? Kerry incessantly referred to his Vietnam service. He was using his service in the campaign then and it was a mistake. He then kicked the door open in Boston with his performance (arriving via boat with his "band of brothers"), ridiculous salute, and speech boosting his war record.

    I recall the Deaniacs, Kucinich supporters (I saw a bumper sticker yesterday in my neighborhood), protectionists and union people pushing Gephart, even some hints of Clintonite support for Wes Clark last fall. Trial lawyers put their money behind John Edwards. So-called moderates, that is conservative Democrats (who by their candidate's showing don't appear strong in the Democratic primary process) supported Lieberman. I don't recall the passionate Kerry supporters. Yet, somehow Kerry's the Democratic nominee.

    Now it appears Kerry is going off a cliff. Fairly soon the party will blame him for being a bad candidate. Sure, he's been a bad candidate. The whole Kerry campaign has had a horrendous August. But the true blame for the electoral beating Kerry will take (despite an incumbant ripe for the beating) lies with the Democratic primary voters who chose Kerry.

    To be fair, though, what choice did they have? My guess is Dean may have been worse. Kucinich was never a realistic choice. Clark turned out to be a dud so probably would have been a bad choice, too. Gephart's message was too pessimistic to win a general election. Edwards may have had a chance of overcoming the Senate thing because he was only in for one term and is from the South. Of course that lack of experience would have hurt him in the general like it did in the primaries. Lieberman may have been able to overcome the Senate thing with his "moderate" positions, positions that have been fairly consistent if you forgive him going in the tank for Gore in 2000.

    I think the cast of characters auditioning for the presidency was lean for the Dems in 2004. They got stuck with a bad choice. Sound familiar? Remember Bob Dole? Senator Dole? Bad Republican candidate from a bad primary field in 1996. Heck, Bush Sr was a bad candidate in 1980, a relatively bad president, and a bad candidate in 1992. Clinton (Southern governor), Reagan (Western governor), and Carter (Southern governor) were the only solid opposition-party winners in presidential elections since...? You've got to go back to Ike, a non-political pick, back in 1952 beating Princeton's own Adlai Stevenson to find an election where the opposition party won comfortably without a governor atop the ticket.

    One-term Senator Kennedy narrowly beat sitting VP Nixon in 1960. Former VP Nixon narrowly beat sitting VP Humphrey in 1968. Governor George W. Bush managed to win, barely, in 2000 over VP Gore. Unless the opposition party can find a governor who is reasonably attractive to the swing voters in the middle, they don't have a very good record in presidential elections in modern times. Picking a senator, especially a long-serving, liberal one from a northern state, has spelled doom.

    That doesn't mean Kerry can't or won't win. Perhaps this year will be different. But don't bet more than a couple of quarters on it. Save your betting for Poker Stars.

    P.S. I finally got a minute to read the piece on credibility that started this post. The authors again trot out the unique definition of alone when they say we're going it alone in Iraq. To their credit they acknowledge the PRI, but complain that only 11 nations have signed on. Those 11 sign-ons are significant strategically: adjacent to N. Korea and on the Black Sea near Iran (excluding the European participants). More signatories would be nice, but complaining about the 11 minimizes the significance of this "multi-lateral" success by the Bush Administration.

    I did enjoy the piece, though. I thought it was substantive. Unfortunately, like most of what I read, it manages to avoid how John Kerry would improve the situation. Kerry's not mentioned in the article. Judging by how Kerry's handled legitimate questions about his service in Vietnam (smearing the questioners), I wonder just how diplomatically successful he would be as a president. Surely our enemies worldwide are tougher opponents than the honorably discharged and in some cases decorated veterans challenging his accounts of his Vietnam service.

    Tuesday, August 24, 2004

    Rhoads: Auto mechanic

    So the reverse lights in Kim's 1991 Jeep Cherokee haven't worked for some time. Last time I had it in the shop. they told me that some switch underneath had gone bad, and that it would be a few hundred bucks to replace it. They suggested that perhaps I could go to a junk yard and get one cheaper. Last night I decided to use Google to see what I could find, and low and behold I found these instructions for cleaning my "Neutral Safety Switch." So tonight I bought a $2 can of Carb Cleaner, and followed the instructions. Lo and behold, the reverse lights now work. Bring your cars over anytime, Bob!!

    A Talk with Ralph Peters

    This Ralph Peters piece in the New York Post bears reading. Here's the opening paragraph:
    John Kerry went to Vietnam. Voluntarily. Given that President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and every chicken-hawk in the coop did all they could to avoid getting the mud of Indochina on their loafers, his service should make Kerry the election-year choice of those who serve, or once served, in our country's uniform.
    Right. That's what Rhoads has been saying. Kerry served. He knows what war's like. Bush is a war-dodger who only likes wars he can send others to fight.
    Instead, military men and women are overwhelmingly suspicious of Kerry. Many despise him so intensely that their emotions verge on hatred.

    What went wrong?
    What indeed.
    There are three big problems with Kerry from the standpoint of those who are proud of their military service. And one of those reservations has been overlooked entirely by the parade of talking heads, so few of whom have served in uniform themselves.
    Hey, I'm not a talking head (unless I'm behind a PA microphone), but I spout off on this stuff relentlessly and I never served. I'm ready to listen.
    As far as the swift-boat controversy goes, it's likely to remain a he-said-she-said issue through Election Day. The red flag to military men and women is that so many swift-boat veterans have come out against John Kerry. Not just one. Not 10. Dozens upon dozens.
    It's not a surprise to Rhoads. In contrast to the dozen or so supporting Kerry, these couple hundred Swift Boat Vets are bought and paid for by the evil genius, Karl Rove. No evidence of that, but we're talking beliefs here.
    This is as rare as humility in the Hamptons. Vets stick together. Kerry likes to play up his "band of brothers" image, but if he's got a band, his opponents have a symphony. And even if the first violinist turns out to be a "Republican stooge," it's nonetheless stunning for so many vets to denounce a former comrade publicly. It just doesn't happen unless something's really wrong.
    "His opponents have a symphony." Good one. Must be written by a Republican speech writer.
    As for Kerry's support from his own crew, that's normal military psychology. You get the most objective view of a junior leader from his peers — the other swift-boat commanders (and their crews) who had to fear a weak link in the chain.
    No. That's not right. ONLY the guys in his boat (except for William Rood) can comment on Kerry's fitness as an officer. Oh, wait. I'm not a military guy so how the heck do I get off making a comment like that? I wanna believe that, that's how.
    I'm not a Vietnam vet, so I don't have as big an emotional dog in the fight as those who served so bravely and so thanklessly in Indochina. But some values are universal among those who wear or wore our country's uniform.

    Yes, Kerry deserves credit for serving, whether he volunteered out of patriotism or because he had cast himself as the "next JFK," with a swift boat subbing for PT-109.

    The first show-stopper problem with Kerry began after his return. He had the right to protest against the war — more than most, since he had served himself. But he had not earned the right to lie about the honorable service of millions of others.
    Ralph, don't you know? Republicans lie. Democrats spin.
    Kerry's lies — and they were nothing but lies — about "routine" atrocities committed by average American soldiers and sanctioned by the chain of command were sheer political opportunism. Kerry knew that none of the charges were true.
    Well some of the charges were true, but Kerry embellished (pattern?).
    He'd been there. He may have done some stupid things himself, but atrocities were statistically very rare. Contrary to the myths cherished by film-makers, American troops behaved remarkably well under dreadful conditions.

    John Kerry lied. Without remorse. To advance his budding political career. He tarnished the reputation of his comrades when the military was out of vogue.
    Now he's shocked, SHOCKED that some couple hundred of them have stepped forward to challenge him. Nice nominee.
    Now, three decades later, camouflage is back in the fall fashion line-up. Suddenly, Kerry's proud of his service, portraying himself as a war hero.

    But it doesn't work that way. You can't trash those who served in front of Congress and the American people, spend your senatorial career voting against our nation's security interests, then expect vets to love you when you abruptly change your tune.

    Kerry might have won support had he apologized frankly for what he said in the early 1970s. But he no more disavowed his lies than he disclaimed the lies of Michael Moore.
    Ralph. Democrats don't lie.
    Which brings us to problems two and three.

    John Kerry doesn't show a trace of integrity. Those constant flip-flops to suit the prevailing political winds are more troubling to military folks than many of the issues themselves.

    Integrity matters to those in uniform. You have to be able to depend on the guy in the next foxhole — or swift boat. Trust is more important than any technology.

    And John Kerry just doesn't seem trustworthy.
    No big deal. Bush and Cheney must go. Get to your last point.
    Finally — and this is the one the pundits have trouble grasping, given the self-promoting nature of today's culture — real heroes don't call themselves heroes. Honorable soldiers or sailors don't brag. They let their deeds speak for themselves. Some of the most off-putting words any veteran can utter are "I'm a war hero."

    Real heroes (and I've been honored to know some) never portray their service in grandiose terms, telling TV cameras that they're reporting for duty. Real heroes may be proud of the sacrifices they offered, but they don't shout for attention.

    This is so profoundly a part of the military code of behavior that it cannot be over-emphasized. The rule is that those who brag about being heroes usually aren't heroes at all. Bragging is for drunks at the end of the bar, not for real vets. And certainly not for anyone who wishes to trade on his service to become our commander-in-chief.
    But Bush never served. Bush never served.
    I wish Kerry were better. The truth is that I'm appalled by Bush's domestic policies. I believe that the Cheney-Halliburton connection stinks to high heaven. And I'm convinced that Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld & Co. have done colossal damage to our military and to our foreign policy.

    But we're at war. And for all his faults, Bush has proven himself as a great wartime leader. Despite painful mistakes, he's served our security needs remarkably well. And security trumps all else in the age of terror.
    Yep. It does for me, too.
    Kerry says many of the right things.
    Occasionally. To the right audiences. Before he changes the "nuance" to different audiences.
    But I can't believe a word of it. I just can't trust John Kerry. I can't trust him to lead, I can't trust him to fight — and I can't trust him to make the right kind of peace.

    I have reservations about voting for George W. Bush. But I have no reservations about voting against John Kerry. And I'm not alone.
    No, Mr. Peters. You're not alone at all.

    Poor Bob

    He's getting hysterical again.

    Presidential Character

    Robert Tagorda on why Kerry's Cambodia problem matters:
    I think that, by stressing how Kerry has allegedly used an inaccurate story to make policy changes, you raise the character issue to a highly relevant level. Suddenly, Christmas in Cambodia is no longer a dirty campaign ploy, which turns off moderate and independent voters, but rather a significant leadership question, which everyone should follow.
    Well, everyone but the anti-Bush left. They'd rather smear the Swift Vets.

    Never mind that Kerry smeared Vietnam Vets himself before Congress and on "Meet the Press" (I'm sure among many other times and places in his anti-war career). Again, in an addendum to the same post Robert Tagorda writes:
    Hell, I'd be pissed off, too, if an ambitious politician charged atrocities to spark his public career, then a quarter-century later, surrounded himself with fellow veterans to bolster his foreign-policy toughness and advance his presidential campaign. It's plainly disingenuous -- and surpasses the standard white lies, policy straddles, and media spins that voters have come to tolerate from political figures.
    Nice nominee.

    Hah Hah Hah

    Beliefs. Beliefs. Beliefs.

    John Kerry on the floor of the US Senate in a plea to influence public policy:
    "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."
    LIE

    Kerry's Lie According to Rhoads: No big deal. GIGGLE.

    Swift Boat Vets: Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968. TRUE.

    Kerry Campaign (revision): Kerry was 50 miles from Cambodia during Christmas of 1968. TRUE.

    Douglas Brinkley (revision): Kerry was in Cambodia three or four times in early 1969 on secret missions. NO EVIDENCE FOR. CREWMATES CONTRADICT.

    Kerry Campaign (revision): Kerry was in Cambodia once. NO EVIDENCE For. CREWMATES CONTRADICT.

    Kerry's own Diary: Kerry was never in Cambodia. UNRELIABLE SOURCE

    Rhoads belief that Kerry is believable: HAH

    As I wrote elsewhere on Coffee With Rhoads, I won't vote for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for president. But I won't be voting for John Kerry, either.

    I read Coffee with Rhoads

    Bob says I don't read Coffee With Rhoads. But I do. I only posted the link to the copy of the Chicago Tribune article because I didn't want to subscribe to the Trib in order to read it. Bob also like to keep harping on the Christmas in Cambodia thing as well. Of course, he is one of the few, because I don't think it is that big a deal. And the fact that it comes from the SBVAJK makes it pretty unbelievable, because everything else they say is so totally incredible and unbelievable that that particular issue coming from them falls in the same category. Do I think John Kerry was in Cambodia on December 25, 1968? Probably not. Do I think he was ever in Cambodia on a covert mission? Yes I do. Bob can claim that I am being silly in that belief, but I don't think I am. Bob also says these guys are credible. Laughable.


    Bob's reply: As I wrote in the post below:
    "Muravchik's conclusion won't sway the dedicated "anybody but Bush" crowd on the left."
    Rhoads, in this post, proves my judgment correct again.

    Kerry's Cambodia Whopper

    It seems to me that Joshua Muravchik drives a stake through Kerry's Cambodia tales in his Washington Post piece titled "Kerry's Cambodia Whopper". Muravchik's conclusion won't sway the dedicated "anybody but Bush" crowd on the left, but there aren't enough of them to elect Kerry. I suspect many Americans, those who will determine the outcome of the election, will share Muravchik's conclusion:
    But Kerry has repeated his Cambodia tale throughout his adult life. He has claimed that the epiphany he had that Christmas of 1968 was about truthfulness. "One of the things that most struck me about Vietnam was how people were lied to," he explained in a subsequent interview. If -- as seems almost surely the case -- Kerry himself has lied about what he did in Vietnam, and has done so not merely to spice his biography but to influence national policy, then he is surely not the kind of man we want as our president.
    Surely not. Nice nominee, Democrats.

    Strengthen the Good

    I should have posted this yesterday on a high traffic day, but better late than never. Please head on over to Strengthen the Good and see how you can help some victims of Hurricane Charley in Florida.

    Monday, August 23, 2004

    Kerry Meets the Press and the Senate

    John Kerry's comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" in 1971 are reproduced here from Kerry's appearance with Tim Russert on that show April 18, 2004. Russert ran a clip of Kerry in 1971 saying this:
    MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War):  There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones.  I conducted harassment and interdiction fire.  I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.  I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages.  All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare.  All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.  And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
    Is Kerry admitting to being a war criminal? He admits to actions "contrary to the laws of warfare." The best you can say is that Kerry is using the Nuremberg defense: he was ordered to do it, ordered to do it by men he describes as "by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals." That defense didn't work at Nuremberg, so I guess it won't work for Kerry.

    John Kerry, as we all know, also testified before the US Senate in 1971. C-SPAN was kind enough to post the transcript of Kerry's testimony. Here's Kerry's opening:
    Mr. Kerry: Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington, Senator Pell. I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.

    I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.

    I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
    So three paragraphs into his testimony, John Kerry has testified, second hand admittedly, to "not isolated" war crimes "committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." No names. No specifics as to places and dates. A broad condemnation of untold numbers of people who were not there to defend themselves. Accusations of war crimes committed with the "full awareness of officers at all levels of command." And now he's upset by specific charges backed up by sworn affidavits, regarding very specific incidents in his past? Gutsy. He also appears to be reliving the past by responding not with facts, but once again with smears. Those he smears now are those who felt smeared thirty years ago. John Kerry's surprised that some of those he smeared over thirty years ago have emerged to try to smear him as he uses his Vietnam experience as the centerpiece of his campaign for President of the United States, commander-in-chief of the armed forces? Is he an idiot?

    Given all this baggage, why has Kerry made his four-month Vietnam experience the centerpiece of his campaign? Military experience has never correlated with presidential excellence before, wartime or peacetime. Why did the Democratic Party choose this particular guy with one particular message: "I served in Vietnam"? I'm not finding good answers to those questions.

    Will Ferrell spoof

    Check out this spoof by Will Ferrell. Very funny.


    Bob's reply: Not as funny as this from JibJab that I linked to here.

    The Will Ferrell bit was funny, though. I especially liked Will's reactions when the horse walked up behind him.

    Readers of Coffee With Rhoads, again unfortunately a group that doesn't include Rhoads, are aware of the group that funded Will's spoof of George W. Bush. It's called Americans Coming Together, or ACT. It is a section 527 organization funded by Democrats to the tune of $28-plus million. I linked to a story covering such Democratic 527s here. The evil Republicans have given Swift Boat Veterans for Truth around $200,000.

    Oh, you'll notice at that link that ACT isn't even the biggest of the Democratic 527s. For the web of connections to Kerry, have a look here.

    Another condemnation of the SWVAJK from someone else who was there

    William Rood works for the Chicago Tribune. If you don't want to subscribe to their web site, you can see his story here.


    Bob's reply: Of course readers of Coffee With Rhoads, which unfortunately doesn't include Rhoads, already knew about Rood from my post here.

    Another Admission of Embellishment

    At Command Post we see that the Kerry Campaign has removed some documents from its web site. In those documents Kerry took implied credit for the actions of Lt. Peck. Here's the Boston Globe's account:
    The Kerry campaign removed a 20-page batch of documents yesterday from its website after The Boston Globe quoted a Navy officer who said the documents wrongly portrayed Kerry’s service. Edward Peck had said he — not Kerry — was the skipper of Navy boat No. 94 at a time when the Kerry campaign website credited the senator with serving on the boat. The website had described Kerry’s boat as being hit by rockets and said a crewmate was injured in an attack. But Peck said those events happened when he was the skipper. The campaign did not respond to a request to explain why the records were removed.
    If you run on stuff that happened thirty five years ago, you're bound to run afowl of the facts from time to time. Especially if you're tying to pump up four months in Vietnam as the centerpiece of your campaign.

    Sunday, August 22, 2004

    Bronze and Silver. No, not the Olympics.

    More reaction to accounts of events surrounding Kerry's Bronze Star and Silver Star from Captain's Quarters.
    Rhoads response: You have to do batter than that, Bob. These guys want you to believe that Newsweek says that the Bronze Star doesn't hold water, but if you actually read the Newsweek article, it doesn't say anything like that.

    Bob's reply: Captain's Quarters provided the link. I read the story. Newsweek doesn't say anything. A fellow named Sandusky, who was there, says that he wasn't sure if the shooting had stopped when Kerry pulled Rassman from the water. That matters. You get medals for turning back into enemy fire to pull a guy from the water. You don't get medals for turning back and pulling a guy from the water after the enemy has stopped firing.

    Regarding the Silver Star episode, here's how Captain Ed sums up his post:
    Did Kerry chase after the VC? By all accounts, yes.

    Did Kerry shoot an unarmed teenager in the back? Unknown.

    Did anyone but Kerry witness the shooting? No.

    Did they plan on beaching the boats during an ambush? Apparently, they did, even if it was a foolish thing to do.

    Were they under intense fire by a numerically superior foe, as Kerry's commendation claims? Looking at all of the evidence available, one would have to conclude not. Even I could hit the side of a 50-foot boat sitting dead on a riverbank across 100 feet of water with an automatic weapon, and I'm not terribly experienced with firearms. And yet we're to believe that large numbers of battle-hardened insurgents lined on both sides of that narrow canal completely missed two or three huge targets for several minutes while they were beached, and the men aboard them?

    It doesn't add up.
    That's Captain Ed's opinion. I presented the link because a reasonable critic of Kerry's seems to be providing some substantive analysis of various accounts of the Silver Star episode. Of course die-hard Kerry supporters won't care about the evidence or what Captain Ed thinks of it. But I care. It's my blog. So I linked to it. I don't have to do any better. You get what you pay for at CwR.

    As I've written, the charges about Kerry's medals are the weakest of the charges made by the Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry. But they have made serious charges, presented sworn witnesses, and described the physical evidence to support their case. As best they can, journalists need to examine the charges. Like it or not, this is beginning to happen. If the Swift Boat Vets turn out to be wrong more than they're right, then Kerry has nothing to worry about. Don't you think Kerry should authorize the release of whatever records will clear this up? Like Bush has?

    Parallel Universe

    Glenn Reynolds offers a news clipping from a parallel universe that looks pretty good him. It looks pretty good to me, too. I suspect it looks good to a majority of the electorate. Here's Glenn's news clipping:
    EAST HAMPTON, NY (IP) -- Democratic Presidential nomineee John Kerry laughs when told that most voters don't realize that he served in Vietnam, winning three purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star.

    "Why should they? That's several wars ago," Kerry laughs. "Old stuff. I'd much rather people be talking about my detailed plan to rebuild Iraq, using an oil trust mechanism that would give the Iraqi people a stake in reconstruction. That's why I focused on that in my acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. What was I going to do, rehash events from 35 years ago?"

    Kerry's friends say that, like other veterans, he's been known to tell a few tall tales about his service over beers with others who served, but that he seldom talks about his combat experience otherwise. "He's put that behind him," says his wife Teresa. "And he thinks it would be unbecoming to make a big deal about his service when others, like [Senator] John McCain or [former P.O.W.] Paul Galanti went through so much more."

    "I would have invaded Iraq regardless of the WMD issue," Kerry observes. "Saddam Hussein was a threat, and a menace to his own people. But as I said last year, the reconstruction needed more resources. That was why I voted for the $87 billion in reconstruction money, but urged the Bush Administration to ask for more, to do it right."

    Kerry also takes a dim view of leftist filmmaker Michael Moore. "I think that his film 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was scurrilous and dangerous to the morale of our troops. That's why I asked that he be excluded from the Democratic Convention, despite Jimmy Carter's wishes. And that's why he wasn't seen there. In a time of war, we don't need guys like that. We can win this campaign based on our ideas, not propaganda films. That's also why I told Chris Matthews to 'stuff it' when he tried to make an issue out of President Bush's National Guard service."

    Kerry's detailed plans for Iraq, and for carrying the war on terror to Al Qaeda and its backers elsewhere, seem to have left the Bush Administration floundering. Sources close to the Bush campaign say that some Bush operatives are considering an attack on Kerry's Vietnam record, but many are skeptical. "I don't think that'll work," says cyber-pundit Glenn Reynolds, who calls Kerry's Iraq plan promising. "Most voters have no idea Kerry was even in Vietnam. He never talks about it, so where's the traction? It's ancient history."

    Others are even harsher. "They can't attack the message," says Matthew Yglesias of The American Prospect, a liberal publication. "So they're attacking the messenger. That's because they don't want to talk about Kerry's real accomplishments, the ones Kerry touted at the Convention, like his role in busting BCCI, the terrorists' money laundry. Kerry's talking about that, and his plans for Iraq, and they're talking about Vietnam? Who cares about that? Pathetic."
    Alas the Democratic Party did not nominate the Kerry portrayed above. Nor Lieberman, nor Kerrey. Evidently they prefer the Kerry they got. I still haven't seen anyone explain why that is.

    No Slack

    My new tentative conclusion is that Kerry lied utterly and completely about his Cambodian adventure. I was willing to believe that he confused Tet with Christmas and that the tale he told occured in February of 1969 not Christmas of 1968. That might explain the Nixon reference. Nixon was president in February of 1969. But there's a serious problem with that version, too. Being a younger reader, I didn't know when Nixon said we had no troops in Cambodia. It was 1971.

    This reply by the guys at Power Line blog to a disgusting attack by Jim Boyd of the Minneapolis Star Tribune lays out the facts:
    Our younger readers may not recall this, but Nixon's statement to that effect was very famous, and very controversial. Richard Nixon said that we had no troops in Cambodia in a press conference on November 12, 1971, two and one-half years after Kerry had left Vietnam.
    Q. What assurance can you give the American people that we are not sliding into another Vietnam in Cambodia?


    A. ... We have made a conscious decision not to send American troops in. There are no American combat troops in Cambodia. There are no American combat advisers in Cambodia. There will be no American combat troops or advisers in Cambodia.
    So Kerry didn't just make an innocent mistake. He referred to a well-known historical event, and he told a perfectly coherent story about a soldier who lost his faith in our government when President Nixon said, falsely, that we had no troops in Cambodia. But the story was a lie. There could have been a soldier who had that experience, but it wasn't John Kerry. He had left Vietnam two and one-half years earlier.

    This does not look good for Kerry. No wonder he's attacking the messengers instead of addressing the message.
    Rhoads's reponse: Nice try, but silly. Nixon could very easily have said that in 1968 or 1969, and in 1971 been referring to the fact that we had PULLED out of Cambodia, since we invaded Cambodia in April of 1970.

    Bob's reply: Good find, Rhoads. Call my try "silly" if you want, but I'm trying to get to the bottom of this.

    As I said above, I'm one of the "younger readers" who was not aware of the timeline regarding US forces in Cambodia. The quote in Nixon's press conference from 1971 clearly gave the impression that no troops were in Vietnam:
    "Now let's look at Cambodia. We have made a conscious decision not to send American troops in. There are no American combat troops in Cambodia. There are no American combat advisers in Cambodia. There will be no American combat troops or advisers in Cambodia."
    As you've found, that impression is not correct. He must have been saying we won't send any more troops in now that the troops we sent in have been withdrawn. Here's another link that makes it clear that Nixon authorized sending U.S. troops into Cambodia on April 30, 1970.

    The question remains, when did Richard Nixon first deny the existence of ground troops in Vietnam. Maybe it was on or after Nixon's inauguration in January of 1969. That would once again make a story of Kerry confusing Tet with Christmas plausible. However, nobody with Kerry's campaign is making that case. They're now saying that he may have been in Cambodia, that he may have been inadvertently in Cambodia and so forth. Maybe Doublas Brinkley will break his very odd media silence on all this soon and explain his sources for saying Kerry made three or four runs into Cambodia. Were those runs ferrying CIA guys, SEALs, and Green Berets as Kerry said? Or was Kerry running guns to the anti-communists as Kerry said? Still no evidence of any of that.

    Rhoads writes that Nixon could very easily have said we have no troops in Cambodia in 1968 (though not as president), 1969, or before April 30, 1970. For Kerry, Nixon would have had to say that before March 13, 1969. I'm still looking for evidence that he did. So far nothing and no people support Kerry's claims. We know for sure he wasn't in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968 as he repeatedly said since 1979. If anything's silly it is believing the revised editions of Kerry's Cambodia tales without any evidence.

    If you had caught a child of yours in a lie, would you be so tolerant of his attempts to save the story?

    Bob's UPDATE: I've sent an email to Power Line Blog alerting them to the error Rhoads pointed out. Big media rarely make corrections and when they do, they bury them. It will be interesting to see Power Line's response.

    UPDATE inserted 8-26: Here is Power Line's emailed response to me in its entirety (reproduced with permission):
    Bob, our post is correct. We didn't have space to recount the full history, but what happened was that President Nixon first bombed Vietcong bases in Cambodia, then ordered a brief (60-day, if I remember correctly) "incursion" into Cambodia. After the 60 days, or whatever it was, all troops were supposed to be out. It was in 1971, a year or more later, when he assured the country that there were no troops in Cambodia.

    By the way, I don't know whether this was true or not. It was widely claimed that he was lying and troops were still conducting missions there, and that widespread belief is what Kerry played on in his Cambodia "reminiscences." Whether that belief was actually true, I haven't tried to find out.

    Thanks for writing.

    John H.


    Bob FOLLOW UP to UPDATE: Power Line Blog responded. Their blog was correct. Neither Rhoads nor I seem to remember the details of the troops in Cambodia tale that Kerry has been telling. Nixon bombed Cambodia, then sent in troops on April 30, 1970 for what was supposed to be a short period of time, then assured the American people that there were no troops in Cambodia (the press conference Power Line linked to).

    Given what I know today, I stand by my tentative conclusion that Kerry lied utterly and completely about ever being in Cambodia and hearing Nixon say troops were there when he himself (Kerry) was there. If Rhoads wants to provide evidence that supports Kerry's claim, I'm willing to check it out.

    Rhoads continues to claim the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are not about truth and are full of @#$%. It looks like John Kerry has a truth problem in the case of his Cambodia story. To be safe, I have a proposition: I won't vote for either the Swift Boat Vets for Truth or John Kerry for president in 2004.

    Kerry and MoveOn.org

    Rhoads told me that John Kerry had condemned MoveOn.org's ads attacking George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. Looks like he did, then he didn't.

    Oh and if you want to allege evil connections between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Vets, have a look at this web of connections between Kerry and the lefty 527s.

    Oh and if it's the big Republican money behind the Swift Boat Vets against Kerry that bothers you, have a look at where the real 527 money is. So much for campaign finance reform.

    Bob Dole Warned Kerry

    Bob Dole, WWII veteran and former Senate colleague of John Kerry, says Kerry should apologize for alleging that his "band of brothers" committed attrocites in Vietnam.
    Dole told CNN's "Late Edition" that he warned Kerry months ago about going "too far" and that the Democrat may have himself to blame for the current situation, in which polls show him losing support among veterans.

    "One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said. "The next day he's standing there, `I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.' Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam," said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.

    Dole added: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."
    Three Purple Hearts and you ask to leave is more like it.

    The Democratic Party was nuts for nominating a guy who's only strength (if you listen to him) seems to be that he served in Vietnam, before he came home and denounced his fellow soldiers. You're facing a relatively unpopular president, who barely won a fluke election four years ago, who got us into a relatively unpopular war in Iraq and you nominate this guy. Brutal.

    Investors' Business Daily Nails It

    Today's Investors' Business Daily gets to the heart of the matter regarding the Swift Boat Vets and Senator Kerry in a piece titled "We're Waiting". The piece starts with some good advice:
    Campaign '04: John Kerry says he'll fight claims he lied about or exaggerated his service in Vietnam. The best way to fight such charges would be to stop calling people names and start providing some answers.
    What sort of names? Republican shills, goofballs, "full of shit", the sort of thing Rhoads has stooped to on this very site. Rhoads isn't running for president so maybe his intemperance can be excused. Kerry is. He and his campaign should answer the charges, not smear the messengers.

    More from IBD:
    Questions about Kerry's fitness to be commander in chief won't go away if he simply stonewalls and makes baseless charges of political bias.

    After all, it was Kerry himself — with the smart salute and "reporting for duty" opening of his convention speech — who made his military service the keystone of his campaign. And it is Kerry who has repeatedly compared himself favorably with President Bush on that score.

    In so doing, he's all but ignored his undistinguished 20-year career in the U.S. Senate and his decade as an anti-war activist.
    Ouch. But they're right. I think Kerry'd like people to avert their gazes from the last thirty years of his life and focus on 4 months in southeast Asia thirty-five years ago, and the Swift Boat Vets may just be helping. Though unless Kerry responds to their charges effectively, without ad hominem attacks, he'll wish people were looking into his Senate career.

    IBD continues with the sorts of questions about Kerry's service in Vietnam that he has invited and that must now be asked and answered:
    • Did Kerry commit war atrocities? This charge would seem unduly harsh to level at someone who fought in a war more than three decades ago — except for the fact that he himself made it.

    In a 1971 appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Kerry said: "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed . . ."

    Earlier that year, Kerry claimed his now-beloved "band of brothers" were broadly guilty of war crimes as well.

    During the infamous "Winter Soldier Investigation" by anti-war activists in early 1971, Kerry and his pals described a shocking array of atrocities that U.S. troops routinely committed: arson, rape, torture, murder, burning of villages, all part of official policy.

    This, more than anything, explains the still-burning ire of his former comrades in arms.

    As O'Neill wrote: "Millions of Vietnam veterans will never forget Kerry's spinning of lies — lies so damaging to his comrades but so profitable to himself."

    Kerry never provided evidence that such war crimes were official policy or routine. But he — and O'Neill — have raised questions about his own behavior in Vietnam.
    Yep, it looks to me like Kerry is either a liar (he never committed the attrocities he said he committed) or a war criminal (he committed the atrocities he said he committed). Kerry better have a good explanation why we should elect a liar or a war criminal president.

    Next question:
    • Did Kerry lie about "Christmas in Cambodia"? This is a story Kerry has repeated over and over as explanation for his later metamorphosis from decorated hero into staunch anti-war activist.

    "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas," Kerry wrote in the Boston Herald in October 1979. "The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

    A couple of problems. Nixon wasn't president on Christmas Eve 1968. Lyndon Johnson was. In fact, official records of his service show Kerry was never in Cambodia — as his campaign now concedes.

    Subsequent "clarifications" — saying Kerry in ensuing months served as a kind of ferry master for Green Berets, CIA agents and Navy Seals into Cambodia — likewise have run afoul of the truth. There simply is no evidence for it.

    Yet, on the floor of the Senate, Kerry said the experience was "seared — seared" into his memory.

    Bad memory, or just a lie? People deserve an explanation.
    I was willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt on this one, but as time goes by and his campaign fails to address this, or addresses this with stories that cast doubt on the significance of his going into Cambodia (that it was intentional, illegal, and seriously affected his views about his own country) I'm less inclined to cut him slack. No other person who ever took CIA, SEALs, or Green Berets into Cambodia, no crewmen nor other Swift boat officers nor commanding officer anywhere up the chain of command admit to such missions. This looks bad for Kerry.

    IBD continues:
    • Kerry's medals. Kerry returned from his 4 1/2 month stint in Vietnam with three Purple Hearts for wounds, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for gallantry.

    But some of those who served with him cast doubt on how he earned his medals — and whether he deserved them. Harsh charges, to be sure. O'Neill's book, however, raises serious evidence to support the charges. Kerry must respond.

    Specifically, O'Neill alleges Kerry got his first and third Purple Hearts for mishandling grenades — in one case, for setting off one too close to his boat, and in the other, throwing a grenade into a rice bin. In neither case was he seriously wounded, says O'Neill.

    Questions abound, too, about his Bronze Star, received for pulling special forces Lt. Jim Rassman out of the water under hostile fire, and his Silver Star, given after Kerry beached his boat in the face of an ambush and killed an enemy soldier.

    In the first case, O'Neill and others charge, Kerry was fleeing action when he picked up Rassman. In the second case, the soldier was a "skinny kid" who was wounded and running away.

    We'd like to know — and suspect the American people would, too.
    I think the charges regarding Kerry's medals are the weakest made by the Swift Boat Vets. Several eyewitnesses support Kerry. But rather than slandering the veterans who recall the situations differently, Kerry and his surrogates should present their case. The charges leveled by the Swifties, while their weakest and toughest to prove or disprove, are serious and substantive. Kerry must respond.

    IBD concludes:
    You may be wondering: Why raise these questions now, in the heat of a campaign? Sadly, the major media have all but ignored questions of Kerry's record. They've been too busy looking for scandal in Bush's past and, more recently, attacking O'Neill and anyone else who dares question Kerry's glowing accounts of his service.

    The bias is pervasive. As the Media Research Center, a media watchdog, pointed out, ABC, CBS and NBC did 75 stories on charges Bush was "AWOL" from the National Guard. They did nine on claims Kerry fibbed about his war record. Biased might be too kind a description.

    The major media in this country are overwhelmingly liberal and refuse to ask the questions that need to be asked. They do their viewers and readers — and Kerry for that matter — a disservice.

    If Kerry thinks he's being slandered, he should answer with facts —not with insults, threats and lawsuits.

    We have questions, senator. We're ready for your answers.
    Well said. The Democratic big media in this country can no longer provide the cover Kerry needed, wanted, and expected. Despite a near total blackout on this story in the NYT, WaPo, LAT, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN, the majority of Americans knew about the Swift Boat Vets' charges. Newspapers were even running political cartoons lampooning the Swift Boat Vets, even though those same newspapers had never run stories about their charges. If those newspapers, or the TV networks, were the people's only source for news, they would have been mighty confused by those cartoons. But the readers weren't confused, because they get their news from a lot of different places now.

    A new day has dawned. Americans are no longer sheep getting their news from just the few big, biased news organizations. They now get their news from multiple, distributed, biased news outlets. That's a big improvement. Unless you're a mainstream "journalist" or a Democratic candidate with something to hide.