"The Times Attacks the Swift Vets" -- August 20, 2004 -- TimesWatch.org

About

Contact Us

Articles

Topic Index

Reports

Quotes

On the Web

Links

TW Tracker

Support

Times Watch for August 20, 2004

"The Times Attacks the Swift Vets"

The Times finally devotes a front-page story to the Swift Boat veterans challenging John Kerry's Vietnam war record (with timing that coincides neatly with Kerry's first public counterattack on the issue--was the Times waiting for Kerry's permission?).

But the story by Kate Zernike and Jim Rutenberg follows a pattern reminiscent of the Clinton scandal days, focusing on the subjects making the attack instead of the actual anti-Democratic charges raised, an angle clear from the headline, "Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Attack on Kerry."

They write: "After weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations that he had lied about his Vietnam service record to win medals and build a political career, Senator John Kerry shot back yesterday, calling those statements categorically false and branding the people behind them tools of the Bush campaign….How the group came into existence is a story of how veterans with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements in the early 1970's allied themselves with Texas Republicans. Mr. Kerry called them 'a front for the Bush campaign'--a charge the campaign denied. A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove. Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family--one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election."

For emphasis, the Times even provides a graphic of that suspicious "web" of connections.

There's more guilt-by-association-with-Republicans: "Mr. O'Neill, who pressed his charges against Mr. Kerry in numerous television appearances Thursday, had spent the 33 years since he debated Mr. Kerry building a successful law practice in Houston, intermingling with some of the state's most powerful Republicans and building an impressive client list. Among the companies he represented was Falcon Seaboard, the energy firm founded by the current lieutenant governor of Texas, David Dewhurst, a central player in the Texas redistricting plan that has positioned state Republicans to win more Congressional seats this fall." In fact, a full one-third of the article is dedicated to the fact that O'Neill knows some Texas Republicans. While O'Neill is made to defend his connections, he's not given space to recount his charges against Kerry.

The Captain's Quarters blog says on this part of the story: "…half of the article is dedicated to the list of influential people SBVT founder John O'Neill knows through his law practice in Houston the way the Old Testament documents its genealogy….If you can sit through this litany of begats and connected-tos that lead to no conclusion whatsoever, the Times then begins to use memes that had been discarded before they wrote the article to cast doubt on the Swiftvets' credibility--amazingly, without bothering to provide any resources to actually investigating their claims."

Later the Times insists: "But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements."

Some of the ammunition for that charge is provided from the files of Kerry's official biographer/hagiographer Douglas Brinkley: "In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, 'I am not going to say anything negative about him.'"

Near the end, the Times finally brushes up lightly against Kerry's discredited "Christmas in Cambodia" claim: "As serious questions about its claims have arisen, the group has remained steadfast and adaptable. This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward."

Besides falsely charging that there's only one allegation in the book that has not been put to rest, Zernike and Rutenberg don't even get into the unflattering details of Kerry's Cambodia untruth, ignoring the damning quote Kerry used on the floor of the Senate in 1986: "I remember Christmas of 1968, sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia, I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and 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."

If the experience was truly "seared" into Kerry's memory, then how did he manage to flub the truth so badly?

As John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson note in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "Certain elements of Kerry's [Cambodia] story were incredible on their face. He attributed responsibility for his illegal 1968 mission to Richard Nixon despite the fact that Lyndon Johnson was president at the time. The Khmer Rouge who allegedly shot at Kerry during his 'secret' mission did not take the field until 1972. And there is no record that Swift boats, the kind under Kerry's command, were ever used for secret missions in Cambodia. Their size and noise make them unlikely candidates for such use. Indeed, the authorized biographer of Kerry's Vietnam service, Douglas Brinkley, omits from his book, 'Tour of Duty,' any mention of a covert mission to Cambodia during Kerry's service."

As for the inference that the allegations in "Unfit For Duty" have been refuted, Rich Galen notes many facets remain in dispute over the awarding of Kerry's Bronze Star.

Swift Boat veteran Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Swift boat alongside Kerry, claims there was no enemy fire during a Kerry mission into Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969, in which Kerry rescued sailor Jim Rassmann, an act for which he received the medal.

Even a pro-Kerry story by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs notes two other Swift boat skippers on the scene contradict Kerry's account of enemy fire: "Two other Swift boat skippers who were direct participants in the March 13, 1969, mine explosion on the Bay Hap, Jack Chenoweth and Richard Pees, have said they do not remember coming under 'enemy fire.' A fourth commander, Don Droz, who was one of Kerry's closest friends in Vietnam, was killed in action a month later."

Today's Times story doesn't reach that level of detail, simply making it a "Kerry said-They said" event: "But the group says that there was no enemy fire, and that while Mr. Kerry did rescue [Jim] Rassmann, the action was what anyone would have expected of a sailor, and hardly heroic. Asked why Mr. Rassmann recalled that he was dodging enemy bullets, a member of the group, Jack Chenoweth, said, 'He's lying.'"

Of course, Rassmann is not necessarily lying about anything. But since he was in the water at the time, he may not have had the most reliable view of the action. In an interview on Fox's Hannity and Colmes Thursday night, group leader John O'Neill says eight eyewitnesses contradict Rassman's account of the Kerry rescue.

But rather than evaluating their stories for truth, the Times focuses on personal attacks on the anti-Kerry veterans (who number 254, according to O'Neill), employing more guilt-by-association-with-conservatives: "The book outlining the veterans' charges, 'Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against Kerry,' has also come under fire. It is published by Regnery, a conservative company that has published numerous books critical of Democrats, and written by Mr. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, who was identified on the book jacket as a Harvard Ph.D. and the author of many books and articles. But Mr. Corsi also acknowledged that he has been a contributor of anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic comments to a right-wing Web site. He said he regretted those comments. The group's arguments have foundered on other contradictions. In the television commercial, Dr. Louis Letson looks into the camera and declares, 'I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury.' Dr. Letson does not dispute the wound--a piece of shrapnel above Mr. Kerry's left elbow--but he and others in the group argue that it was minor and self-inflicted."

Back in February, during the media frenzy over liberal questioning of Bush's Vietnam service, the Times sniffed that Bush had made his Vietnam service an issue: "Mr. Bush himself also made the issue of military service fair game by posturing as a swashbuckling pilot when welcoming a carrier home from Iraq. Now, the president needs to make a fuller explanation of how he spent his last two years in the Guard."

But it’s a different story when a conservative group raises questions about Kerry's service, which Kerry has made the centerpiece of his campaign. Back on April 22, a Times editorial pushed Sen. Kerry for full disclosure of his Vietnam medical records, but the paper has yet to follow up, even as the Swift Boat controversy has thickened. As the veterans explain in their book "Unfit for Command": "There is a government form--Standard Form 180--that Kerry could easily execute to permit the Department of Defense to release all his records, including the required records for receiving the Purple Heart or Silver Star."

Now that the Times has finally declared the Swift Boat charges worthy of a front-page story (albeit an extremely hostile one), will the paper again call on Kerry to release the data that might help clear up some of the questions raised by the Swift Boat veterans once and for all?

For the Times' full attack on the Swift Boat veterans, click here.

"Fed Up" Kerry Takes on Swift Boat Vets

Jodi Wilgoren files "Fed Up, Kerry Says Bush Lets Group 'Do His Dirty Work'" for Friday's paper, a headline assuming that Kerry is justified in counterattacking. Wilgoren has her thumb on the scale right from the start in her description of the Swift Boat veterans: "Escalating the debate over attacks on his military record by a Republican-financed group of Vietnam veterans, Senator John Kerry on Thursday called the group 'a front for the Bush campaign.' "

The story suggests Kerry's concern over the "mixed reception" he received at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention prompted his counterattack against the Swift Boat veterans. Wilgoren claims: "Many veterans interviewed there parroted the charges from the Swift boaters' group."

While Wilgoren's Thursday story from the convention made that point, the paper's initial report on Kerry's appearance (from reporters Maria Newman and David Stout) whistled past any VFW troubles for Kerry: "The veterans' group played host to both candidates this week--Mr. Bush spoke to them on Monday--as the two camps vie for the hearts and minds and votes of veterans, an important constituency in this election and one that has traditionally leaned Republican. This year, however, veterans seem more closely divided in their support of the two candidates. Today, the V.F.W. audience greeted Mr. Kerry with frequent applause, much as it had Mr. Bush on Monday."

For the rest of Wilgoren on "fed-up" Kerry, click here.

• Campaign 2004 | Sen. John Kerry | Swift Boat Veterans | Vietnam | Jodi Wilogren

Another "Blow" for Bush, from Venezuela

Poor George Bush; if the Times is to be believed, nothing happens in the world these days that's not a "setback" or a "blow" to his administration as the election looms. Venezuela's left-wing strongman Hugo Chavez won a disputed recall election, thus providing a "blow" to Bush, according to a headline to Friday's story by Juan Forero from Caracas.

Forero begins: "When President Hugo Chávez was ousted in a coup two years ago, the Bush administration celebrated, calling the ouster his own doing. The rest of Latin America was left fuming by the overthrow and expressed strong support for Mr. Chávez as he was almost immediately swept back into power in a popular uprising….The resounding victory was a blow to the Bush administration, which has struggled with how to deal with Mr. Chávez, a leftist firebrand who presides over the world's fifth-largest oil exporter and has opposed Washington on every major initiative in Latin America."

Forero notes: "The United States long ago threw its lot in with an opposition movement that is being discredited by foreign diplomats and many Venezuelans for insisting that fraud took place when the preponderance of evidence indicates it did not."

The Times' international edition includes a rather less convinced take on Venezuela's election. In an op-ed for the International Herald Tribune, Enrique ter Horst writes: "The perception that a massive electronic fraud led to President Hugo Chávez's mandate not being cut short in the recall referendum on Sunday is rapidly gaining ground in Venezuela. All exit polls carried out on the day had given the opposition an advantage of between 12 percent and 19 percent. But preliminary results announced by the government-controlled National Electoral Council at 3:30 a.m. gave Chávez 58.2 percent of the vote, against 41.7 percent for the opposition."

As OpinionJournal points out in their daily "Best of the Web" feature, it's hypocritical for the Times to dismiss possible vote fraud in Venezuela while still harping about Bush's legitimacy at home.

For the rest of Forero on the latest Bush "setback," click here.

E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org