WaxWorks
|
Thursday, August 26, 2004
It Depends What the Meaning of "In" Is?
Not to be deterred by the utter debunking of their allegations and a little thing called "the truth," the Swifties have a new ad out, this time quoting Steve Gardner claiming that John Kerry lied when he said he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. "We were never in Cambodia on a secret mission. Ever," the ad concludes.
However, as I noted earlier, White House tapes has emerged showing John O'Neill, the veteran who was primarily pushing this allegation, telling President Richard Nixon in the Oval Office:
O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the
water.
NIXON: In a swift boat?
O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
O'Neill is trying to explain away the clear contradiction:
In an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press, O'Neill did not
dispute what he said to Nixon on June 16, 1971, but he insisted he was never
actually in Cambodia.
"I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is
exactly where I was for three months," O'Neill said of the conversation. "I was
about 100 yards from Cambodia."
Hmm. I would think that "in Cambodia" is pretty damn clear, just as Republicans thought "There is no sexual relationship" was pretty damn clear. Why are we even wasting any more time on these guys?
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Not One Mention
One justification made by Republicans for the attack on John Kerry's Vietnam service is that he has brought this on himself by making his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign, rather than, and in the absence of, running on his 20 year record in the Senate.
In light of former Senate Majority Leader Dole's comments about Kerry's service recently, and the fact that Dole repeatedly highlighted his service in World War II during the 1996 election, I thought I would take a look at Dole's 1996 acceptance speech, and contrast it with Kerry's. As the former Senate Majority Leader, I assumed that the speech would be replete with examples of accomplishments by Dole during his service in the Senate, which would justify, at least in part, some of his attacks on Kerry.
Guess how many mentions I found of Dole's Senate record or accomplishments? Nada. Zero. Not one. Check for yourself. Dole didn't even MENTION that he was ever in the Senate.
I didn't hear a lot of complaining in 1996 that Dole was running away from Senate record and running on his war record...
Another One Bites the Dust
John O'Neill has been off peddling the accusation that Kerry lied when he said that he had been in Cambodia in 1968. Well, what do you know -- O'Neill spoke to Richard Nixon about the subject in 1971 and, as I understand Mr. Nixon was known to do, he recorded the conversation:
O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an
audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to
Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then
President Richard Nixon.
O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the
water.
NIXON: In a swift boat?
O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
What else needs to be proven to show that these guys are simply opportunistic liars? No more "he-said-she-said" reporting.
My Worst Fear This November
I've been saying for a while now that I believe that tampering with electronic voting machines by the Republicans in a last-ditch effort to hold on to power is a real concern in this election, particularly where there is no paper receipt of an individual's vote. I had previously focused on Ohio, where the CEO of the company providing the machines is a Bush fundraiser who said that he would "do everything in [his] power to deliver the state to Bush." The scenario I envisioned was Bush is behind on election night -- Pennsylvania goes to Kerry, Florida looks blue, Michigan looks Kerry, and he's initially behind in Ohio. Then suddenly, Bush leaps ahead in Ohio and never looks back due to some hanky-panky with the electronic results.
Now it looks like that may be a concern in Florida too:
According to Gallup polls taken yearly since 2000, roughly 50 percent
of Americans believe that the election of George W. Bush was either "won on a
technicality" or "stolen." Only 34 percent are "very confident" that the vote
will be counted accurately in November.
But rather than allay those doubts by selecting an election supervisor
of unimpeachable integrity, Gov. Bush seems to have found an equal to Katherine
Harris in Glenda Hood, the former Republican mayor of Orlando. True, Hood
is not juggling Harris' other job—state chairman for George W. Bush's
campaign—but she has done little to assure Floridians that all the votes will be
counted this time around.
For one, Hood and Jeb Bush have strongly endorsed the
state's Republican-controlled legislature's new rule that outlaws manual
recounts. This means that if any of the new optical-scan or
touch-screen machines fail—as they did in the 2002 elections; and the recent
March primaries; and just last week, when a backup system failed in a test run
in Miami-Dade—there will be no recourse for counting votes. A coalition of
election-reform groups has challenged this rule, and Rep. Robert
Wexler of Palm Beach sued in federal court after a state appeals court
dismissed the matter, ruling that while the right to vote is
guaranteed, a perfect voting system is not. Unlike the recent elections in
Venezuela, where the new touch-screen voting machine provided every voter with a
receipt, Floridians will have to take the word of Hood and Bush that their vote
was counted.
To the embarrassment of Hood and Jeb Bush, even the state's Republican
Party has voiced its doubts about the electronic voting system. A flier
disseminated last month by the party, featuring a picture of a smiling
President Bush striking a thumbs-up sign, urged Republicans living in
Miami-Dade County to vote by absentee ballot even if they will be home on
Election Day. "Make sure your vote counts," read the flier. "Order
your absentee ballot today.'' Now many Democrats also believe that the only
safe vote is an absentee ballot vote.
But it is in the "low-tech area" of absentee ballots, as Miami
Herald columnist Jim DeFede puts it, "that things get really funky." Most
critically, Hood and Gov. Bush have championed a new state law that abolishes
Florida's longtime requirement that absentee ballots be witnessed. While
some other states, like California, do not require witnesses, no state has
Florida's history of institutional vote fraud.
And farther down in this same article, I caught something that I will file away in my "Jeb Bush for President in 2008" and "Katherine Harris for Senate in 2006" file:
Following the contentious 2000 recount, e-mails on former Sec. of State
Katherine Harris' computer revealed that she had been in contact with Jeb Bush
during the recount, contrary to both their claims. Miami Herald reporter
Meg Laughlin discovered that e-mail messages sent to Jeb Bush from Harris had
been deleted after the recount. Harris then had the operating system
of her computer changed, a procedure that erased all its data. "What was
odd about what she did," said Mark Seibel, an editor at the Herald, "was
that they installed an old operating system—not a new one—which makes you
wonder why they did it."
But remember: you should just "get over" the 2000 election. I only hope that we're not told the same thing after this year's election...
Intellectually Dishonest to the Core
It's very telling in a political race when one side needs to resort to intellectually dishonest statements in order to 1) defend their own policies and 2) attack the opponent. But, as we've seen with the "new," WMD-free rationales for the war in Iraq, that's something that the Bush people have no qualms about doing. What they've done with Kerry's own statements is nothing more than fraudulent and Dana Milbank of the Post has done a good job of breaking it down:
"Every performer tonight in their own way, either verbally or through their
music, through their lyrics, have conveyed to you the heart and soul of our
country." -- Kerry, July 8
"The other day, my opponent said he thought you could find the heart
and soul of America in Hollywood." -- Bush, Aug. 18
"My goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship is to get our troops reduced
in number and I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you
do the kind of alliance building that is available to us, that it's appropriate
to have a goal of reducing the troops over that period of time [the first six
months of a Kerry administration]. Obviously, we'd have to see how events
unfold. . . . It is an appropriate goal to have and I'm going to try to achieve
it." -- Kerry, Aug. 9
"I took exception when my opponent said if he's elected, we'll
substantially reduce the troops in six months. He shouldn't have said that. See,
it sends a mixed signal to the enemy for starters. So the enemy hangs around for
six months and one day. . . . It says, maybe America isn't going to keep its
word." -- Bush, Aug. 18
"I will fight this war on terror with the lessons I learned in war. I
defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president of the
United States. I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more
strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to
other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in
history. I lay out a strategy to strengthen our military, to build and lead
strong alliances and reform our intelligence system. I set out a path to win the
peace in Iraq and to get the terrorists wherever they may be before they get
us." -- Kerry, Aug. 5
"Senator Kerry has also said that if he were in charge he would fight a
'more sensitive' war on terror. America has been in too many wars for any of our
wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. . . . Those who
threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more
sensitively. They need to be destroyed." -- Cheney, Aug. 12
"Lee Hamilton, the co-chairman of the 9/11 commission, has said this
administration is not moving with the urgency necessary to respond to our needs.
I believe this administration and its policies is actually encouraging the
recruitment of terrorists. We haven't done the work necessary to reach out to
other countries. We haven't done the work necessary with the Muslim world. We
haven't done the work necessary to protect our own ports, our chemical
facilities, our nuclear facilities. There is a long, long list in the 9/11
recommendations that are undone."
-- Kerry, Aug. 2
"My opponent says . . . that going to war with the terrorists is actually
improving their recruiting efforts. I think the logic -- I know the logic is
upside down. It shows a misunderstanding of the nature of these people. See,
during the 1990s, these killers and terrorists were recruiting and training for
war with us, long before we went to war with them. They don't need an excuse for
their hatred. It's wrong to blame America for anger and the evil of these
killers. We don't create terrorists by fighting back. You defeat the terrorists
by fighting back." -- Bush, Aug. 18
"Yes, I would have voted for the authority [to use force in Iraq]. I
believe it is the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used
that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would
have done this very differently from the way President Bush has. My question to
President Bush is: Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why
did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to
give America the truth?" -- Kerry, Aug. 9
"He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq. After months of
questioning my motives, and even my credibility, the Massachusetts senator now
agrees with me that even though we have not found the stockpiles of weapons we
all believed were there, knowing everything we know today, he would have voted
to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power." -- Bush, Aug. 18
One more I would add to the list: when Kerry expressed qualms about calling the "war of ideas" a "war" in the same sentence that he used the phrase "war on terror," and then Bush and Cheney claimed that Kerry had said that he didn't want to call the war on terror a war. Terribly, terribly dishonest. But let's be frank: they've got NOTHING else to sell.
Guess Which Presidential Candidate DID Misrepresent His Military Service?
Given the claims by the Swifties (now utterly proven to be completely untrue -- yes, even the Cambodia accusation, see Fred Kaplan's excellent column on that point) that Kerry has been exaggerating his military service, one would think that any exaggeration by Bush about his service would be subject to the same scrutiny. (I know, it's hard to exaggerate about something when your service was so minimal and spotty -- maybe that is exaggeration enough.)
But David Corn of the Nation has pointed out quite nicely that Bush misrepresented his military service back when he first ran for Congress in 1978, and again in 1999 when he was running for President, points largely ignored by the major media:
Putting aside the controversy over Bush's Air National Guard service (or
dereliction of duty), there was another instance when Bush clearly did not speak
truthfully about his military record. In 1978, Bush, while running for Congress
in West Texas, produced campaign literature that claimed he had served in the US
Air Force. According to a 1999 Associated Press report, Bush's congressional
campaign ran a pullout ad in the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal that declared he had
served "in the US Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard where he piloted
the F-102 aircraft."
Bush lost that congressional race, but twenty-one years later, the AP
questioned him about the ad. The news outlet had a good reason to do so. Bush
had never served in the Air Force. He had only been in the Air National Guard.
But when AP asked Bush if he had been justified in claiming service in the Air
Force, Bush, then the governor of Texas and a presidential candidate, said, "I
think so, yes. I was in the Air Force for over 600 days." Karen Hughes, his
spokeswoman, maintained that when Bush attended flight school for the Air
National Guard from 1968 to 1969 he was considered to be on active duty for the
Air Force and that several times afterward he had been placed on alert, which
also qualified as active duty for the Air Force. All told, she said, Bush had
logged 607 days of training and alerts. "As an officer [in the Air National
Guard]," she told the AP, "he was serving on active duty in the Air Force."
But this explanation was wrong. Says who? The Air Force. As the Associated
Press reported,
The Air Force says that Air National Guard members are
considered 'guardsmen on active duty' while receiving pilot training. They are
not, however, counted as members of the overall active-duty Air
Force. Anyone in the Air National Guard is always considered a
guardsmen and not a member of the active-duty Air Force, according to an Air
Force spokeswoman in the Pentagon. A National Guard member may be called to
active duty for pilot training or another temporary assignment and receive
active-duty pay at the time, but they remain Guard members.
The AP report said, "It may be a question of semantics." But today I
checked with two spokespersons for the US Air Force, and each confirmed that an
active-duty member of the Air National Guard is not considered a member of the
US Air Force. "If a member of the Air National Guard is in pilot training," says
Captain Cristin Lesperance of the US Air Force media relations office, "they
would remain on the Guard books. They would be counted as Guard, not as an
active-duty Air Force member."
When you combine this untruth with Bush's fraudulent claim in his 2000 autobiography, A Charge to Keep, that he completed pilot training in 1970 while assigned to an air base in Houston and "continued flying with my unit for the next several years," you have a pretty clear pattern of deception. After all, even Bush's defenders concede that Bush stopped flying during his final 18 months of service in 1972 and 1973, as Bush had been grounded after failing to take a flight physical exam, and had won permission to train with a unit in Alabama where he did no flying. (Putting aside the unresolved question as to whether or not Bush ever showed up for duty in Alabama for anything other than dental work.)
Monday, August 23, 2004
So Much Swirling Around...
There's been a lot of stuff going on since I last posted...
I think the Kerry campaign's latest "ad" (I say "ad" because it's only an Internet ad and isn't being run anywhere, but the free media here is almost more important than the paid media) is absolutely fantastic. Hitting the McCain issue is just right and it may force McCain to say something further in defense of Kerry, as Kerry is one of the five senators who signed the letter McCain references in the ad. How can McCain let his friend come to his defense in 2000 and not stand up to Bush himself now, without feeling incredibly personally obligated to Kerry?
So today Bush calls on ALL ads of this type to be halted:
“I think they’re bad for the system,” he said. When asked specifically
whether the ads by the group "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" should be halted,
Bush said: "All of them. That means that ad, every other ad. Absolutely.""I
can't be more plain about it," Bush said. "I hope my opponent joins me in
condemning these activities of the 527s (political groups that sponsor to ads).
I think they're bad for the system."
Hmm. Let's compare this comment with his comment when he signed McCain-Feingold (thanks to Atrios):
However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious
constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally
proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from
making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections. I
believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not
diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under
the First Amendment. I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the
broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of
groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect
that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate
under the law.
Who's the flip-flopper and who's the political opportunist?
And Josh Marshall deals with Bob Dole's comments over the weekend quite nicely:
Today Bob Dole suggested that one or more of John Kerry's Purple Hearts may
have been fraudulent in some way because they were for "superficial
wounds."
Dole knows better.
In a 1988 campaign-trail autobiography, here's how Dole described the
incident that earned him his first Purple Heart: "As we approached the enemy,
there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin,
and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch
(remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness,
the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending
a sliver of metal into my leg--the sort of injury the Army patched up with
Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."
Reminds me of someone complaining about "damn Democratic wars"...
Finally, after borrowing so much from other bloggers today, here's one of my own. If we're focused on what people were doing the late '60s-early '70s, how about someone asking George Bush about the community service that he served in 1972, the same year he got into a fight with Poppy over his drunk driving. Rumor has it Bush got caught with cocaine and Daddy worked out a deal where the conviction was expunged from W's record, in exchange for community service work.
It's possible, however, that this issue may come into focus next month, when Kitty Kelley's biography about the Bush Family is published. I've heard that the fact that Bush paid for an abortion for a girlfriend in early '70s (pre-Roe v. Wade, when abortion was still illegal in Texas) will be discussed in the book, moving that line of discourse up from the likes of Larry Flynt.
