I Question NYT's Timing

Monday, May 29, 2006
Tom McGuire has three extensive posts on The New York Times thumbsucker kicking off what apparently is John F. Kerry's latest attempt to rehabilitate himself with Vietnam Veterans like me and others who did not fully appreciate his famous "reporting for duty" beginning to the 2004 election campaign.

Rick, Peter UK, and I have made a number comments on Tom's first post which has, as of this time, attracted more than 600 comments.

I am not interested in fomenting another string of that extent, or in distracting attention from Tom's great blogging on the article.

I am interested in questioning and commenting on the timing of the article over the Memorial Day holiday weekend. I suspect the timing was more than coincidental. Articles like this, to my understanding, often begin as a press release authored by public relations or campaign consultant types.

The article primarily accuses the Swift Boat Veterans of lying. That seems to me a cynical ploy on Memorial Day weekend. It is a bald attempt to burnish Kerry's war hero status at the expense of other veteran's reputations for truth and veracity.

Why on Memorial Day weekends of all weekends?

Why not, rather, some material devoted to explaining Kerry's Senate testimony and Winter Soldier activity which so denigrated those who served with him in Vietnam?

Why not some acknowledgement of the wounded feelings of Vietnam Veterans who served with Kerry caused by his post VN activities?

Why not an Op Ed by the esteemed Senator praising the Veterans with whom he served?

Why not something much more appropriate for Memorial Day Weekend?

Why not, indeed?

12 comments:

JB said...

Because they're the Enemedia.

Rick Ballard said...

I'll go with Peter's conjecture that the Times is carrying water for Hillary wrt timing. On a "just in case" basis the article does a fair hit job on the Swifties while completely glossing Kerry's treasonous conduct before Fulbright's committee.

"His supporters are compiling a dossier that they say will expose every one of the Swift boat group's charges as a lie and put to rest any question about Mr. Kerry's valor in combat."

No names as to leadership of "his supporters" - nor any mention of who is providing the bankroll.

"In February 2005, Mr. Kerry's supporters formed their own group, the Patriot Project, to defend veterans who take unpopular positions, particularly against the Iraq war. One of their first tasks was to visit newspaper editorial boards in defense of Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and veteran whose military record has been attacked by Republicans and conservative blogs since he called for pulling the troops out of Iraq."

No quote of a Republican or cite to a conservative blog concerning an attack on Murtha's military record - unsurprising because there have been none, or at least, I have seen none. This is Times slime at its best.

"Mr. Kerry has signed forms authorizing the Navy to release his record — something he resisted during the campaign — and hired a researcher to comb the naval archives in Washington for records that could pinpoint his whereabouts during dates of the incidents in dispute. Another former crew member has spent days at a time interviewing veterans to reconstruct every incident in question."

A lie (a complete release has not been signed) followed by acknowledement that Kerry is paying a researcher with no acknowledgement of the probability that the "former crew member" (name, please) is not doing this research for free.

"I'm sorry he never apologized for his 1971 speech," referring to Mr. Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he told other soldiers' accounts of ravaging Vietnamese villages and citizens."

Gloss - Kerry made assertions of fact concerning not just the make believe atrocities but that everything was known and condoned up the chain of command. This is the biggest lie in the article - Lyin' John was just repeating what others said.

"Naval records and accounts from other sailors contradicted almost every claim they made, and some members of the group who had earlier praised Mr. Kerry's heroism contradicted themselves."

Sure, Christmas of '68 fell on Feb. 12, 1969 and "in Cambodia" encompasses a fair share of western Vietnam. You have to wear a Magic Hat to believe the Times, too.

terrye said...

There is this whole saying about letting sleeping dogs lie.

Speaking of lying,I think that Kerry is his own worse enemy in this regard.

gumshoe1 said...

John who...?

Buddy Larsen said...

Thirty Questions

Rick Ballard said...

"I think that Kerry is his own worst enemy"

Hey, I'm still breathing.

vnjagvet said...

Buddy:

Exceedingly interesting:>)

Fresh Air said...

For the 31st question, who was David Alston, and where was he when John Kerry beached his boat in an effort to win a Silver Star?

Bonus question: How many times did Alston lie on national television about his relationship with Kerry and the Silver Star incident?

Double-bonus question: If Kerry is so convinced of his rectitude, why doesn't he sue O'Neill?

Cutler said...

Rick:

Thank you for using the word treasonous, because it is entirely appropriate. It is a pity we have such trouble calling a spade a spade these days.

Personally, I always expected the Swiftboat Veterans to nail Kerry to the wall for "negotiating" (capitulating) with the enemy in Paris.

I'd hope to see someone make that an issue next campaign.

Buddy Larsen said...

I'm not a hyper-partisan but I've played one in politics partly because of the last two Dem presidents but MOSTLY because of the last two Dem presidential candidates. I mean, really, Al Gore and John Kerry? Why not just close the place up and move to Fiji? These are precisely the personality types that could never rise to mid-management in the private sector. They'd ruin your business as mid-managers. You couldn't let 'em anywhere near your customers, nor your other employees. What the hell would you do with 'em? Suggest to 'em they run for president?

vnjagvet said...

Yeah, Buddy. And they manage to capture a big percentage of the vote.

I guess many folks would rather have middle manager types as their president.

Buddy Larsen said...

Nothing wrong with middle managers--just middle-managers who think they're God.