Following the August 2004 uproar over the contentions of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth in their book Unfit for Command, first almost entirely covered in the conservative media and then disclaimed by Kerry spokespeople in the more liberal mainstream media, I wrote to Mr. Okrent on September 8:

"According to one count, the New York Times has used the word 'unsubstantiated' 17 times to describe the contentions raised in Unfit For Command. Since the New York Times has not done any investigation of the actual events described…the use of the word 'unsubstantiated' is quite misleading… I challenge that any book has ever so affected a US political campaign since the Federalist Papers…(no I am not otherwise comparing the books). That is more the reason for careful and not political analysis and investigation. The New York Times has, sadly, failed its responsibility."

Contained in that email was my Short Guide to the Kerry-Vietnam Contentions, "which may be useful to any who do wish to investigate and report." That Short Guide was also published in the Augusta Free Press on September 10 ("30 Questions"). Informed reporters responded favorably to its balanced outline of the supporting evidence to the Swiftees and of issues unresolved as John Kerry refuses to release his full military records and his journal. For example, Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post, the only mainstream reporter who bothered to make an investigation of one of the incidents -- Kerry's Bronze Star -- wrote me on August 28, "Thanks for your Short Guide. You make some good points. We will follow the story." Mr. Dobbs' August 22 investigation stated he was denied access to Kerry's full records and journal.

Did Daniel Okrent, then, represent the readers, or ignore them -- and rely on the Times' own highly incomplete and partial articles for his report back to readers? On September 12, Mr. Okrent wrote his next column. In it he said: "Instead of considering the hundreds of messages from irate readers that accumulated while I was gone," he read some of the Times' coverage of the "Swift Boat dust-up," as he called it. Okrent concluded from this read of the Times, "official records contradict the central charges leveled in the ads. However, it is not accurate to say, as Senator Kerry has, that he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. If my summary is wrong, the Times erred. If it's accurate, the paper did a fine job."

I wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times on September 13, saying, "Mr. Okrent is not supposed to be an ordinary reader but the seeker of truth about the caliber of the Times' coverage." The letter was not published by the New York Times. I also wrote to Mr. Bovino, "Mr. Okrent's column amply demonstrates that JUST relying on the NYT's coverage of the Swiftboat contentions results in a very partial understanding of the evidence as compared to the adjectives… I and many others feel strongly the US needs and deserves the civic center that the NYT once served as a detailed, objective paper of record, and only want to see that restored."

On September 13, I also pointed out to Okrent another Times use of "unsubstantiated," again without any support by the Times, but just as a repeated adjective whenever referring to the Swiftees. On September 13, I also sent Okrent the 17 specific citations and contextual quotes from various Times reporters similarly dismissing the Swiftees as "unsubstantiated," without any investigation or specifics justifying that adjective. Arthur Bovino responded for Okrent, "Thanks for this. I'm going to point this out to Mr. Okrent for his upcoming column…"

By this time, even a mainstream media brother of the New York Times, ABC in its "NewsNotes," ridiculed the Times' approach to coverage of the issues: "Sometimes you just want to say: Really, New York Times…who else BUT Bush backers would you expect to give money to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Kerry backers? Non-partisans?" (September 13, 2004)

I asked Mr. Bovino when to expect Mr. Okrent's "upcoming column." On September 14, Mr. Bovino replied: "At some point between now and the election but sooner rather than later." (September 14, 2004)

On September 23, I wrote to Okrent again about new, continued "unsubstantiated" abuses. Mr. Bovino replied (September 24), "I have already noted these concerns to Mr. Okrent several times but will add your points to those I am compiling as a report to Mr. Okrent as reference material for his upcoming column."

On September 30, I wrote to Mr. Okrent again, with more documentation, saying, "Please add this to Mr. Okrent's folder." Mr. Bovino replied, "I will."

On October 9, I wrote to Mr. Okrent regarding the Times Book Review's review of Unfit For Command by a reporter on Kerry's bus, who obviously without reading the book, and without any military analysis qualifications, blatantly repeated ad hominem Kerry personal attacks against the author and failed to deal with the details of the book. Mr. Bovino replied: "Mr. Okrent has said that he will be writing about the book review at some point during his tenure so I will keep your message on file for use as reference material."

On October 12, I wrote to Okrent: "From our correspondence, I felt led to expect Mr. Okrent to speak out on this, especially when so well-documented and so blatant… Yet, three columns have passed, and no Mr. Okrent. " I also wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times: "Mr. Okrent…wrote [October 12] that essentially the Times is providing balanced reporting of the election. His anecdotal proof is that he receives criticisms from liberals and conservatives. He, however, fails to provide any empirical evidence of the Times' balance." The New York Times did not publish this letter.

Slate's Mickey Kaus commented that same day: "Er, what was Okrent's job again? Defender of the Times against the Public?…What's the use of an ombudsman who doesn't think his paper ever screws up…?"

On October 17, I sent more documentation to Mr. Okrent.

On October 17, rather than do his job of ombudsman, readers' representative, impartial independent analyst of the New York Times actual reporting, Mr. Okrent turned his column over to two outside left and right general commentators on the Times. On October 24, Mr. Okrent continued to not do his job of investigating and analyzing problems in New York Times reporting, as he turned his column over to a few innocuous general comments from readers without Mr. Okrent dealing with any details of Times stories or slants.

What might a more diligent reader representative have done? Consider the use of the word "unsubstantiated"? "Substantial" is defined as "of solid character or quality; firm, stout, or strong..." In newspaper parlance, "substantial" may be seen as "reasonable weight of evidence". Here is what is substantial about the Swiftboat accusations against Kerry:

1. Over 60 direct witnesses, many then or now senior naval officers independent of the Bush campaign, have provided affidavits and details that stand in contrast to only several lower ranked enlisteds or officers directly employed by the Kerry campaign. The weight of credibility is with the Unfit For Command book.

2. Kerry did not want to go to Vietnam, or combat: Kerry only enlisted when his application for after graduation further deferment to visit Paris for a year was denied. Kerry only applied for Swift Boats when they were still an offshore patrol unit.

3. 1st Purple Heart: The senior officer, later Admiral and senior JAG officer, who directly witnessed, says there was not enemy action which is necessary for an even slight wound, even accidentally self-inflicted, to rise to Purple Heart. No battle report, therefore, was filed at the time, and the senior officer (Hibbard) denied the application by Kerry. Refusal by Kerry to release his full military records blocks investigation of how Kerry wangled the award months after the direct contrary witnesses had left Vietnam. -- Treating doctor for the thorn-sized scratch also confirms contrary evidence to the hagiography of Kerry-Brinkley (Tour Of Duty author).

4. Silver Star #1: Even Kerry defender Rood (Chicago Tribune editor) says that the situation had already been mopped up when Kerry chased a Viet Cong and killed him. -- John Kerry, himself, in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty says he only faced and chased a single, lone, wounded VC. ABC "Nightline's" VC also say they had already "ran away". Also, although Rood defends the tactic, it was against military and common-sense procedure to beach the boat, as it made it a sitting duck, and to singly chase ashore, as it exposed the entire unit to danger from revealing of sensitive operational intelligence if Kerry were to have been captured. Does not rise to extraordinary heroism of a Silver Star.

5. Silver Star #2: Kerry campaign exhibits a "V" for valor on his Silver Star, although the Navy says there is no such designation that is allowed to anyone.

6. Bronze Star: Dobbs' investigation in the Washington Post clearly demonstrates that Kerry left the scene of danger, while others stayed, only returning later to pick up Rassmann just before another boat was going to. Rassmann says he was under water most of the time, and thus a weak witness to whether there was any hostile fire at the time that Kerry picked him out of the water. Other involved witnesses say there was not hostile fire at that time, although there are conflicting accounts of whether there may have been some earlier. There were no bullet holes to any of the boats from that 3/13/69 incident, which supports the "no hostile fire" witnesses. Further, there is substantial evidence that the basis for the mis-awarded Bronze Star was a misleading after-action report that came from Kerry.

7. 3rd Purple Heart: It was admitted that Kerry's rear-end wound came from an earlier, unrelated incident, his own grenade blowing up Viet Cong rice. His arm "contusion" came from falling within his own boat while leaving the scene of the 3/13/69 mining incident against another boat. There is no credible evidence it resulted from hostile action against Kerry's boat.

8. Cambodia: Every bit of evidence has disproven this 50+ times repeated by Kerry fantasy.

9. Post-Vietnam:

• Kerry's 1/71 Winter Soldier hearings, upon which defenders say his 4/71 testimony to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee was based, were organized by US and foreign communists and radicals, funded by Jane Fonda and friends (who supported North Vietnam's cause), and many of the witnesses were proven later to be frauds.
• Any examiner of the 4/71 Kerry testimony, then or now, and of its public consequences, reports that Kerry believed and spread the smear of all Vietnam veterans, national leadership, and of the US as engaged in a war criminal action, and that negatively colored the reputation of Vietnam veterans then through now.
• Kerry visited the Viet Cong-North Vietnamese delegations in Paris in 1970 and 1971, and did publicly support their proposals in contrast to the US proposals. That would have, aside from other matters, left US POW's in enemy hands.
• POW's have affirmed that their North Vietnamese interrogators used Kerry's specific words against them to break them down (Galanti, Cordier, Warner, now-Congressman Johnson).

10. Kerry Failure to "Come Clean":

• Kerry never apologized nor recanted for his "youthful exuberance"
• Kerry created a self-aggrandizing biography on all the above, and was abetted by Douglas Brinkley's hagiography which failed to then or now seek or publish contrary witnesses or evidence;
• Kerry highlighted his brief service 35-years ago as a junior officer as seemingly his sole qualification to lead the US and world now, and invited inspection of that. Yet, he and apologists scream invectives at those who do investigate and report.
• Kerry has refused to release his full military records by signing a DOD Form 180, and to release his journals (despite Brinkley exposing Kerry's lie that they were restricted by a contract with Brinkley). These records are necessary to the resolution of many gray and open items in Kerry's disputed Vietnam service, as many careful reporters and observers have publicly noted. Yet, the New York Times has failed to publicly demand that Kerry release his records.

"The specter of plutocrats spending millions of their own hard-earned dollars to elect somebody who wants to raise their taxes is mystifying to the materialists at the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Club for Growth, who think that man is a purely economic being who lives and dies by marginal tax rates alone. But to many people who have made f***-you money, taxes are a byproduct of wealth, not an obstacle to its creation. It's hard to find anybody who has made $1 billion, or $100 million, or even $50 million complaining about high marginal tax rates. Of all the luxuries massive wealth affords, one of the nicest is not having to worry about tax policy."

Thanks to reader Vivek Rao for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:07 AM | link    

Monday, October 25, 2004

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:11 PM | link    

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:35 PM | link    

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 2:33 PM | link