"Squirrelly And Unsettling"
Just One Minute blog
ABC's August 12 NOTE intrigues us with this comment about the subtlest of flaws in the Kerry campaign:
E. . Let's face it: there is something squirrelly and unsettling and not quite right about the way Michael Meehan answers the media's Vietnam-era questions — something that makes nearly every member of the Gang of 500 think there is still something there.
And there is a reason for that - like the rest of us, this campaign is on a voyage of discovery into John Kerry's past. And like the rest of us, they are repeatedly learning that their candidate's memory of his Vietnam era is conveniently unreliable.
Three quick examples - first, we have been following the "Christmas in Cambodia" story; from Matt Drudge, we see that Kerry historian Douglas Brinkley is now scrambling to recast this as "January in Cambodia". Time will tell. Meanwhile, we can check the January after-action reports at John Kerry's website, where he has fully released all the relevant records. But wait! I only see after-action reports for February and March! (and *not* his March 18/19 mission, BTW). Golly, the Big Media will never tolerate this sort of non-disclosure, will they? Squirelly, indeed.
Second example - the Kerry campaign, through both press releases and its website, spent months promoting the odd notion that Kerry was in the military from 1966 to 1970, and then was in the Naval Reserve from 1972 to 1978. Yes, this would have conveniently meant he was not in the service during his anti-war, ribbon-tossing, meet with the North Vietnamese days, but why did he re-join in 1972?
Of course it made no sense, and with the release of his records in April they have corrected their press releases. But imagine their surprise! We also imagine that they hope that the LA Times and NY Times don't notice (or, more likely, don't care - the NY Times is more inclined to correct the misspelling of the name of a Russian ballerina then they are to correct this.)
A third example is found in this NY Times story, with this provocative lede:
When questions were raised last month about whether a 27-year-old John Kerry had attended a Kansas City meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War where the assassination of senators was discussed, the Kerry presidential campaign went into action.
Indeed, they did. But patient readers will eventually come to the bit where we learn that Kerry's memories and denials about his attendance at such a meeting are contradicted by FBI files. Oops. We especially admire the subtle distinction Kerry makes about "being there":
...he says he had emotionally checked out of V.V.A.W. after St. Louis and until recently said he had left the organization at that point.
But several news organizations, including The Kansas City Star and The New York Sun, have recently reported that Mr. Kerry also attended the meeting of the group in Kansas City, Mo., in late 1971 where killing opponents of the war was discussed.
Mr. Kerry says he still has no memory of being there but does not dispute the F.B.I. files.
Let's be fair - some participants say the assasination plan was discussed, but never voted upon; some say there was a vote; some say Kerry was there for discussions, but not the vote; all agree that Kerry was opposed. This was covered widely last spring - a link-hunt could start here. (And anyone who wants to drop a relevant link in the comments is surely invited to do so.)
The recurring theme - what Kerry remembers isn't always what is true, but it is self-serving.
justoneminute.typepad.com |
