Bad Moon Rising

I'm afraid I have to concur with Jeff Dubner of TAPPED, who writes that the next series of accusations from SBVT could mean big trouble for Kerry.

Judging from the timing of this new round of attacks, I do get the impression that this was the plan all along: To fire the opening shot with this claim about Kerry's medals, followed by this. Unfortunately, by responding directly to the first round of attacks (which, in fairness, I agree that he probably had to do), Kerry may have played right into Bush's hands (and I'm just going to go ahead and equate SBVT with BC04 if that's okay by you, and, well, even if it's not) by further raising the profile of the group.

I think Dubner is right to point out that this charge, unlike the other, may be more damaging because (1) it has a kernel of truth to it, and (2) former POWs, even more than veterans in general, will come across fairly sympathetically. I also suspect that BC04 (at least some of its more intemperate mouthpieces) will tie this back into Kerry's opposition (such as it has been) to Iraq, saying, See? Questioning Bush really does mean you support the terrorists and that you hate America.

I don't think it will work to go after the specific people making the charge, or to catch them in little lies and inconsistencies. The broader point -- questioning Kerry's antiwar activities -- is what's key here.

So, the question is, what to do about all this? How can the Kerry camp respond? Well, I think we can eliminate a couple of possible responses fairly easily:

• Hey, it was 30 years ago and I was just really, really upset about the war. That's just not going to cut it. Kerry is using Vietnam not only as an impressive line on his c.v. but also to argue that his experiences taught him valuable lessons about judgment.
  
• I was trying to end the war as quickly as possible so that fewer Americans would be killed, injured, and taken prisoner. That's closer to the mark, but it still strikes me ultimately as an ineffective response. At best, all this does is mitigate the damage that the initial attack does, but that's still a net gain for Bush.

The best answer I've been able to come up with in the past few hours (as I have been watching the Yankees) is something like this:

• Responsibility: First, Kerry has got to own up to it; he should say, with clarity, that he regrets any suffering that his words may have caused. It has to be clear enough to serve as an effective counterpoint to Kerry's alleged "flip-floppiness," and to Bush's utter refusal to take responsibility for anything he does.
  
• Empathy: Kerry also must express sympathy more generally for the plight of former POWs. It won't be enough, I think, to just broaden this to all Vietnam vets.
  
• Defense: Kerry should stress that his intent in speaking out was to end an unjust war as soon as possible, reminding people that as the war dragged on, it would mean more Americans killed, wounded, and taken prisoner. This was not just the ranting of a disordered mind, or of some communist hippie freak; these were the thoughts of somebody who had been there, who had seen the horrors of war, and who was doing what he sincerely believed to be his patriotic duty. Kerry should say that this was one of the great tragedies of Vietnam: it forced vets like Kerry to make an impossible choice, to decide whether they could better serve their country--and the soldiers still fighting in Vietnam--by speaking out against an unjust, unnecessary, and unwinnable war, knowing that such statements might be hurtful to some of their brothers in arms, or by merely holding their tongues and hoping for their safe return.
  
• Lesson: Kerry should stress that this is a terrible choice to force upon someone, and it is a good illustration for why you shouldn't go to war unless the justification is clear, and unless there is no other alternative.
  
• Counterattack: He should then make the link to Iraq. Bush has made all the same mistakes, all over again. By rushing the country to war, without a clear plan for victory, and more without giving the American people a fair public debate--a chance to decide for themselves, based on accurate information, whether it was worth it to send young men and women off into harm's way--Bush has forced exactly this kind of choice on many more young American servicemen. And that's a great disservice to American servicemen.

I'm not convinced that what I've just written is the answer, but I do think that any effective response will have to do the basic things I've outlined above: (1) Take responsibility; (2) empathize with the victims; (3) show you're still a good guy; (4) say what you've learned; and (5) score points on the other guy.

And put your seats and tray tables in the upright positions, folks, because the rest of campaign is going to be just like this. It ain't gonna be easy.

Larry Thurlow Just Got F-ed in the A

Sweet Sassy Molassy! Look at Chris Matthews kick the
ever-living crap out of Larry Thurlow on Hardball!

MATTHEWS: At the time he told you. OK, let‘s go on to the issue of the Bronze Star, which is far more important here. You received a Bronze Star in action for going back to that—or going to that ship that had—your fellow swift boat, that had hit a mine. Why did you get the Bronze Star?

THURLOW: I felt like I got the Bronze Star because I helped save the guys that were injured on there and then helped save boat from sinking.

MATTHEWS: Were you under enemy fire at this time?

THURLOW: No, I was not.

MATTHEWS: Why did your citation say so?

THURLOW: Because John Kerry had written an after-action report to cover the entire incident. And in this after-action report, he reported that we were not only under enemy fire, we were under intense enemy fire.

MATTHEWS: Did his after-action report—did that become the report that was the language in your citation? Do you know that for a fact?

THURLOW: Well...

MATTHEWS: For a fact? Do you know the—in other words, do you know for a fact that it was his account of the action that you both survived that led to the language in your citation? Do you know that for a fact, sir, Mr. Thurlow?

THURLOW: Well, because my commanding officer wrote up the citation, and the only thing he had available to him was that report, yes, the part about the hostile fire would have come from that report.

MATTHEWS: Do you know for a fact that it was John Kerry‘s words or account that led to your—the language in your citation? Do you know it for a fact? Would you swear to it? This is what we‘re getting into here. We need clear accounts of what happened with John Kerry and whether he really did deserve to get a Bronze Star or not.

THURLOW: The fact of the matter...

MATTHEWS: Can you say for a fact that he wrote himself up, that he got credit because he gave himself credit and that‘s why you got credit for taking the action you did, the brave action you did to save the men and save that boat, that fellow swift boat? You both benefited, you‘re saying to me now, because of his after-action report. You both benefited in the citations.

THURLOW: Well, actually...

MATTHEWS: You‘re saying that.

THURLOW: His after-action report reported none of the action I took about saving the men or the boat. His after-action report...

MATTHEWS: But do you know now—right now that the testimony that you were both under fire, intense enemy fire...

THURLOW: Came from his report.

MATTHEWS: ... you say that was not the case—you know for a fact it was his report that led to the language in your citation? That‘s all I want to know.

THURLOW: The reason I believe it was from his report is because he‘s the only one that filed one and the fact that he—and the reason I know he filed it is because his boat was the central figure in the report. The 3 boat was the one that was mine and badly damaged, but yet the report tells about John Kerry coming back to get Rassmann under intense fire and only casually mentions anything else that even happened that day.

MATTHEWS: What I don‘t understand is why you deserve a Purple Heart for taking the action you did, and you say...

THURLOW: I (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Purple Heart.

MATTHEWS: ... you were not under—no—no—no, not the Purple Heart...

THURLOW: I didn‘t get a Purple Heart.

MATTHEWS: ... the Bronze Star. The Bronze Star, that you deserve the Bronze Star, you were awarded the Bronze Star, fair enough, and you say you were not under enemy fire. You‘re now saying that John Kerry doesn‘t deserve the Bronze Start because he wasn‘t under enemy fire. Aren‘t you both in the same boat? Didn‘t you both do about the same thing, both get same award? And why are you complaining that he doesn‘t deserve it, if you deserved it?

THURLOW: I felt like I got the award because I saved some people‘s lives and saved the boat. What I say...

MATTHEWS: Well, he saved Rassmann‘s life, according to Rassmann‘s own account.

THURLOW: OK...MATTHEWS: Why doesn‘t he deserve the award?

THURLOW: Well, I—I don‘t—I‘m not quibbling about the award.

I‘m saying he lied about the...

MATTHEWS: Oh, yes, you are, sir!

THURLOW: ... account.

MATTHEWS: You are out here in an advertisement saying, quote, “When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry.”

THURLOW: That‘s exactly right.

MATTHEWS: That‘s a pretty strong—because of what are you saying this?

THURLOW: Because he had this master plan that was...

MATTHEWS: You got—give me an example.

THURLOW: ... to promote his...

MATTHEWS: OK, let‘s to go your theory of the plan. Have you seen it written down? Have you heard him tell his account to someone? How do you know, in any real way, he had this plan?

THURLOW: Because of the fact that he engineered three Purple Heart incidences that allowed him to go home after he spent about one third of his tour there.

MATTHEWS: But that‘s your account of what happened. He was there for four months.

THURLOW: That‘s exactly right.

MATTHEWS: He did win the three Purple Hearts. He did get the Bronze and the Silver. And you say he had some plan to get an award as a battle hero ahead of time, but you can‘t tell me how you know he had this plan.

THURLOW: I know he had this plan because of what happened not only then but after the fact.

MATTHEWS: Did you have a plan to win the Bronze Star? You won the Bronze Star. Did you have a plan?

THURLOW: No, in fact, I didn‘t...

MATTHEWS: Why is winning the Bronze Star...

THURLOW: I didn‘t apply for it.

MATTHEWS: Why is winning the Bronze Star evidence of having had a plan to win one? I don‘t get it.

THURLOW: Well, I—we‘re not even talking about him having a plan to win the Bronze Star.

MATTHEWS: Can you honestly tell me now, sir, that you could swear in open court that you know that John Kerry, when he was a lieutenant JG in the same theater you were in had some plan for winning medals? Do you know that for a fact?

THURLOW: OK. In other words, present evidence that he had this plan?

MATTHEWS: Yes.

THURLOW: Of course, I couldn‘t.

MATTHEWS: Well, what...

THURLOW: I‘m basing it on my observations.

MATTHEWS: These are after-the-fact observations. You say he had a plan ahead of time to make himself a war hero to get elected to office.

THURLOW: I‘m saying that he had a plan that included not only being a war hero but getting an early out.

MATTHEWS: But you admit you have no tangible evidence.

THURLOW: I have my own personal observations.

MATTHEWS: Of what?

THURLOW: And you‘re right, it is not tangible evidence.

MATTHEWS: OK, so you don‘t. Let me ask you about...

Man, it's pretty awesome when the media decides to do its damn job.

UPDATE: I just read the transcript of the next segment. Matthews also goes to town on this lady Malkin, whom you may (evidently) remember from such books as, Internment: Why Not?:

MALKIN: Well, yes. Why don‘t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying?

MALKIN: Did you read the book...

MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: I‘m saying some of these soldiers...

MATTHEWS: And I‘m asking question.

MALKIN: And I‘m answering it.

MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act?

MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.

MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...

MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.

MATTHEWS: Tell me where that...

MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969.

MATTHEWS: This is not a show for this kind of talk. Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit?

MALKIN: I‘m saying that‘s what some of these...

MATTHEWS: Give me a name.

MALKIN: Patrick Runyan (ph) and William Zeldonaz (ph).

MATTHEWS: They said—Patrick Runyan...

MALKIN: These people have...

MATTHEWS: And they said he shot himself on purpose to avoid combat or take credit for a wound?

MALKIN: These people have cast a lot of doubt on whether or not...

MATTHEWS: That‘s cast a lot of doubt. That‘s complete nonsense.

MALKIN: Did you read the section in the book...

MATTHEWS: I want a statement from you on this program, say to me right, that you believe he shot himself to get credit for a purpose of heart.

MALKIN: I‘m not sure. I‘m saying...

MATTHEWS: Why did you say?

MALKIN: I‘m talking about what‘s in the book.

MATTHEWS: What is in the book. Is there—is there a direct accusation in any book you‘ve ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart? On purpose?

MALKIN: On.

MATTHEWS: On purpose? Yes or no, Michelle.

MALKIN: In the February 1969 -- in the February 1969 event.

MATTHEWS: Did he say on it purpose.

MALKIN: There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not. And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me.

MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose.

I haven‘t heard you say it.

MALKIN: Have you tried to ask—have you tried ask John Kerry these questions?

MATTHEWS: If he shot himself on purpose. No. I have not asked him that.

MALKIN: Don‘t you wonder?

MATTHEWS: No, I don‘t. It‘s never occurred to me.

Here's the video of the Malkin segment for those of you who, like me, own Macs and therefore can't watch the video through MSNBC.

Defamation and the Defaming Defamers Who Commit It

Here's an interesting article from TNR suggesting that Kerry should go after the Swift Boat guys by suing them for libel.

I'm curious to hear what you guys think of this idea, both on the legal merits and as a matter of political strategy.

On the merits, I think the odds are stacked against Kerry. (The Swift Boat ad is here.) I see two principal problems, even with pursuing the claims against Letson and O'Dell, which seem to be the only statements in the advertisement that purport to have any factual content whatsoever.

First, even these claims make no affirmative statement of fact; all they do is claim that John Kerry's previous assertions are false (and the content of Kerry's assertions is never really explained). They say, "John Kerry lied about topic T." They don't say, "John Kerry said X. In fact, the truth is Y." This adds an additional evidentiary problem in proving actual malice than your typical libel case, namely that even before you get the issue of malice, you first have to identify the specific statement of fact at issue (i.e., prove that the speaker, in referring to topic T, actually meant X).

The second problem is, I guess, something like an agency problem. In order to go after SBVT, wouldn't Kerry have to prove not only that the original speaker had malice, but that SBVT also was malicious in using those statements in their advertisement? This also doesn't seem like an easy thing to do.

I must confess that I've mostly ignored the media frenzy on this, so it may be that these guys have done enough interviews and there is enough of a record out there that Kerry would be able to fill in some of the blanks, but it seems like a fairly weak case so far.

The political calculation is, in my mind, linked to some extent with the legal merits. If Kerry is pursuing an obviously meritless claim just to harass or exact retribution on political opponents, obviously that won't play. And, led by the right-wing media outlets, I'm guessing that the prevailing media reaction will be to dismiss this as sour grapes. And Baer's probably right that some people will try to make a connection between this as Edwards's background as a trial lawyer (though I am a bit skeptical as to how damaging this issue is).

This probably would also alienate hard-core civil libertarians. At the end of the day, hard-core ACLUers may be so pissed at Bush, Ashcroft, et al. that they'll still vote for Kerry, but I think it would look pretty bad if some talking head from ACLU went on TV saying that Kerry is anti-speech. (Though I, like Baer, don't think that whatever "chilling effecct" this would have is necessarily such a bad thing.)

All that being said, one of the points from the article really hit home for me:

In an environment where the president and his allies believe that he is on a divine mission, the right will stop at nothing to win this race.

That is why if Bush should lose this November, there won't be any honeymoon for Kerry--his first few months in office will look like the last years of the Clinton presidency: congressional inquiries, constant talk radio trash-talking, and book deals for anyone with a charge to make. Simply, Kerry can't afford to let the SBVT charges go unanswered if he wants to govern effectively.

This seems, to me, to be right on target. I'm a full believer that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy out there, and I am absolutely convinced that should Kerry win the election. Republicans will be working around the clock to undermine him at every turn through every available means. Kerry needs to fire a shot across the bow, to draw a line in the sand and say, "Cross this line, you do not!"

I'm just not sure this is the right way to do it.

Improv-ing on Control Room

So, at long last, here are some random, only barely coherent thoughts on Control Room.

One crucial thing that the movie brings to the table is it gives some content to the Arab perspective on the war, something more nuanced than just, “They hate us.” And the movie demonstrates starkly just how clueless we are. We simply do not understand Arab nationalism. I suspect that there is, somewhere in the Pentagon, someone who can appreciate that Arab perspectives on the West have been shaped, first, by strong feelings of anti-colonialism, and more recently by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But there is a related point that even despite all of Bush’s rhetoric about the universality of freedom, we simply just don’t seem to understand: Freedom cannot be given from the top down (and certainly not by outsiders). It’s not like having an extra piece of pie that we don’t want, so we give it away to our friends. Freedom is something that must be taken—reclaimed—by the people themselves. And so the fact is that, even though we have “handed over” sovereignty (or should I say “sovereignty”) to the Iraqis, the Iraqi people will never see themselves as free until we’re gone, and when we do finally leave, they will see it as a victory for them and a defeat for us.

Another point that the movie really drives home is that the American media sucks. First, there is the problem of overwhelming laziness. Does anybody do any fact-checking at all these days? I mean, is it really so hard to get a translator to make sure the Iraqi kids you’re showing are actually, as you claim, cheering George Bush? And surely someone, somewhere must have seen the wide-angle shot of the square in Baghdad showing that, contrary to what we were led to believe, there was not, in fact, a mass, spontaneous uprising to pull down the Saddam statue.

But where was this story? This should have been huge; a blatant attempt by the American government to cook the books on the war. But no, instead we got fluff pieces on Jessica Lynch. I mean, I’ll grant you that she is cute and blonde. And was it a heartwarming tale of resilience, perseverance, pluck, and the American spirit? Sure. But, to be inappropriately flip about it, why should we give a rat’s ass about any of this? Why is this an appropriate story for national news coverage? This is the kind of story that belongs on local news and, at most, a show like Dateline. So, fine, you want to give me some soft-focus interview with Barbara Walters or Jane Pauley? Go right ahead. But don’t do cut-aways on CNN so you can show me Jessica Lynch’s triumphant return to the States.

And if al-Jazeera comes off looking better than it should in this movie, it’s mostly because it’s just so refreshing to finally get some news coverage that’s not spun silly by CENTCOM.

Finally, the movie makes clear that this military has learned at least one thing from Vietnam. This Pentagon will not have its war plans derailed by an uncooperative public, and it is accordingly obsessed with managing the home front, with ensuring that the perception of the war back in Muncie, Indiana stays positive. A lot of the “news” coming out of CENTCOM was ridiculous, and obviously meant for domestic consumption rather than winning over the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and it was specifically meant to basically distract us from unfortunate or inconvenient news.

The most egregious example of this is the Jessica Lynch story, which got pushed—conveniently enough—immediately after U.S. forces killed Arab journalists in Baghdad. (The movie suggests that we basically had these guys wacked because we were pissed at the way they were covering the war. The official explanation is that U.S. forces were being fired upon from that location, basically the wartime equivalent of “He was reaching for a gun.”) Anyway, even members of the American media were understandably salty about the idea of the journalists being bombed, and so out came the tale of Jessica Lynch. (One of the more depressingly hilarious moments in the movie comes when a CENTCOM press officer tries to push the Lynch story on the al-Jazeera team, and they are just baffled, astonished, and generally having none.)

In general, the obsession with spin control demonstrates how nowhere we are in Iraq, as though the problem in Iraq is one of message discipline and not a failed policy. You can see this same phenomenon all across the board, in both domestic and foreign policy. But you can’t just will Iraq to stability, or will the creation of jobs. Saying Iraq is stable doesn’t make it so, and saying that tax cuts will solve all our economic problems doesn’t make it so either. You can’t just message these problems away. A failed policy is a failed policy, and real problems demand real solutions. Talk all you want, but as Jason is fond of saying, “You can’t polish a turd.”

The Cliffs Notes President

So, maybe it's just that (1) I've been watching too much West Wing lately, (2) I'm projecting my own guilt over not having studied enough for the bar, or (3) I'm just generally an elitist snob...

... but it really is completely insane that the President of the United States can't be bothered to read more than one page of a document that should be -- but, in reality, probably wasn't -- largely determinative of the decision whether or not to send the country to war.

I mean, it's a fairly complicated world out there, don'cha think?

So, the question is, will anyone from the White House press corps have the balls to ask if the President has actually read the 9/11 Commission report?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Bush-Cheney 2004
Simple, Comforting Answers for a Complex, Scary World

UPDATE: A kindred spirit. Personally, I think 5-2 is being awfully charitable.

I Heart Franklin Foer

This article in The New Republic almost moved me to tears. It's very similar in theme and rhetoric to the Washington Monthly piece by Bruce Reed from a while back, but a bit tighter on both counts, in my opinion. Among other things, it reminded me to be pissed off about the Bushies' decision to move peer review out of the agencies and into OIRA. Bitches.

This is a good theme, I think, and one that can tie in well with the corporate corruption meme that pops up every now and then: When nobody's around to play the honest broker, disaster follows. all these guys really are cut from the same crappy cloth.

Well, it all depends on what the meaning of "losing it" is.

Kevin Drum has a link to the BBC Clinton interview where he allegedly starts (so writes Drudge) "losing it."

Washington Monthly had a great article back in the day on the general uselessness of most of what passes for journalism today, a theme that really has hit home for me since seeing Control Room, which I'll dicuss in further detail some other time.