A trip down memory lane: the weasel press. Nicholas Kristoff panders to Swiftboaters

[beachmom]

I found this in an old DU archive:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x74139

But you can still read the original op-ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/18/opinion/18kristof.html

This is why the Swift Boat attacks "worked". Because the SCLM indulged those liars. They allowed them to "muddy the waters", and often pitched in doing so.

A War Hero or a Phony?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: September 18, 2004

Each time that I've written about President Bush's dalliance with the National Guard, conservative readers have urged me to scrutinize the accusations against Mr. Kerry. After doing so over the last week, here's where I come out:

Did Mr. Kerry volunteer for dangerous duty? Not as much as his campaign would like you to believe. The Kerry Web site declares, "As he was graduating from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam - because, as he later said, 'It was the right thing to do.' "

Then he goes through the medals, and throws the SBVT a bone or two about the purple hearts. Then he concludes this way:

Did Mr. Kerry exaggerate his exploits? Yes. For example, he has often said over the years that he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia as part of the secret war there. Others who served with him confirm that on Christmas Eve 1968 (not Christmas Day) he got very close to the border, and possibly even strayed across it. But it doesn't seem to have been, as Mr. Kerry has suggested, a deliberate incursion into Cambodia.

What do those who served with him say? Some who served on other boats have called Mr. Kerry a hypochondriac self-promoter. But every enlisted man who was with Mr. Kerry on various boats when he won Purple Hearts and Silver and Bronze Stars says he deserved them. All praise his courage and back his candidacy. "I was there for two of the Purple Hearts and the Bronze and Silver Stars, and he earned every one of them," said Delbert Sandusky, in a typical comment. "He saved our lives."

The bottom line? Mr. Kerry has stretched the truth here and there, but earned his decorations. And the Swift Boat Veterans, contradicted by official records and virtually everyone who witnessed the incidents, are engaging in one of the ugliest smears in modern U.S. politics.

I am sorry, but by September, all the facts were out. The SBVT were proven to be liars. The "fighting back" had happened. And yet, we get this crappy op-ed that is basically game, set, match to the Swiftboaters (they didn't need to have everyone believe all their lies; just cast a shadow of a doubt & make people think Kerry was exaggerating things). By a so-called liberal writer.

I had never read this op-ed before. It's really worse than John O'Neill. Because unlike Mr. O'Neill, Nicholas Kristoff should have known better. Very dishonorable column.

[beachmom]

1. To add to the nuttiness, this Al Hunt op-ed in the WSJ is really good:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109166053751083353.html

Why did the "liberal" NYT turn on John Kerry?

[wisteria]

2. They wanted Clinton in 2008? Figuring the old idea that people do not change horses in mid-stream.

They may have made a gamble on his likelihood of winning and decided to play both sides.

[wisteria]

3. I suppose this was an attempt to be fair and balanced.

It really is terrible though. There was nothing to discredit about Senator Kerry's military service so he twisted the facts.

[karynnj]

4. That was dishonorable

as was much of the NYT reporting. My guess is that Kristoff was priding himself on being balanced, but even his facts are wrong, Kerry did not speak for years about Cambodia and more importantly he never mentioned it in positive terms. It was in the context of a Senate speech speaking against covert use of the military in Central America. The fact is Kerry was, at minimum, ferrying US people to or across the border on that day - and that was the intent of that mission - not accidental straying. Saying Kerry "lied" is ridiculous, especially as "lie" was never used in cases where there was far more back up that Bush did.


On the reporting, it was done by focus and by the adjectives used in the coverage. They had Elizabeth Brumiller covering Bush writing about George Bush with almost the objectivity that a groupie would have used describing the Beatles in 1964. Kerry was covered by Nagorney and Jodie Wilgoren. Nagorney covered political issues and always cast Kerry's record in as negative terms as possible, often giving more coverage to Republican responses as to Kerry's. (Not to mention, in 2008 SCHIP was glowing described as a major achievement for HRC, was not much of an accomplishment for Kerry, though Kennedy gave him plenty of credit.)

In the primaries attacks were covered more prominently than the Kerry responses the next day. (Even the week before Kerry clinched the nomination in early March, they had an op-ed that started with the fact that the Democratic nominee would be John, but could be Kerry or Edwards that then went on to make a case for Edwards. Now, the truth at that point was Kerry had won 16 contests, Edwards only 1 and Kerry was ahead by double digits (in some polls over 20) in the upcoming big races. Now, this was an op-ed, but it shows how much they dragged their feet rather than jumping on a band wagon.

Wilgoren was worse and the public editor was even drawn into it when in one article she referred to Kerry as a social loner. Her response that the public editor agreed with was that this was impression she got from speaking to 20 decades long friends of Kerry. Now, Kerry is more reserved than many Presidential contenders, but "social loner" sounds like a psychological diagnosis - and if there were 20 friends very close to him for decades, that is absolutely unfair. Not to mention, Maureen Dowd, making up the NASCAR quote that other NYT reporters later referenced as Kerry's.

The NYT then did endorse Kerry, but I know many in the region really were suspicious of Kerry because they assumed that as a "liberal" paper, the NYT was making the best case. My guess is that it is related to neocon ideas. The NYT had an October op-ed that spoke of how in 2004, it was the Republican with the idealistic foreign policy and the Democrat with a realist point of view. Bush's policies (not yet called spreading democracy were described in positive terms - idealist, principled etc. Later, they lavished praise on Bush's second inaugural address. My guess is that a fair number of normally liberal NYT people were flirting with neo-con ideas in 2004.