Bill, remember it's the Washington Post. The Kerry in Cambodia story has not even appeared there. Also, from the article, Thurlow still stands by his words. He pretty much adamantly states they were not under fire.

Oh, and I am still waiting to see Kerry's military records, until he oks their release, I side with the Swift Boat Vets.

YOU side ... you are a decided partisan, willing to go to greater lengths to give the story a fair shake. Your point about the WaPo assumes that swing voters all feel the same way about the source. We'll have to see how this plays out, but they could be screwed.

Kerry can easily clear the confusion by releasing all his military records and journals.

Kerry's failure to release all his records leads me to believe he has something to hide. Why is it taking him so long to perform such a simple task?

So far, Kerry's character flaw in consistantly flip-flopping with everything he has said over the past year, leads me to believe he lied about his Vietnam experience. Seems to me, Kerry himself has already proved the Swift Vets claim that he is a man not to be trusted.

Why doesn't the WaPo file a freedom of information act to have Kerry's files released... come to think of it... why don't YOU file the FOIA?

When they brought up his citation, he said (paraphrase)"if that's the case, it's fraudulent, too. No one was shooting at us."
Of course, if the WaPo had actually written anything about it in the first place ....

The body of the article is much less devastating than the headline would have you believe (surprise, surprise). Money quote:

"Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument."

Remember (and the article obliquely admits this as well) that the official Navy record likely came from Kerry himself, which in no wise makes it the undisputed truth, especially when none of his fellow commanders can recall coming under fire. Thurlow himself is quoted as saying he believes his medal is fraudulent if those are the conditions under which he was awarded it.

Bottom line is this is a nebulous and inconclusive article with a misleading headline. I don't think Snoopy has much to fear.

I'm speaking practically. Sometimes the headlines have the greatest impact. For example, CNN reported it this morning as basically just the headline ...

"I'm speaking practically. Sometimes the headlines have the greatest impact. For example, CNN reported it this morning as basically just the headline ..."

Which is why the sensationalist claim is in the headline and the contradictory information is buried in paragraph 12.

Even if true, there are about 20 other Swiftvet claims which haven't been contested, even by Kerry, such as his alleged forays into Cambodia. And he still hasn't released his records, while Bush has.

What is most significant to me is that over 250 of the men who either served in swiftboats alongside him or were his direct chain of command all are willing to sign affidavits to the effect that they think him unfit for office. Only one former soldier who fits these criteria supports him. You can't dismiss all of them as "Republican operatives" or "embittered veterans."

This is like someone applying for a job as CEO of a company, playing up something he did 35 years ago in his cover letter while ignoring the rest of his resume that is more relevant to the job, and only giving job references from his own direct reports. Then you call his former bosses and fellow front-line supervisors and all 250 of them say don't hire him.

Would you hire him?

You guys crack me up. Who are you trying to convince?

OF COURSE I agree with you about teh merits of the majority of teh Swifties claims.

But it's not what I think, or what YOU think. It's what a small group of undecideds who aren't maniacal news junkies think.

It has been argued elsewhere (Dean Esmay? Michael Totten? Sorry, brain not working today.) that the strength of the Swiftboat ads lies in confirming things about Senator Kerry that we already want to believe. I doubt that at this point even a full release of all military records would change the minds of partisans on either side or - and this is critical - clear the waters for those crucial swing-votes. I suspect that whatever the truth of the matter the damage to the Kerry campaign has already been done.

flea touches on key factors I believe will play out, as far as the swing vote and their thinking goes:
a) all politics and media are suspect, so we will gloss over what they are saying and go with whatever confirms our gut instinct.
b) the more "they" (the media, experts and pols) try to peg us and prognosticate our actions - through polls that didn't include us or econometric-based predictions that ignore us or carefully tailored PR and platform issues - the more likely we will change our minds if they fail to hit a (very fickle) nerve, like Reagan did in '80 with the Iran hostage crisis. because they just don't get us, they only want to control us.

two traits drive this speculation, formulated post-2000 election. the first is the lemming quality that dictates following the perceived majority; after all, they should know what's what. second is a deadly mixture of amnesia and ADHD that defaults to some primal, emotional intuition and whatever confirms it.

I'm not interested in pegging a voting block as ignorant here -- I think most voters have the characteristics of the two defense mechanisms above. and I hope that blogging will change this climate somehow, by demonstrating the necessity for individual critical thinking skills and the ability to research and analyze independently through the web, as well as the role of bias. everyone has values upon which they base their judgements, filtered through access to facts and external opinions. if we can help develop at the individual level these correlatives to suspicion and intuition, the benefit won't simply be in who wins the election or whether you can trust CNN or Fox with the news.

Thurlow's response, posted at NRO.

It should probably be noted that the citations for Thurlow, Kerry and one other were all put in the same day, and Kerry is the only one known to have written up the incident for an award. Thurlow claims that he never submitted anything, and the fact that Kerry claimed in his report that there was small arms fire would lead one to conclude that the medals were all based on the same report (i.e. Kerry's). Accordingly, there is nothing particularly surprising, or newsworthy, in the fact that Thurlow's medal citation reads substantially the same as Kerry's report of the incident.

Jus' say'n ...

So who submitted the paperwork for the medal? Wouldn't that be public information? Why can't the after-action report be found/released?

If Kerry "duked the system" to get his version of events into the record, wouldn't there be some kind of paper-trail?

Something is amiss. After viewing Kerry's Bronze star Recommendation I wondered why another boat's skipper would be simultaneously recommended when according to Rassmann's account, all boats left the scene and only Kerry's returned?

The Post covered the story on the front page yesterday. It was actually a pretty fair treatment, although given the usual treatment, which I discussed here: http://www.paulieworld.com/blog/archives/000938.html#more.

The short version: the Post highlights the differences between the citation and the affadavit, but then quotes Thurlow and several others in the engagement saying they don't remember bullets flying.

Thurlow thought his award was for going to the rescue of others, and that if the award was for facing enemy fire, then the award is cheap: "This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

Thurlow is also quoted in the Post as saying Kerry routinely "duked the system," printed without rejoinder.

I think in this one instance, Bill, that the Post has been somewhat even-handed, although I am no Post defender.

Aside from pieces by Milabank, the WaPo usually doesn't do its hatchet jobs in the body, they do it in the headline and initial thrust of the piece. Notice the fact that that is one of the first (only?) front-page stories on the Swiftboat Vets that the WaPo has done.

Actually, in my post over at my site, I spent a bit of time describing how the Post manipulated the seemingly-unbiased report.

You know that they want to be able to say, "Would the clerk please read back the transcript" so that they would appear to be unbiased, as the courtroom histrionics are not contained in the transcript.