Whore Alert

[capriccio]

The Washington Post features a front page investigative report by Michael Dobbs today. Here are some excerpts:
An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry's accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar.
(Snip)
But many of the other skippers and enlisted men who were on the river that day dispute Kerry's account and have signed up with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group that has aired television advertisements accusing Kerry of lying about his wartime service.
(Snip)
Much of the debate over who is telling the truth boils down to whether the two-page after-action report and other Navy records are accurate or whether they have been embellished by Kerry or someone else. In "Unfit for Command," O'Neill describes the after-action report as "Kerry's report." He contends that language in Thurlow's Bronze Star citation referring to "enemy bullets flying about him" must also have come from "Kerry's after-action report."

O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry. It is unclear why this should be so, as Kerry's initials are JFK. A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

It's not hard to see what's going on here folks. Tomorrow Dobbs will be online to take questions during a live chat. You may have questions to ask him. Here's mine:

The headline and thrust of your article claim that the Kerry and anti-Kerry camps are equally suspect in their versions of the events surrounding Kerry's Bronze Star. Your description of the Swiftboat Vets for Truth as "a public advocacy" group despite well-documented evidence that they are a front for the Bush campaign belies your objectivity however. Moreover, as to the pivotal point of contention in the episode: we have Thurlow's own report saying that the group was under fire, but we have O'Neil contending that Thurlow's report was influenced by "Kerry's" after action report, a repoprt actually signed by one KJW, not JFK. Given the utter spuriousness of the charges from the Swifitboat Veterans for Truth, how can you, your headline writer or your editor let this story go to print with the impression that these two sides are equally armed with the truth or burdened by deception?

[NMDemDist2]

1. we need to find out who "KJW" is n/t

[Ghetto_Boy]

2. Let's not get down on whores.... if there was no demand there would be no

supply.

[A_Possum]

3. Some article, I think NYT, said...

The reports were initialed by the person who received them, not the person who wrote them.

But, frankly, I think all this kind of thing is getting silly. Merely trying to point out the initials KJW, as if they are actually JFK, is an amazing sign of how fatuous the so-called evidence to support the whole smear job is.

KJW does not = JKF, period. That's what a reporter should say. End of topic.

[KC21304]

4. Excellent.

I saw the transcript of O'Neill on News Hour and that must have been a riot. His answer to Lehrer's question as to why 30 yrs passed before the questions was really remarkable.

" With respect to we didn't come forward for 30 yrs, in Kerry's first Purple Heart incident, he came in, went to his commanding officer and tried to get it and the commanding officer turned it out, said forget it. His name is Grant Hibberd.

Kerry, later after EVERYONE LEFT VIETNAM, showed up again and applied and somehow got a Purple Heart and the documents have never been produced."



How in the hell could Kerry apply in March 1969 to leave Vietnam because he already had 3 Purple Hearts for actions Dec 2 1968, Feb 20 1969, and March 13 l969, if he didn't even get his first Purple Heart until after EVERYONE LEFT VIETNAM ? I realize by everyone, O'Neill meant everyone involved in the actions. But come on, does this make any sense at all ?

[pmbryant]

5. The Washington Post should be ashamed of this article

So pathetic. The online headline was even worse: "Both Sides Flawed on Swift Boat Accounts"

I was so enraged I immediately wrote more about it here: http://pmbryant.typepad.com/b_and_b/2004/08/post_sinks_to_n.html

Excellent question you posed. Dobbs and his editors need to be shown the light.

Peter