Don't you hate it when your browser freezes up when you make a long, good post?
Well that's what happened to me when I was trying to post on this early this morning. AARGH!
Anyways, a lot of things have happened over the last 24 hours. It looks like Jim Rassmun, one of Kerry's "Band of Brothers" who credits John Kerry for saving his life, is stepping up as the prime critic of the SwiftBoat Vets Against John Kerry Association. He was on
Capital Report on CNBC last night with a SwiftBoat Vet (I think it was Larry Thurlow. I'm not sure about that), and the Vet didn't come off too good. He seemed to be stalemated by the fact that he wasn't there when the accident happened, and Rassmun will be given the benefit of the doubt always. So as far as TV appearances go, they will have an uphill climb.
The National Debate saw Inside Politics Thursday, and thought Thurlow came off pretty well against Rassmun and Woodruff. I wish I had seen it, but my cable news watching is few and far between, so I watch what I can watch.
This morning, the
Boston Globe posted a story from Michael Kranish reporting that one of the SwiftBoat Vets, George Elliot, stated that he made a "terrible mistake" in signing an notarized affidavit believing John Kerry did not earn his Silver Star.
Here's an interesting passage:
''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."
Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."
The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.
Now Human Events, an org that's been spearheading the effort by the Swiftboat Vets and has acted sort of a spokesperson on their behalf,
has responded by stating the Elliot article by Kranish was "highly inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views".
I don't know how Kranish could do that other than by outright lying in the article. Did Elliot feel pressure to sign the affidavit to get it published, or did he not? Either Elliot believed Kerry shot the kid in the back, or he didn't. Either Elliot regretted signing that affidavit, or he didn't. These are yes or no questions, folks.
Then, someone needs to ask what role did Elliot play in Kerry's 96 Senate campaign. What allegations did he defend Kerry on? And how much of a focal point was he in defending these allegations? Did he actually endorse Kerry for the Senate? Did he work on his Senate campaign? Or did he just act as an informative source for a couple of articles? Those questions should be asked as well.
But to Elliot's credit, he did sign another affidavit reinforcing his beliefs in the previous one.
But now we have to look at Michael Kranish himself. You see, this Boston Globe writer has written the forward in a book for the Kerry/Edwards campaign. And according to
Drudge, Kranish has been the Globe's official reporter for the Kerry campaign for months.
Isn't this a conflict of interest at the Boston Globe? You have a journalist that will write what was to be (but isn't now) the official book for the same campaign that he is supposed to cover in an unbiased fashion? And Human Events's statement makes a weird claim:
“The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.
I assume Human Events is referring to the unauthorized book of the Kerry/Edwards campaign, in which Kranish wrote an introduction for. I say this because the unauthorized book
Kerry/Edwards: Their Plans and Promises was reported by the
New York Globe to be the one where Kranish wrote an introduction for, and it was scrapped by PublicAffairs Publishing to write the official manifesto,
Our Plan, Our America: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World. But
Amazon.com has Kranish writing an introduction for the new book. Is this correct, or is Amazon just being lazy and won't write an updated review? You decide. Amazon also states that Kranish co-authored a biography on John Kerry earlier this year with PublicAffairs.
This is just getting ugly, folks. I'll let you marinate on this for a while.
