Alston Inconsistency On Record For Silver Star Action

On June 24th of this year, ABC ran a story on the action that gained John Kerry a Silver Star. ABC's Jake Tapper spoke at length with Kerry's crew members, including David Alston, who is quoted at length in the narrative. Alston makes it clear that he participated in this action, which took place on February 28th, 1969:

Since Kerry will not talk about the day he killed a man, four of Kerry's crewmates from the Navy Swift boat he commanded sat down with Nightline to try to explain what happened, though not one was eager to revisit the events of that day. ...

Alston recalled: "I know when John Kerry told Del to beach that damn boat, this was a brand-new ball game. We wasn't running. We took it to Charlie." ...

The article also quotes Fred Short as one of the crew on the boat that day, even though Short had been a replacement for Alston. Had Alston returned to PCF-94 by 28 February, he could have simply replaced someone else, of course. However, the Boston Globe has documentary evidence of Kerry's crew for the Silver Star action as part of a pictographic look at the life and times of John Kerry. Here is a picture of Kerry's crew for the action which won him the Silver Star:

The Globe caption for this picture:

Sailors stand together in An Thoi, Vietnam, on February 28, 1969, after a medal presentation for Silver Star action. From left: Del Sandusky, John Kerry, Gene Thorson, Thomas Belodeau. Kneeling from left, Mike Medeiros, Fred Short.

One officer, five crew. It looks like a full complement for a Swift boat to me, and David Alston is nowhere to be seen. If Alston served during the action, why isn't he in the picture?

UPDATE: RiverRat tells us that the picture itself was taken on or about 6 March, not 28 February. It begs the question even more -- where was Alston? Had he recovered enough to return to duty under Kerry, that would have given him even more time to be there.

Lori from Texas notes something interesting in another Globe story on Kerry's Silver Star action:

The crewman with the best view of the action was Frederic Short, the man in the tub operating the twin guns. Short had not talked to Kerry for 34 years, until after he was recently contacted by a Globe reporter. Kerry said he had "totally forgotten" Short was on board that day.

Short had joined Kerry's crew just two weeks earlier, as a last-minute replacement, and he was as green as the Arkansas grass of his home.

Two weeks earlier would have been two weeks after Alston received his serious wounds and evacuation to the hospital, so it's clear that Short replaced Alston. In this story, the only mention Alston gets as part of this action is in a caption to a photo I posted earlier. None of the actual battle narrative mentions Alston at all.

UPDATE II: Reader JFK-No catches this from Douglas Brinkley's book, Tour of Duty:

"In addition to Kerry's Silver Star PCF-94's performance on February 28 also earned Bronze Stars for Tommy Belodeau and Mike Medeiros and Navy Commendation Medals with Combat V Devices for Del Sandusky, Fred Short, and Gene Thorson." - Douglas Brinkley

All of the crew, it seems, were decorated for their actions that day, noticeably absent was David Alston.

UPDATE III: More verification that Short replaced Alston, using Short as the source:

Short, 56, wasn't supposed to be on Kerry's boat. A gunner's mate 3rd class, he was assigned to PCF 94 to replace a gunner who had been wounded. That wounded gunner, the Rev. David Alston of South Carolina, was one of the speakers at the convention Monday.

And here's a cached version of Kerry's website that emphasizes Alston's supposed service under Kerry's command.

Rocky Mountain News: Media Bias In Cambodia Collapse

More cracks in the media-dam have appeared this morning regarding the John Kerry credibility "meltdown", this time in the Rocky Mountain News. Columnist Dave Kopel castigates his Colorado colleagues in today's edition for ignoring the Christmas in Cambodia implosion:

According to Newsweek's assistant managing editor Evan Thomas, "There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards . . . as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them . . ." (Inside Washington television show, July 10).

Thomas' prediction is amply supported by the (non)coverage which the Denver dailies, like most of the rest of the media, have given to this week's meltdown of the Kerry campaign. ...

As reported in The Congressional Record, on March 27, 1986, Sen. John Kerry spoke on the Senate floor against U.S. support for the anti-communist contras in Nicaragua:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared - seared - in me . . ." ...

He repeated the Cambodia Christmas story in Senate committee hearings in June 1992 and September 1997.

Actually, in December 1968, the president of the United States was Lyndon Johnson, not Richard Nixon. Nixon's statement that there were "no American combat troops in Cambodia" was made in November 1971.

All available evidence indicates that Kerry was lying about Christmas in Cambodia.

After giving that excellent thumbnail review of the story (I did not know about the committee testimony), Kopel discusses how it has been covered by the Colorado media, and the laundry list is poor and undistinguished:

The Denver dailies have covered the story exclusively by attacking Swift Boat Veterans for Truth through:

• An Associated Press article in both papers reporting that John McCain denounced the attacks on Kerry (without providing any evidence that the attacks are factually wrong);

• News columnist Mike Litt- win criticizing Bush for not criticizing the Swift boat veterans (Aug. 7);

• The Post's Jim Spencer defending Kerry's Purple Hearts (a July 30 column with more substance than other Kerry defenses); and

• An AP article pointing out that John Corsi, the co-author of Unfit for Command has made disparaging remarks about Islam and Catholicism (News, Aug. 11). ...

The News ignored the story of Kerry retracting three decades of Christmas-in-Cambodia tales. The Post also ignored the story, and instead ran the attack on John Corsi which had appeared the day before in the News.

It is as if the media had covered the Bush National Guard story only by impugning Bush's critics, while barely acknowledging the substance of the charges. Evan Thomas was right.

It's starting to squeeze in under the media blackout through independent columnists. And even when the coverage the Swiftvets have received has been completely unbalanced and unfair, the reaction to that has started to get coverage as well. Little by little, the mainstream media has been forced to deal with the Cambodian Christmas fairy tale. We need to keep pushing it forward.

Northern Alliance Radio Streaming Today!

Don't forget that the Northern Alliance Radio Network (including yours truly) will be live-streaming our radio show today from noon to 3 pm CT. The link to the stream is on the left sidebar of my blog as well as at the Northern Alliance link and at the website of our local Salem affiliate, AM 1280 The Patriot. The stream is sponsored by the Taxpayer's League of Minnesota, which also just became a CQ sponsor. TPM has its own show at 9 am CT on Saturdays, so be sure to get into the stream right now and listen for David Strom's excellent commentary.

I have a lot of e-mail off of the Alston stories that I will be weeding through in order to move the story forward later on today, hopefully. Keep checking back -- we have lots more information flowing in. I'm certain that we'll be talking Alston and Swiftboats for part of today's show, and I may have enough to have an update by then.

See you on the stream!

Alston Never Served Under Kerry

Thanks to reader Lori in Texas, I think we've just about pieced the record together on David Alston and his supposed service under John Kerry's command. Lori points out a sympathetic article on Del Sandusky, one of the few Swift boat veterans supporting Kerry and one that served on his boat, specifically gives the timing on Kerry's command of PCF-94:

In January 1969, Sandusky's boat, PCF-94, came under attack during one such ambush. Lt. Ted Peck, the officer in charge, and another crewman were seriously wounded. Sandusky had to take command.

The boat was sinking and on fire, but Sandusky steered it back to safety. They counted 155 bullet holes in the boat and found a live enemy rocket in the main cabin. It had come to rest in a sack of potatoes.

For his actions, Sandusky would receive the Bronze Star.

With their officer headed home, the crew of PCF-94 needed a leader. And Lt. j.g. John Kerry, whose crew on PCF-44 had rotated back home, needed men to lead.

"I was sure glad he came along," Sandusky said, "because to be honest, I didn't want to take command."

From Jan. 30 to March 13, 1969, Kerry and the crew of the PCF-94 would conduct 18 missions in the Mekong Delta river system. In that time, Kerry would earn a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and add two Purple Hearts to the one he received earlier.

Bingo! Yachtzee! Alston received his serious wounds in that same exact battle that took Peck out of service. On January 29th, Alston was medevaced out to a hospital with head wounds and no records indicate that he ever returned to the unit. Kerry took command of PCF-94 the next day. Alston never served a day under Kerry's command. In fact, Kerry received a replacement, Fred Short, on 28 February as a replacement for Alston.

Now what does that tell us about Kerry and his Viet Nam narrative?

1. He and Alston conspired to deceive people about Alston's service under Kerry. That conspiracy was intended to give John Kerry cover against exactly the kind of campaign he faces from the other Swiftvets.

2. The "end of January" language on Kerry's website was intentionally vague in order to fuzzy up the timeline and keep Alston's true status a secret. Obviously, Sandusky remembers the dates well enough, and Kerry could easily have gotten them from him if he wanted to be as specific as his other dates on the timeline.

3. The DNC either were saps or actively participated in the conspiracy in order to assist Kerry in his Viet Nam mythology. Otherwise, why would they have allowed David Alston to speak at the convention about his experiences serving with John Kerry on the boat?

4. Kerry's band of brothers have some complicity in this cover-up as well. Those who served on PCF-94 surely remember that Alston never served under Kerry; Sandusky specifically recalls Peck being wounded and removed from command, but he wouldn't remember that Alston left at the same time?

5. One could argue that they served on the same boat, of course, and I look forward to that Clintonian parsing used in Kerry's defense. After holding Alston up as an expert on his leadership, he'll be hard pressed to explain how that expertise came to Alston from a hospital bed miles away from Kerry and his old PCF.

If this gets out to the mainstream media, this story kills Kerry's campaign. This isn't just a guy embellishing his war record -- this is a deliberate and longstanding attempt to mislead and defraud people by creating his own witnesses after the fact. That he could have done such a clumsy job should disqualify him for higher office on that basis alone.

UPDATE: Corrected Sandusky's first name from Dale to Del. Hat tip to Menlo Bob; sorry about that.

UPDATE II: I see that Democratic Underground has linked back to this post with a suggestion that they dig up dirt on one of my readers who did research for this series. If you think all of this makes me happy, you're out of your minds. Having a candidate for the presidency who has apparently falsified large parts of his record and encouraged people to lie to back it up isn't funny, it's scary.

I suggest that instead of attacking people researching records in the public domain, you spend your time encouraging your candidate to do the same thing you demanded of George Bush -- sign the 180 and release all of his military records. You may not believe it, but I'd love to be proved wrong on this point. But until we see the records, all of the evidence at hand tells us that Alston lied, and that means that Kerry and his other band of brothers are complicit in the lie.

UPDATE III: In case you're linking directly to this post, Byron York at NRO has pushed the story forward, and I've posted on his article here. York spoke with Short, who says that Alston returned to active duty on 4 March or shortly afterwards. He served with Kerry for a week, including two combat engagements -- neither of which were the ones Kerry and Alston used in their speeches. Not only does that length of service call into question Alston's credentials as an expert on Kerry, but the falsifications in their campaigning over the past two years should render their credibility as moot.

Auf Wiedersehen, Gerhardt

The Financial Times in London reports that the US plans on substantial reductions in its military deployments in Europe as part of a global repositioning of American military forces. 70,000 troops -- the bulk of the shift -- will leave Germany, in a move that will no doubt heavily impact the German economy just in time for Gerhardt Schroeder's re-election:

The US is expected to announce on Monday that it is pulling 70,000 troops out of Europe and Asia in the largest restructuring of its global military presence since the second world war.

People briefed on the plan say two-thirds of the reductions will come in Europe, most of them military personnel stationed in Germany who will be sent back to US bases.

An additional 100,000 support staff and military families worldwide will be part of the realignment.

Some of the forces being moved are coming out of Korea, but those troops have already been earmarked for Iraq. The rest will come home to the US, along with the large civilian contingent of support jobs and dependents. The support jobs used to be filled by civilians, and the dependents used to spend their money in German shops and stores. Make no mistake -- George Bush is sending a message to the Germans, and in case they don't get it the first time around, there are still more troops, more specialties that can be pulled out later on.

Of course, the DoD says this has nothing to do with Germany's opposition to just about any initiative coming from the US over the past four years:

The Bush administration has been re-evaluating the US military's global posture almost since its first days in office. Senior Pentagon officials emphasised that the move was not intended as a punishment for Germany's lack of support in the Iraq war.

If you buy that, I have swampland in Florida to sell you too. I believe Schroeder will be standing for re-election again in 2005. When German shops see their business drop off and start having to close, do you think the Germans will still be as enthusiastic about their Chancellor's nose-thumbing towards the US?

Moving our troops makes good sense, militarily and economically, for the US. The German-heavy deployment represents a strategy that is at least fifteen years out of date. Moving them now makes good strategic sense, too, as allowing the Germans to show us up diplomatically without any consequences only encourages more of that behavior later on -- a nuance that I feel sure John Kerry won't grasp at all. (Hat tip to reader Retired Military)

UPDATE: Ach du lieber! I've corrected the spelling on the post title. Big hat tip to Ann and her blog.

More On Alston's Service With Kerry, From The Kerry Campaign

For those of you who may still be questioning Tom "River Rat" Mortensen's query about David Alston and his service with John Kerry, he dug up an interesting bit of information from the Kerry campaign web site itself. Here's the timeline that Kerry/Edwards provides on John Kerry's service in Viet Nam. Note that in December 1968, Kerry commanded PCF-44, while Alston served on PCF-94. Here's the critical timeline portion that makes little sense:

January 22, 1969

Kerry and other Swift boat commanders travel to Saigon for meeting with Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, Commander Naval Forces Vietnam (COMNAVFORV), and Gen. Creighton Abrams, Commander United States Military Assistance Command Vietnam (COMUSMACV)

Late January, 1969

Kerry joined his 5 man crew on PCF-94

Why "Late January"? After all, Zumwalt's meeting date is specifically given, and that seems a lot less memorable than receiving your second command in two months. How long was the meeting in Saigon -- and how long were the Swift boat commanders there?

Next, note how Kerry gives Alston prominent mention in this passage:

Late January through Early March, 1969

Starting in late January 1969, this crew completed 18 missions over an intense and dangerous 48 days, almost all of them in the dense jungles of the Mekong Delta. Kerry's crew included engineman Eugene Thorson, later an Iowa cement mason; David Alston, then the crew's only African-American and today a minister in South Carolina; petty officer Del Sandusky of Illinois; rear gunner and quartermaster Michael Medeiros of California; and the late Tom Belodeau, who joined the crew fresh out of Chelmsford High School in Massachusetts. Others rotated in and out of the crew. The most intense action came during an extraordinary eight days of more than 10 firefights, remembered by Kerry's crew as the "days of hell."

Now let's take a look at that WIA report on Alston that Kerry had up on his site before removing it, and for good reason [emphases mine]:

AWFA: GMG2 DAVID MARION Alston, USN, 99T 57 46 BRAVO: ACTIVE DUTY, ATTACHED TO COASTAL DIVISION ELEVEN AT AN THOI, RVN CHARLIE: INJURY, HOSTILE FIRE DELTA: 29, JAN 69, 1030H, SONG CUA LON - SONG BO DE, WHILE SERVING AS FORWARD GUNNER ABOARD PCF 94, ENGAGED IN CORDON AND SEARCH OPERATIONS IN THE ABOVE RIVER, GMG2 Alston RECEIVED SHRAPNEL WOUNDS TO HIS HEAD WHEN PCF CAME UNDER INTENSE HOSTILE ROCKET AND A/W FIRE. ECHO: CONDITION GOOD, PROGNOSIS GOOD. PRESENCE OF NOK IS NOT MEDICALLY WARRANTED AS REPORTED BY CORPSMAN. FOXTROT: MRS. IDA MCQUILLAR ALSTON, MOTHER GOLF: NOK NOT OFFICIALLY NOTIFIED. REQ NOK NOT REPEAT NOT BE NOTIFIED. HOTEL: SERVICEMAN TREATED BY CORPSMAN AND MEDEVACED TO 29TH EVAC HOSP. BINH THUY. 2. PATIENT ABL TO COMMUNICATE WITH NOK. 3. NO FURTHER INFO WILL FOLLOW.

On January 22, Kerry was in Saigon with Admiral Zumwalt and the other Swift boat commanders. On January 29, Alston was wounded in action. Alston took shrapnel wounds to the head, an injury serious enough that he was medevaced to the hospital at Binh Thuy. Even had Kerry been in command of PCF-94 that day, and all information so far shows that Peck was in command and wounded in the same action, he and Alston could only have "served on the same boat" for a maximum of six days.

Here's what Tom has to say about this timeline, and especially about the odd timeline problem with Alston and the disappearance of Fred Short, who replaced Alston in February 1969 on PCF-94:

Kerry was on PCF-44 until at least until 21 January 69. He was in Saigon with Zumwalt on 22 Jan 69 (see below). Alston and Peck were wounded on 29 January 69. Below you will see they claim Alston was on the PCF-94 from “late January to mid-march” . This is impossible as Alston was wounded and hospitalized. There is no mention of Fred Short who received a medal, NCM w/c V, for the “Silver Star” action on 28 Feb 69.

I’m beginning to think the photo of Kerry with Alston was taken between 23 Jan and 29 Jan. For what reason, I don’t know. It may have been that Kerry was in a “crew familiarization” period with the guys on PCF-94 before the action that wounded and hospitalized Peck and Alston. What it says is Alston never served under Kerry’s command as he was wounded and hospitalized on the 29th. There is no record of Kerry being aboard PCF-94 on 29 Jan.

Tom says Kerry needs to sign the 180. So do I.

Swift Vet Ad Makes Strong Inroads Among Independents: Study

An independent analysis of the reaction of independent voters from the Swiftvet television ads has been completed by Muhlenberg College and HCD Research and the results posted here. The study group consisted of 371 independent voters who self-described their political leanings thusly:

Conservative: 4.31 %
Somewhat conservative: 12.67%
Moderate: 42.32%
Somewhat liberal: 16.98%
Liberal: 4.31%
Unsure: 19.41%

As people can see, the moderates in the middle plus the "unsure" dominate the mix, but the outliers seem tilted a bit towards liberals. More on that later.

I won't get into the entire methodology -- after all, the report is on line -- but the analysis is pretty thorough. Analysis is given on interest and credibility on a moment-to-moment basis throughout the commercial, and both rise continuously as the Swiftvets speak. But the Kerry camp has to be concerned with the overall analysis of the commercial's impact on independents:

According to AdverTest real-time tracking data, Independents showed strong belief in the Swift Boat ad. Furthermore, belief rose as the video progressed, which suggests that the continuous clips of veterans denouncing Kerry each add more credibility to the ad as a whole. (Page 14) ...

Not only did Independent viewers consciously attest to the persuasiveness of the Swift Boat ad, but they also reconsidered intentions to vote for Kerry at startling levels after viewing the video. (Page 15) ...

The researchers did a comparative analysis between the SBVT ad and a Kerry campaign ad, and the Kerry ad fared rather poorly:

In overall persuasiveness, Independents were more convinced by the attacks of the Swift Boat ad than by the supporting message of the Kerry ad. 53.89% of Independent viewers agreed to some extent that the Swift Boat ad was persuasive. Meanwhile, 43.25% felt so about the Kerry ad. Also, the Swift Boat ad managed to outperform the Kerry ad yet again in the intensity with which viewers accepted its message. 15.03% of Swift Boat ad viewers chose the strongest level of agreement with the notion that the ad is persuasive, while only 7.30% of Kerry ad viewers did so. (Page 15)

But here's the worst of the bad news for John Kerry -- all that persuasiveness really does result in independents being persuaded to fall away from Kerry like a Swiftboat running towards the open sea ... away from Cambodia:

Perhaps the most astonishing demonstration of the Swift Boat ad’s effectiveness, however, is the proportion of potential Kerry voters whose opinions shifted after having watched the ad.

Independents intending to vote for Kerry felt considerably less sure of their choice after watching the Swift Boat ad. Before the ad, 41.94% of Independents intending to vote for Kerry felt that they would “definitely” vote for him; 37.10% felt “most likely” to vote for him; 20.97% were “leaning” towards him; and none were “not sure.”

These levels of commitment changed markedly after viewing the Swift Boat ad. Independents “definitely” voting for Kerry dropped to 29.03%. Those “most likely” to vote for him were relatively unchanged at 33.87%. Those “leaning” towards Kerry dropped to 9.68%. Finally, Independents “not sure” of their initial choice of Kerry increased substantially to 27.42%. This substantial change attests to the effectiveness of the Swift Boat ad’s attacks.

Voters who definitely intended to support Kerry drop by almost 13 points after seeing one 30-second ad, and leaners drop by over half. Kerry lost 23 points from this single advertisement, and the study was done before the collapse of Kerry's Cambodian Christmas myth. Not only that, but this was a left-leaning sample group. In other words, this ad may be political Kryptonite for the Democrats. No wonder they've sicced their lawyers onto every television station in the country who wants to run it!

The summation says it all very clearly: "These results should dismay the Kerry campaign." Using that picture of the Swiftboat officers as a campaign prop may be the biggest blunder in modern Presidential politics, maybe the worst since Gerald Ford liberated Poland in 1976, or Jimmy Carter made his teenage daughter Amy his chief policy advisor in 1980. (Hat tip to reader Xavier)

Cambodian Christmas Flops -- In San Francisco

With his campaign being pounded by the very "band of brothers" that John Kerry invoked time and again on the stump, his advisors have been working overtime on two tracks: discredit the veterans he once presumed would wholeheartedly support him and keep the story out of the mainstream press. While the Kerry/Edwards camp has had some limited success in smearing a couple of the Swiftvets, the dam is about to burst on the second front, and the latest leak springs from San Francisco -- normally as safe as any area in the country for Kerry. The San Francisco Examiner published an op-ed by Kathleen Antrim today that challenges Kerry to open the records or admit he's lied:

John F. Kerry's campaign for president is imploding. And he knows it.

The anti-war candidate went public as a pro-war candidate this week, and the members of his beloved "Band of Brothers" are exposing a whole book's worth of ugly lies. And they've got details, evidence, footnotes, signed affidavits and witnesses who back up their claims.

Kerry himself bestowed immense credibility on his "Band of Brothers" when he used a picture of some of them in his campaign ad titled "Lifetime."

Essentially, Kerry made Vietnam, and these men, the centerpiece of his campaign. Of course, that was when he thought they'd support his candidacy. No matter that he'd never bothered to ask their permission to use them to promote his political career.

Now, however, the Kerry campaign is on a search-and-destroy mission to attack the credibility of these same men -- calling them liars, all 60 of them, and saying they didn't serve in the military with him. Really? Then why'd Kerry use their pictures in his ad campaign?

People may have forgotten in the intervening months that the Swiftvets did not just spring forth from nothingness, like Minerva from the mind of Zeus. They first organized when John Kerry suddenly began using their likenesses in a strategic blunder early in the primary season in order to boost his credentials as the "electable" candidate. Their outrage over being used as political tools by a man they detested for his post-war slanders on their service and character inspired them to form Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth in order to answer Kerry's foolish assumption of their endorsement.

Antrim then notes the curious but utterly predictable reaction from the Left and the Kerry campaign whenever hit by heavy criticism, especially that for which they have no good response: character assassination and attempts at intimidation through lawsuits. For a campaign that has had no qualms about charging the current administration of running roughshod on American liberties, Kerry/Edwards also had no hesitation in trying to squelch the Swiftvets' political speech, an egregious moment considering the price these men paid to uphold those rights. Antrim says:

With accusations flying, Kerry's version of free speech has shrunk down to only one veteran: himself. All others must be silenced.

This is called "damage control," folks, and it's in high gear because Kerry knows he's in trouble here. Big trouble.

Of course, this whole matter could be cleared up if Kerry would release his Vietnam records and his personal journal. It's a simple matter to release these records, requiring only a standard Form 180.

Surely the Kerry campaign knows what a Form 180 is -- they pestered George Bush into signing one by calling him a deserter for months. In fact, even after Bush signed it and released his records showing he fulfilled his service, they still call him that. So why doesn't Kerry do the same? Why are Bush's records germane when Bush didn't even make his service part of his campaign, while Kerry's are off-limits even though he's based his whole campaign on those four months?

Sign the 180, Senator! Until you do and we see these records, all of the mumbling about CIA/SEAL/Green Beret missions and faulty yet seared memories only emphasize your lack of courage and the Swiftvets' credibility.

Did David Alston Ever Serve On Kerry's Swift Boat?

Decorated Vietnam veteran (Navy) and CQ reader Tom "River Rat" Mortensen sent me an article that he also sent to media outlets as part of the campaign to reveal the truth about Kerry's service in Viet Nam. Much has been made about the Swiftvets not having served on John Kerry's boat, except for Stephen Gardner, who has been a tireless advocate for SBVT. Kerry's campaign keeps pointing to the men who sailed with Kerry on PCF-44 and PCF-94. One of them, David Alston, spoke at the Democratic convention in support of Kerry and remarked constantly about their service together.

But did Alston, who suffered real and serious wounds from battle, ever actually serve on Kerry's boat as he and Kerry claim? Here is the article written by SBVT member Bandit and that Mortensen helped research. Because of its length, most of it is on the extended entry (click the link to read the rest).

If not, and the article sounds pretty damning, it would point to a conspiracy between Kerry and several of his "band of brothers" to build a false record for this campaign. Because if David Alston and John Kerry have misrepresented their relationship, each of those men who stood behind Kerry must know it, with the exception of Jim Rassman. Indeed, based on this research, only a complete release of the military records of both Kerry and Alston would be able to clear up this discrepancy. Mortensen writes:

"The following article was placed in the public domain today at http://idexer.com/articles/alston_kerry.htm . I have worked with its author over the last week in researching David Alston’s service with John Kerry.

I personally would not have released it without further investigation of Alston’s whereabouts during January of 1969. I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to contact Captain Theodore Peck, Captain, USNR (ret). I believe he lives in Santa Rosa, California.

Possibly you will be more successful in doing so. At the least a call should be made for David Alston to release his service records for January, February, and March of 1969 so that this matter may be clarified."

Release the records, Senator Kerry. Sign the 180!

For years now we have been lead to believe that both Sen. Kerry and the Rev. David Alston had served together on the PCF-94 in Vietnam, and therefore, making David Alston an eyewitness to Kerry's actions and heroism. The fact that Sen. Kerry has used a now famous photo of himself together with David Alston and other crewmates while serving on swift boats in Vietnam, left little reason to believe otherwise. As with most anything having to do with Sen. Kerry -- nothing is ever as it first appears to be.

There can be little doubt that Sen. Kerry and David Alston wanted people to believe the two served together on the PCF-94 swift boat by some of their recent comments:

"We were in a lot of firefights," Alston said. "You learn a lot about people. After a firefight, John would come up to me and he would put his hand on me and he'd say, 'David, are you all right?'" And Kerry added: "I didn't know then that I had a man of God on my boat. That's probably why I'm here today." (Orlando Sentinel, 1/31/04)

"I stand here before you only because almighty God saw our boat safely through those rivers of death and destruction, by giving us a brave, wise, and decisive leader named John Kerry." (David Alston in a speech before the Democratic Convention)

"I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos_. Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool." (David Alston in a speech before the Democratic Convention)

Rev. David Alston says, "When the bullets started to hit the side of the ship, we found out that John Kerry [could] lead. (Kerry for President Campaign Ad that aired early February '04)

Only problem with the above statements is that they are most [certainly] false because David Alston was never a crew member under Sen. Kerry nor could he had ever participated in combat operations with Sen. Kerry because they were assigned to two different boats. From December 14 to January 29, 1969 Sen. Kerry commanded the PCF-44 while David Alston was the Gunner onboard the PCF-94 under Lt.(jg) Peck. On January 29, 1969 both Peck and Alston were wounded and hospitalized. We know Alston was wounded on that date because his casualty report was made available briefly by the Kerry Campaign before they had removed it. Here is what it said:

AWFA: GMG2 DAVID MARION Alston, USN, 99T 57 46
BRAVO: ACTIVE DUTY, ATTACHED TO COASTAL DIVISION ELEVEN AT AN THOI, RVN
CHARLIE: INJURY, HOSTILE FIRE
DELTA: 29, JAN 69, 1030H, SONG CUA LON - SONG BO DE, WHILE SERVING AS FORWARD GUNNER ABOARD PCF 94, ENGAGED IN CORDON AND SEARCH OPERATIONS IN THE ABOVE RIVER, GMG2 Alston RECEIVED SHRAPNEL WOUNDS TO HIS HEAD WHEN PCF CAME UNDER INTENSE HOSTILE ROCKET AND A/W FIRE.
ECHO: CONDITION GOOD, PROGNOSIS GOOD. PRESENCE OF NOK IS NOT MEDICALLY WARRANTED AS REPORTED BY CORPSMAN.
FOXTROT: MRS. IDA MCQUILLAR ALSTON, MOTHER
GOLF: NOK NOT OFFICIALLY NOTIFIED. REQ NOK NOT REPEAT NOT BE NOTIFIED.
HOTEL: SERVICEMAN TREATED BY CORPSMAN AND MEDEVACED TO 29TH EVAC HOSP. BINH THUY.
2. PATIENT ABL TO COMMUNICATE WITH NOK.
3. NO FURTHER INFO WILL FOLLOW.

This confirms the date of David Alston's wounds, but it does not tell how seriously wounded David Alston was. There is no military medical records available for David Alston, and you cannot go by this casualty reports description of "condition good" because they will always be worded that way even if you had both legs shattered -- and then there is the fact no medical doctor had yet evaluated him. We can get a sense of the severity from the missing time Alston was away from the PCF-94, at least 28 days (Feb. 1-28.) If it was a minor wound he would not had to have been replaced all through February. We can also see today see the severity of the wound Alston suffered as shown below from Rev. Alston addressing Democratic Convention delegates.

As one can see, it was a sever[e] wound indeed, and Alston most likely lost tissue and scalp from this injury. We know this wound is from Jan. 29th and not by a later condition/injury because Alston's mother has refered to it as his "war wound." This is important evidence for dating another picture of him with Sen. Kerry below.

Now let's take a closer look at Alston.

No signs of a serious head wound, or the treatment of such a wound, which would had required visible head shaving that would still had been visible weeks later if this picture had been taken in early March 1969 as sometimes suggested by writers. Thus, we can be confident that the picture in question was taken prior to January 29, a time when Sen. Kerry was still skipper of the PCF-44 and Alston was the gunner on the PCF-94. How did Sen. Kerry get in this picture then? We know Coastal Division 11 and 13 were participating in joint operations in January of 1969 from the Command History of Division 11 released by the Navy, and no doubt that the crews from each division shared the same faculties.

Now that we know when and how Alston was wounded, we can began to see how Alston could not have been part of Sen. Kerry's crew on the PCF-94 because he had been replaced, just as the wounded Lt. Peck had been replaced by Kerry after the January 29th incident that lead to both Alston and Peck being hospitalized. Was David Alston able to return to the PCF-94 during anytime between February 1 and March 13, Kerry's last combat mission? No evidence that he did or even the suggestion he physically could have with the injury he had suffered, because we know that on February 28, 1969, Fred Short was onboard and described as an replacement for a wounded David Alston. We Know David Alston was not onboard for Kerry's last combat mission on March 13, either. Therefore, we can confidently say David Alston was never part of Kerry's PCF-94 crew from February 1 through March 13, 1969 because he was still recovering from his head wounds.

David Alston's mother also implies that in an July 28, 2004 interview with The Herald that after David was wounded on January 29, 1969 and survived, he came home.

Could the Rev. David Alston have served on another boat with Sen. Kerry? The Rev. Alston has discounted this theory before the world when spoke from the podium during the Democratic National Convention:

"I know him from a small boat in Vietnam, where we fought and bled together, serving our country. There were six of us aboard PCF-94, a 50-foot, twin-engine craft known as a "Swift Boat." We all came from different walks of life, but all of us-including our skipper, John Kerry-volunteered for combat duty. And combat is what we got."

So clearly he was on no other boat other than the PCF-94, and this is consistent with documents and eyewitness reports.

One other question that needs answered is whether David Alston could had been able to participate in combat missions with Kerry from a different swift boat? Looking at the daily combat missions for Coastal Division 11 for January 1969 we do not find both the PCF-44 (Kerry's boat) and the PCF-94 (Alston's boat) involved in any joint missions together. December offers no window of opportunity either since according to Kerry's fitrep (Fitness Report) he could only had taken over command of the PCF-44 until after December 14, 1969, and again, logs do not place the PCF-44 and 94 on any joint missions together during middle of December to January 1.

This conclusion is further supported by the fact David Alston, or any other Kerry crewmember, has ever ventured to describe specific missions that Alston and Kerry could have participated in. All discussion of Alston and Kerry together is vague, generalized and non-specific. On the other hand, his other crewmates can talk about specific missions and acts such as the day Sen. Kerry killed a fleeing enemy soldier.

Everything we were told by David Alston, Sen. Kerry and his people clearly cannot be true in regards to Kerry's Vietnam relationship with David Alston. This is not a mere little slip of the tongue, but an orchestrated scheme over the last few years to outright deceive people about Sen. Kerry's military service. Why did the Rev. David Alston insist he and Kerry served together on the PCF-94?

"I owe John Kerry my life," the Rev. David Alston was quoted as saying, "But John Kerry owes his life to me, too." Good possibility that Sen. Kerry indeed may owe his political life to some of his former crewmates, including Alston at this stage.

Another troubling question arises from this disclosure -- why hasn't any of Sen. Kerry's supporting "Band of Brothers" stepped forward and correct the record of the Kerry/Alston relationship, something they would know firsthand cannot be possible? Perhaps for the same reason none of them have volunteered to correct other known discrepancies in Sen. Kerry's stated record, such as Sen. Kerry being the officer in charge of the PCF-94 during January of 1969 when in fact he was not. Of course, if Kerry could have place himself on the PCF-94 during January, he and Alston could than say, with a straight honest face that they both had served together on the PCF-94.

Even The Gray Lady Isn't Fooled By McGreevey's Martyr Complex

New Jersey Governor James McGreevey resigned yesterday, announcing that despite his marriage and two children, he is a "gay American" who had an affair with another man. Rather than withstand the notoriety, he claimed to resign in order to give his family some peace and allow New Jersey to move forward, even without him at the helm. Gay rights activists immediately proclaimed McGreevy a martyr, and bloggers like Kos felt free to insult the straights:

This is a shame. F**k the people who force people like McGreevey to hide in a closet.

It didn't take long for the larger story to come out and make Kos look like an idiot. Even the New York Times editorial page knew better, and today they explain that McGreevey's resignation had little to do with his sexual orientation:

Yesterday, New Jersey's governor, James McGreevey, described his coming to grips with his sexual orientation with uncommon grace and dignity, offering an extraordinary glimpse into the private torment that can accompany a public life lived in the closet. "My truth is that I am a gay American,'' he said. If that had been the beginning and the end of the story, we would be celebrating Mr. McGreevey's candor, not assessing his resignation. But the story - like Mr. McGreevey's statement - was incomplete.

The governor's announcement was reportedly driven by the threat of a sexual harassment lawsuit by a former aide, Golan Cipel. Mr. McGreevey, who has two children from his two marriages and whose wife stood next to him during his press conference, acknowledged that he had committed adultery with another man. He did not say that the man in question had worked for his administration.

Gay or straight, that kind of relationship raises troubling questions, apart from the issue of whether it was consensual. Mr. Cipel was originally appointed as the governor's homeland security adviser, a job for which he had no discernable qualifications. If Mr. McGreevey put someone in that critical post because of a personal relationship, that would be an outrage, regardless of his sexual orientation.

Perhaps Kos would like to explain to us how he figures that the Times, with its sympathy to gay-rights issues, qualifies as one of the "people who force [gays] to live in the closet". Or, perhaps, Kos has not yet recovered from his chronic case of cerebralrectalitis.

In either case, it's apparent that McGreevey had a lot more going on in the state capitol than an affair with a man -- he abused his power by getting his lover a position for which that person was eminently unqualified. And the fact that the position headed up New Jersey's homeland-security efforts, and that McGreevey was told by DHS officials that Cipel could not get the necessary clearances and McGreevy still refused to replace him, not only speaks to personal corruption but a tremendous lack of judgement and a selfishness that borders on the absurd. After all, many of those that lost loved ones in the World Trade Center live in the Garden State. How do they feel about having their security traded off for a little nooky?

Under these circumstances, McGreevey should have been ridden out of town on a rail even if he was as straight as Casanova. McGreevey took one last opportunity to boost himself with lies and deceit. For those who took the bait, shame on yourselves. Even the Times knew better than that.

Gallup: Bush Maintaining Head-To-Head, 3-Way Leads

As I mentioned below, Gallup has released its latest polling, and it shows George Bush maintaining a thin lead over John Kerry among both likely voters and the wider, less-reliable registered voter sampling. Bush leads Kerry 50-47 (LV), almost unchanged from two weeks ago, when Gallup polled as the Democratic convention closed. Among registered voters, Bush leads 48-47, a statistical dead heat.

David Moore writes this about the lack of movement:

The changes from the last poll are within the polls' margins of error, suggesting the contest has been essentially steady over the past several weeks. Indeed, the average levels of support for the candidates in the past three polls are identical to the current results.

"Essentially steady" sounds fine, until you realize that during this period, John Kerry selected John Edwards as his VP candidate and held his national convention. Even with all of that going on, Kerry could not budge in the polls. That is a disaster for the Democrats, even if they all want people to believe that partisanship is at an all-time high and they never expected much of a bounce coming from the convention. If so, why spend the money on staging one? Why not just do a call-in nomination at the end of August to nominate John Kerry and spend the money on advertising?

The news does not improve for Kerry in Moore's next paragraph:

The current poll also shows that 51% of Americans approve, and 46% disapprove, of the way Bush is handling his job as president. For the last three months, Bush has averaged 48% approval and 49% disapproval. The current figures are a slight improvement for Bush and represent the first time he has been above the symbolically important 50% level since mid-April.

So Bush has pushed himself back up after the brutal primary campaigning into re-election territory. Kerry has yet to dent Bush, and Bush hasn't even had his convention yet. Why? Despite Kerry's focus on security and Iraq, Gallup shows that Bush has made steady improvements in these areas, boosting his overall performance rating:

The slight improvement in Bush's overall job rating could result from slightly more positive assessments of his handling of the terrorism and Iraq issues. While a majority of Americans continue to disapprove of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq (45% approve, 52% disapprove), this rating has improved slightly from a 42% approval to 56% disapproval rating in a June 21-23 poll.

Bush continues to receive his highest marks on his handling of the terrorism issue, with 57% approving and 40% disapproving. This rating is slightly better than the 54% to 44% rating Bush received in mid-June.

As always, the more Kerry talks about security issues, the more people turn back to George Bush.

Kerry: I Voted Against Yucca Flats After I Voted For It

USA Today (via Yahoo) points out yet another John Kerry flip-flop in a story that headlines the resurgence of George Bush's approval ratings above the 50% mark. Kerry had attacked Bush for moving nuclear waste to the federal dump at Yucca Flats in a rather obvious attempt to curry favor with Nevada voters. However, Bush pointed out that Kerry voted to make the site a nuclear waste dump in the Senate:

On Thursday, Bush charged his rival with turning a contentious environmental issue here into "a political poker chip."

In his 2000 campaign, Bush said "science, not politics," would determine whether he designated Nevada's Yucca Mountain as a depository for nuclear waste. As president, Bush approved the designation, recommended by the Energy Department, and Nevada opponents cried foul.

Kerry, in Nevada on Tuesday, said Bush broke his 2000 campaign promise. Kerry has voted for legislation that included provisions to allow nuclear dumps at Yucca, but in direct votes on whether to ship waste there, he voted no.

Are we seeing the pattern behind John Kerry's political calculations? Earlier this week he attempted to parse the difference between authorizing the use of force and deploying the troops. Earlier in the campaign, Kerry also tried to explain away that vote for the war and his later vote to defund it, while the troops were engaged in fighting. The Kerry triangulation strategy consists of voting for unpleasant options in principle but then loudly obstructing their actual implementation.

No wonder Kerry loves the UN.

USA Today also has this to say about Bush's approval ratings:

President Bush's job-approval rating, a key indicator of an incumbent's chance of being re-elected, has turned upward, the Gallup Poll finds. The share of Americans who say they approve of the job Bush is doing inched over the 50% mark to 51%. No president who was at or above 50% at this point in an election year has lost. ...

The poll finds the presidential race essentially tied: Bush leads Kerry 48%-46% among likely voters; independent Ralph Nader has 3%. The difference between Bush and Kerry is within the poll's error margin of +/- 4 percentage points.

As more of Kerry's nuance on the issues and lies about his Viet Nam experience get exposed, you can expect that moderates will be reassessing Bush's job performance, to Kerry's detriment. There is plenty of room for honorable opposition to Bush's policies. Kerry leaves no room for any policy opposition because he continually says one thing and does the opposite. Even Bill Clinton wasn't this slippery on policy.

Sadr Injured As Mahdis Reel From Blow

The BBC reports that radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has been injured "in three places" in the heavy fighting in Najaf, and the joint Iraqi-American offensive against the Mahdi militia has resulted in stunning losses for the part-time rebel:

The radical Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr has been wounded in fighting in the holy city of Najaf, according to his spokesmen. There are no details as yet about Mr Sadr's condition, though he was said to have been wounded "in three places". ...

Mr Sadr is said to be holed up in the sacred compound housing the shrine with his followers. He has urged supporters to keep up the fight even if he is killed or arrested.

His aides had tears in their eyes as they spoke of his injuries.

It's not their only reason to cry; according to the BBC, the battle has them almost at the point of annihilation:

Defence Minister Hazim al-Shalaan said 1,200 suspected fighters - many of them non-Iraqis - had been captured in the huge cemetery which has become a key battleground in Najaf.

He also claimed several successes for the Iraqi security forces in various parts of Iraq:

* Iraqi forces repelled attacks by Sadr-related groups in Nasiriya, capturing 47 fighters.
* In Kut, 400 insurgents were defeated.
* Protests, some violent, had been staged in Amara.
* Iraqi forces isolated militants inside Baghdad's Sadr City area by blocking exits; 300 explosive devices were found.
* Elsewhere in Baghdad, safe houses used by former Baathists were attacked and the leader of a "dangerous group" was arrested.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani claims that had he known that the Iraqi government would have authorized a crackdown on this scale, he never would have left Iraq for medical treatment in London. However, some have openly questioned whether Sistani knowingly stepped aside to allow Allawi to finally eliminate Sadr as a rebel and as a threat to Sistan's moderate power base. In either case, the Allawi government has made shrewd use of Sistani's absence, whether his intention or not, and their timing will allow Sistani to maintain his credibility among the Shi'a while Sadr's soon-to-be permanent absence will fragment the radicals.

Losing 1,200 fighters in the cemetery battlefield would constitute the better part of the entire Mahdi militia. Sadr doesn't have much left. Allawi has extended an offer for those who occupy the Imam Ali mosque to surrender honorably and be treated well, but it appears that the offer did not extend to Sadr himself. It would not surprise me to if the Iraqis invade the mosque within the next 48 hours.

Allawi, it appears, means business.

NY Sun Tries To Break The Media Blockade

I don't know how I missed this, but while the New York Times has been busy plugging its ears over the Christmas in Cambodia myth, Ira Stoll has been trying to get through the media blockade in the Big Apple. On Wednesday, Stoll ran this editorial in the Sun gently urging Kerry to clear the record and tell the truth:

Mr. Kerry seems to want voters to think he's fit to lead in the current war because he fought in Vietnam. He says the president lied to America about Vietnam, and, similarly, he has accused President Bush of misleading America into war in Iraq. He vowed Friday to "get our troops home where they belong."

It is this connection between the past war and the present one that
makes the issue worth pursuing.Mr. Kerry returned from Vietnam, after all, to join with an anti-war movement that made wildly exaggerated, shameful claims of American war crimes and that described American actions in Southeast Asia as imperialist aggression. Cambodia ‹ America secretly invading a supposedly neutral country without democratic authorization ‹ was part of those exaggerations and distortions, a new round of which America's efforts in the war on terror are now subject to from a new anti-war movement with its roots in Mr. Kerry's political party.

Mr. Kerry did the right thing in going to Vietnam as a young man. He
fought for a noble cause, and we have seen no evidence so far that his
service there was anything less than honorable. All of which is why his reluctance to clarify the facts on the Cambodia issue is so puzzling, and why the point strikes us as worth pressing.

Bravo to Mr. Stoll, who launched the Sun a couple of years ago after running the Gray Lady watchdog site, smartertimes.com, and writing for the Wall Street Journal for several years. I enjoyed reading his regular contributions at OpinionJournal.com, and I'm glad to see that he steers his paper firmly in the direction of truth.

New York Times Discovers UNSCAM .... Finally

The Gray Lady has finally cast her shaded eyes across town to Turtle Bay and discovered that the institution it has held up as the epitome of international justice allowed one of the worst dictators in recent history to stuff his pockets to the tune of $10 billion, with de facto approval from the highest levels of the UN. This is hardly news to those who read the Wall Street Journal and the indefatigable Claudia Rosett, but given the New York Times' editorial insistence on UN approval on all aspects of international relations, it represents a shocking reversal:

Oil industry experts told Security Council members and Secretary General Kofi Annan's staff that Iraq was demanding under-the-table payoffs from its oil buyers. The British mission distributed a background paper to Council members outlining what it called "the systematic abuse of the program" and described how Iraq was shaking down its oil customers and suppliers of goods for kickbacks.

When the report landed in the United Nations' Iraq sanctions committee, the clearinghouse for all contracts with Iraq, it caused only a few ripples of consternation. There was no action, diplomats said, not even a formal meeting on the allegations.

Since the fall of Mr. Hussein, the oil-for-food program has received far more scrutiny than it ever did during its six years of operation. Congress's General Accounting Office has estimated that the Iraqi leader siphoned at least $10 billion from the program by illicitly trading in oil and collecting kickbacks from companies that had United Nations approval to do business with Iraq.

Multiple investigations now under way in Washington and Iraq and at the United Nations all center on one straightforward question: How did Mr. Hussein amass so much money while under international sanctions?

An examination of the program, the largest in the United Nations' history, suggests an equally straightforward answer: The United Nations let him do it.

Now the Times has linked Kofi Annan's staff, and presumably therefore Annan himself, to the corruption, and based on the Times' reporting, it could hardly look any worse. How bad did it get? Even the Iranians tried to tip off the sanctions committee, just to get shined on. If you want to know why the corruption ran so rampant, all you need to hear is this limp excuse from the man who controlled the entire program, Benon Sevan:

Mr. Sevan, the Cypriot who headed the program, has denied that he received any kickbacks and would only say in a statement that his office was not responsible for ferreting out corruption. Congressional investigators this year disputed that claim, citing United Nations resolutions.

So the man who was in charge considered himself little more than the program's bookkeeper. He certainly took little executive interest in the program, at least officially, although Sevan himself faces allegations of payoffs as well, which would make his laissez-faire approach to enforcement a lot more understandable.

Read the whole thing. Most of it is just a well-organized collection of information that we already know from having read Rosett, but there are a few surprises along the way. For instance, there's this passage that made me laugh out loud:

Evidence of fraud passed from office to office in a round robin ending nowhere.

A former State Department official who was part of an interagency committee that reviewed trade contracts with Iraq said the group detected "abnormalities in pricing that suggested fees and kickbacks."

The former officials said the committee "asked why Iraq needed to import gilded tiles for palaces, or liposuction equipment."

Why did they need liposuction? Because Saddam was getting fat off of UNSCAM, that's why, and he wasn't the only one, either.

Christmas In Cambodia, Part VIII: Now It's Fete Du Roi?

With the Christmas in Cambodia myth collapsing all around him, Matt Drudge is flashing the news that John Kerry has turned to official biographer Douglas Brinkley -- whose previous work never mentioned Kerry's purported foray into Cambodia -- to recast his mission in January rather than December:

TOUR OF DUTY author and John Kerry historian Doug Brinkley is rushing a piece for the NEW YORKER: to set-the-record-straight on Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia tale, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Kerry has turned to author Brinkley for a "modification" after it was exposed that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968, as he once claimed from the Senate floor.

The Brinkley piece for the NEW YORKER will now say that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas, but rather in January, publishing sources tell DRUDGE.

Perhaps John Kerry meant the French celebration of Christmas, fete du roi, all along! The Feast of the King is Janury 6, but that won't be the actual date, nor will "clarification" be the real reason. Stephen Gardner served with Kerry for two months on his swift boat, until the middle of January. Gardner has been outspoken about the fact that he never went into Cambodia, not with John Kerry or anyone else. In fact, Gardner has given quite a lot of background as to how improbable a swift-boat excursion five miles into Cambodia would be, not the least of which is the less-than-stealthy nature of the boat itself. Putting John Kerry in Cambodia at the end of January allows them to cut Gardner off at the knees and avoid dealing with the one man on Kerry's boat that opposes Kerry. It's a transparent ploy to rehabilitate a transparently false story.

It still doesn't address Kerry's repeated assertions that he was ordered into Cambodia on Christmas Eve, a story he has told repeatedly in order to give him credibility. The story included the assertion that Kerry was under friendly fire from friendly Vietnamese shooting weapons to celebrate Christmas, as well as hostile fire from Cambodians. Did the Vietnamese celebrate Christmas in January? Were they also celebrating the French holiday?

Besides, Brinkley left the entire incident of the first biography, presumably for a reason. If he rehabilitates it now, shouldn't that open Brinkley up for questions as to why he ignored the story in the first place? It will be interesting to see if Brinkley takes the bait and puts his own credibility on the line to jump-start Kerry's.

John O'Neill isn't buying it either, and promises that Kerry will need to remain flexible in the coming days as the book, Unfit For Command, is released to the general public:

“John Kerry describes Christmas Eve in Cambodia as a critical turning point in his life. We now know that his story is completely false. My question is how many people do you know have invented a turning point, one that is seared in his memory? While it makes sense for John Kerry to come clean about the Cambodia story, it is one of several tales that the Kerry campaign will have to face and clarify.”

“By claiming we were engaged in a war crime and crossing international borders, John Kerry damaged the credibility of all the commanding officers above him and insulted the sailors who served with him,” said John O’Neill, member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.”

Kerry's backpedaling and the repeated and incoherent attempts of his campaign to spin this into silence reveals the desperation at Kerry/Edwards. All of this, and we've only read one chapter of the book ...

UPDATE: Brinkley already sold out, apparently to the London Telegraph. While conceding that Kerry lied about Christmas in Cambodia for the past 30+ years, now he wants us to believe the Kerry instead made several "black ops" trips across the border, after Gardner left:

"On Christmas Eve he was near Cambodia; he was around 50 miles from the Cambodian border. There's no indictment of Kerry to be made, but he was mistaken about Christmas in Cambodia," said Douglas Brinkley, who has unique access to the candidate's wartime journals.

But Mr Brinkley rejected accusations that the senator had never been to Cambodia, insisting he was telling the truth about running undisclosed "black" missions there at the height of the war.

He said: "Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys." The missions were not armed attacks on Cambodia, said Mr Brinkley, who did not include the clandestine missions in his wartime biography of Mr Kerry, Tour of Duty.

If Brinkley had the information on these clandestine missions when writing the book, why didn't he include them? After all, it wasn't like Kerry kept his supposed incursions a state secret, and it certainly would have been a great selling point. And now it's the unholy trio of black ops -- Navy SEALs, Green Berets, and the CIA, oh my. How convenient that his new missions don't lend themselves to documentation ... but I'm sure that's just a coincidence. (Via reader Allen Lewis)

UPDATE: My good friend and Northern Alliance colleague Big Trunk at Power Line has this to say about Brinkley:

In the event, God forbid, of a Kerry administration, Kerry's faux JFK will play to Brinkley's faux Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who is himself (still) a bastardized version of a real historian.

A faux Arthur Schlesinger? It's like being called a fake cubic zirconia, isn't it? Trunk really knows how to hurt a guy!

Buchanan Hit The Nail On The Head

Let me make one point before getting to the meat of this post: I dislike Pat Buchanan. Not personally -- he seems like an interesting character -- but politically, I find him to be a destructive force and I rarely pay attention to anything he does. However, last night he filled in for Joe Scarborough on MS-NBC and interviewed a number of people on the Swiftvet story. Buchanan scored a direct hit when dealing with Lanny Davis and really focused on the damage that Kerry's numerous lies have done to his credibility -- or should be doing, if they got the coverage they deserve.

Here he speaks with Lanny Davis, who appeared on Kerry's behalf:

BUCHANAN: But let me read you this. All right, hold it.

Now, if John Kerry lied about being in Cambodia, if he lied about being on a secret mission like Martin Sheen, if he lied about not being in Kansas City when he was there when they all chatted about that crazy assassination idea, if he lied about Americans committing rampant war crimes all over Vietnam which he witnessed and which were authorized by his superior, if he lied about all those things, is it not possible he lied about his medals?

DAVIS: If, if, if, could‘a, would‘a, should‘a. And none of those things are true.

Hmm. FBI files put lie to his earlier contention that he had resigned from the Vietnam Veterans Against The War in the summer of 1971, before the Phoenix Project (the assassinations of eight pro-war US Senators) came up for debate at their November 1971 meeting in Kansas City. In fact, Kerry attended that meeting and two witnesses (one of whom works in his campaign) put him in the debate prior to his resignation at that time from the VVAW. Kerry himself retreated from his original statement in March:

Senator Kerry of Massachusetts yesterday retreated from his earlier steadfast denials that he attended a meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which a plan to assassinate U.S. Senators was debated. The reversal came as new evidence, including reports from FBI informants, emerged that contradicted Mr. Kerry’s previous statements about the gathering, which was held in Kansas City, Mo. in November 1971.

“John Kerry had no personal recollection of this meeting 33 years ago,” a Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, said in a statement e-mailed last night from Idaho, where Mr. Kerry is on vacation.

Starting to sound like a pattern?

Does America's Media Outsource All Its Work To The UK?

The London Telegraph went where no American newspaper deigns to go this morning, taking a long and critical look at John Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia myth, doing the work that the American press claims it exists to do. The Telegraph's David Rennie takes apart even the newest claims from the Kerry campaign in its full retreat from this story:

The Kerry campaign responded, initially, that Mr Kerry had always said he was "near" Cambodia. Then a campaign aide said Mr Kerry had been in the Mekong Delta "between" Vietnam and next-door Cambodia - a geographical zone not found on maps, which show the Mekong river running from Cambodia to Vietnam. ...

In newspaper articles, interviews and at least one Senate speech, Mr Kerry has claimed that he spent Christmas 1968 inside Cambodia, at a time when even the US president was publicly denying that American forces were inside that country.

He has cited the missions as a psychological turning point, when he realised that American leaders were not telling the truth to the world about the war in south-east Asia.

Michael Meehan, a Kerry campaign adviser, told ABC Television: "The Mekong Delta consists of the border between Cambodia and Vietnam, so on Christmas Eve in 1968, he was in fact on patrol . . . in the Mekong Delta between Cambodia and Vietnam. He was ambushed, they fired back, he was fired upon from both sides, from the Cambodian side of the border and the Vietnam side during that day in 1968."

As Rennie notes, the physical description given by Meehan makes no sense at all. There is no point in that region where the Mekong Delta is between Viet Nam and Cambodia. The delta itself starts around Sa Dec, which is where Kerry was on Christmas Eve in 1968 -- and that's 55 miles away from Cambodia. It would be similar to stating that the Mississippi Delta was somewhere between Arkansas and Missouri. Maps flatly contradict it. Besides, being shot at from both sides of the border is not the same as being inside Cambodia while the President denied your existence there, which is what Kerry has claimed all along -- and used as an excuse for his anti-war activism.

Even with Meehan's poor excuse, Kerry still lied, and lied for decades about his Cambodian excursion. As the invaluable James Lileks put it so well yesterday, this lie isn't about a political position to be abandoned later when convenient -- this lie is about a fundamental part of who he claims to be, and indeed about his entire motivation for public service. If that is false, what does it say about the man and his motivation? It says that he will say anything, do anything, embrace anything in order to get his hands on the levers of power.

The Left spent the entire campaign shouting "Bush Lied -- People Died!" as a disqualification for the presidency. Now that we've determined that Bush didn't lie, that he represented the intelligence given to him accurately, will the Left hold John Kerry to the same standard? He lied about his Cambodian missions in order to lend credence to his testimony about witnessing systematic atrocities by American servicemen in Viet Nam, leading to our withdrawal -- and the genocide that followed.

Kerry lied, millions died. Millions died.

Is that the leadership that the Left endorses?

UPDATE: Reader Vayapaso (okay, it's my mother) e-mailed me with this point about Kerry's lies that really hits home:

[I]t seems that most the salient point to his lie in 1986 was that his misrepresentation of when or if he was in Cambodia at the time he claims added to the mistrust of the government [emph mine -- CE] and the horrible greetings the men and women faced when they returned from Viet Nam. These people were spit upon, treated as through they were criminals and forced to hide the fact that they put their lives on the line for a duty to their country. It was misstatements of people like Kerry & Fonda that added fuel to an already unrest in this country that had not been seen in recent history...

Kerry and his anti-war activists protested the American government, calling them corrupt liars who abused the trust of the American people. Today's anti-war activists make much the same claims about Bush and Cheney. Doesn't it make a difference that Kerry's main motivation for his activism and later political career, the catalyst that was "seared -- seared" into his memory, was a lie all along? That he used the lie to shower hatred and enmity on his fellow servicepeople? Shouldn't Kerry's use of that lie in the Senate to undercut the support of freedom fighters abuse the trust of the American people? Or is it all just runny crap, a handy excuse for a billboard or a protest slogan?

Washington Post Dances Around Swiftvet Charges

Today's editorial from the Washington Post denigrating the Swiftvets is a mastery of slicing just enough off the truth to retain the sheen of credibility without actually addressing the issues that the Swiftvets have raised. First, the editorial attempts to portray a fairness in its opening paragraphs that it quickly discards later on:

. To the extent, then, that there are legitimate questions about Mr. Kerry's behavior -- either in Vietnam or back home as a prominent antiwar activist -- those are fair game. Mr. Kerry's four-plus months in Vietnam made for an unusually short tour. He used his third Purple Heart to go home early, and his wounds were relatively superficial.

After that, it's Katy bar the door, as the Post goes into full damage control -- protecting its own lack of coverage on the Swiftvets as a subtext to attacking them:

But a new assault on Mr. Kerry -- in an ad by a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and in a new book -- crosses the line in branding Mr. Kerry a coward and a liar. This smear is contradicted by Mr. Kerry's crew mates, undercut by the previous statements of some of those now making the charges and tainted by the chief source of its funding: Republican activists dedicated to defeating Mr. Kerry in November.

Ah, yes, those eeeeeeeevil Republican activists! Why, one of them donated $100,000 to the Swiftvets, accounting for two-thirds of their funding prior to the book's publication. (They've raised about $200,000 since from 5,000 individual donors.) It's a ludicrous non-sequitur; the Swiftvets' testimony is what should be at issue here, not a single donation from a Republican. Does the Post seriously think that Democrats would line up to assist over 200 veterans from Viet Nam tell the truth about John Kerry? And will the Post be as dismissive of allegations from MoveOn, which has been funded to the tune of millions of dollars by rabid partisan George Soros?

The rest of the editorial descends into a series of he-said, she-said comparisons that manages to avoid noting that one side has over 200 he-saids, compared to the less-than-10 she-saids. And for their supposed coup de grace, the Post pulls out Jim Rassman:

If accurate, this would demolish a central part of the picture of Mr. Kerry as Vietnam hero. But the weight of the evidence supports Mr. Kerry. Mr. Rassmann, having had no contact with Mr. Kerry for the previous 35 years, came forward during the primaries to tell the story of how Mr. Kerry, braving enemy fire and with an injured arm, pulled him back on board. "John came up to the bow, and I thought he was going to get killed because he was so exposed," Mr. Rassmann recalled. Other surviving crew mates corroborate that account. "I was there," crew mate Del Sandusky told CNN. "I saw the bullets skimming across the water. I saw the firefight gun flashes from the jungle. I know the firefight and the ambush we were in." Another crew mate, James Wasser, told ABC: "What boat were you riding on? Because you weren't there -- we were."

It's worth noting, although the Post doesn't, that several boats were part of that engagement -- and that the crews on the other boats all remember that engagement quite differently than Rassman, Sandusky, and Wasser. Even Rassman remembers it differently, depending on when he's been interviewed. In January, Rassman rode on a boat following Kerry and his boat was disabled in the mine blast. Earlier this week, Rassman wrote that he was on Kerry's boat, which struck the mine and threw him overboard, but Kerry's boat was not disabled.

And the Post manages to write an entire editorial about the veracity of the Swiftvets without even noting that their first charge scored a direct hit this week. John Kerry has been forced to withdraw the story he's told for decades, his Christmas in Cambodia myth that supposedly catalyzed his transformation from gung-ho military man to anti-war activist. The memory that he told the Senate was "seared" into him turned out to be a confusion of dates, according to his campaign advisor, Jeh Johnson. Now the Kerry campaign has retreated into the explanation that his Cambodia incursion happened "sometime later," but he can't remember when, and now it involves a CIA and/or Navy SEAL expedition, so no paperwork will exist. Convenient, eh?

The Post doesn't address that in its article because it would demonstrate that the Swiftvets have built a presumption of credibility over John Kerry that turns all of those he-said, she-saids around on them. It also points out that the Post and the rest of the mainstream media have blown it by not covering John Kerry more carefully, let alone the Swiftvets. In other words, their editorial is little more than damage control, but it's far too late for that. The press is supposed to hold up a magnifying glass to the powerful. In Kerry's case, they've failed miserably, the Swiftvets have proved their failure, and the Post intends to make them pay for it.

For more on this, be sure to read Patterico and Beldar, who have excellent deconstructions of the Post's rather transparent attempt at self-defense.

UPDATE: Steve Sturm also takes on the Post:

As I see it, there are two aspects to this story. One is whether there was hostile fire at the time Kerry fished Rassman out of the water (or at any time, for that matter), and two, whether Kerry's boat had initially fled the scene, returning later.

The Post defense of Kerry takes the approach that, if any aspect of the controversy can be sufficiently muddled, then none of the allegations can be true (which may be why they don't go into the 'Christmas in Cambodia' story). The Post editorial focuses solely on the point as to whether there was shooting going on at the time Rassman was pulled out of the water. It does not address the second point at all, whether Kerry's boat had taken off, only to return later to save the day (reminds you of Tom Cruise in 'Top Gun', doesn't it?).

Quite a lot of this makes me think of Hollywood, and the Top Gun reference crossed my mind before Steve put it so well here. Don't forget that Kerry himself, in his letter to the Boston Herald, attempted to tie this experience to Apocalypse Now, which had just come out into the theaters at the time.

And welcome to Instapundit readers!

Now Kerry's Flip-Flops Are Bush's Fault!

John Kerry has a lot of problems these days, but instead of clearing them up, he just keeps adding to them. The New York Times reports on the flip-flop executed by Kerry this week on toppling Saddam when the Democrat decided that he still would have voted to authorize war even if he had known the WMD intelligence was faulty. He disappointed his fellow Democrats, who couldn't believe that Kerry could fall into that trap so easily -- and both the Kerry campaign and the Democrats now fault Bush for Kerry's flip-flop:

For five days now, as the long-distance arguments between President Bush and Senator John Kerry have focused on the wisdom of invading Iraq, Mr. Kerry has struggled to convince his audiences that his vote to authorize the president to use military force was a far, far cry from voting for a declaration of war.

So far, his aides and advisers concede, he has failed to get his message across, as Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have mocked his efforts as "a new nuance" that amount to more examples of the senator's waffling. ...

But the decision, in the end, was Mr. Kerry's. He chose to take the bait on Monday at the edge of the Grand Canyon. Asked by a reporter, he said he would have voted for the resolution - even in the absence of evidence of weapons of mass destruction - before adding his usual explanation that he would have subsequently handled everything leading up to the war differently.

Mr. Bush, sensing he had ensnared Mr. Kerry, stuck in the knife on Tuesday, telling a rally in Panama City, Fla., that "he now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq." The Kerry camp says that interpretation of Mr. Kerry's words completely distorted the difference between a vote to authorize war and a decision to commit troops to the battlefield [emph mine -- CE].

The problem for Kerry is that there was no significant difference between the two, and both sides know it. Kerry pretends that he could have gotten France and Germany to sign onto a war in which we would have toppled the man stuffing French and German pockets with hundreds of millions of Euros through the corrupt oil-for-food program, and points to their intransigence as a Bush failure, rather than a character failure on their part. What Kerry means is that he voted to make empty threats, part of the problem the entire West has had since Saddam started defying UNSC resolutions and cease-fire agreements in 1991 onward. Empty threats are what brought us the twelve-year Iraqi quagmire, and empty threats are what has encouraged Iran to remain defiant to the EU-3 this week.

So the "nuance" amounts to a distinction without a difference, especially now that Kerry claims that he still would have voted to authorize force anyway. If we would have voted for force anyway, then the "Bush lied" meme is completely immaterial. He would have voted for force on other grounds, such as Saddam's oppression, the defiance of UN resolutions, the threat that Saddam represented in a post-9/11 world where empty threats have consequences, and to resolve a military standoff that pinned down the greater share of our mobile forward forces needed for the greater war. All of these reasons were put forward by the Bush administration, by the way, to justify action against Iraq.

This major flip-flop has handed George Bush a belated endorsement of his Iraq policy, even while John Kerry has said he'd do everything else differently -- but has yet to actually say what that would be. Even his secret plan wound up being a rehash of what Bush has already done, except for the transfer of sovereignty, which his European friends insisted on and which Bush himself recognized as a must. (Kerry wanted a UN "high commissioner" to run Iraq indefinitely.)

Not too surprisingly, he's infuriated his base and dismayed his advisors, who are not terribly happy that the legendary Kerry intelligence just got outfoxed by the supposedly stupid Bush:

Mr. Kerry's answer is being second-guessed among his supporters, some of whom argued that he should have been more wary of the trap.

"I wish he had simply said no president in his right mind would ask the Senate to go to war against a country that didn't have weapons that pose an imminent threat," said one of Mr. Kerry's Congressional colleagues and occasional advisers.

Senator Biden argued that Mr. Kerry is being "asked to explain Bush's failure through his own vote. I saw a headline that said 'Kerry Would Have Gone to War.' That's bull. He wouldn't have. Not the way Bush did. But that wasn't the choice at the time - the choice was looking for a way to hold Saddam accountable."

He wouldn't have gone to war ... but he would have, just differently. Does Bush cause all Democrats to flip-flop so obviously?

Biden, as usual, is all wet. No one's asking Kerry to explain "Bush's failure," because Bush hasn't failed. Bush took the Congressional authorization and tried for five months to get the UN to enforce its own resolutions, waiting until the last moment before finally taking France at its word that it would never vote for an authorization to use force and would use its veto to stop any offered. (The French, by the way, had advised the British and the Americans to just use 1441 without coming back to the UN for a separate authorization in order to give them domestic political cover for the action, but the British insisted on going back for the 17th resolution. C'est la vie.)

Bush took Congress at its word and used that authorization to eliminate the Ba'athist regime in three weeks, and the result has been the liberation of millions from a genocidal maniac and the establishment of democratic processes, and in the meantime has captured the files of the Iraqi Intelligence Services and helped blow the lid off the Oil-For-Food program and the corruption of the UN. His action forced the hand of Libya, with Gaddafi explicitly telling Silvio Berlusconi that his change of heart had everything to do with the knowledge that the Americans had quit talking and started taking action.

So, in a way, Bush has caused Kerry to flip-flop, if only because Bush keeps getting proved right and Kerry has to change course constantly to keep up. But it isn't Bush's fault that Kerry keeps getting things wrong the first time around, nor does it encourage people to choose the follower over the leader. Voters aren't asking Kerry to explain supposed Bush failures -- they're asking Kerry to explain what he'd do as President. So far, all we're hearing is that Kerry would blow with the wind, changing his mind depending on who he thinks is listening.

And now he's dumber than George Bush. How's that for a flip-flop?

Christmas In Cambodia, Part VII: The Inevitable Flip-Flop

Unsurprisingly, the Swiftvets' attack on John Kerry's credibility scored its first direct hit even before their book Unfit For Command has been released to the general public, and the Kerry campaign has been forced into its usual strategy -- yet another flip-flop. Human Events Online notes the transcript from today's Fox and Friends, in which Kerry's advisor Jeh Johnson beats a hasty retreat from both Cambodia and the Swiftvets.

First, here's what John Kerry told the Boston Herald in a letter dated October 14, 1979, and reproduced by the Swiftvets in their book:

I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.

As discussed earlier, Nixon wasn't president in 1968, he was president-elect, and he wouldn't have been on the radio discussing troop deployments over which he had no control and probably little information that wasn't already public. No matter; by the time Kerry spoke about this seminal event in his life to the Senate in 1986 in order to argue against assisting the Nicaraguan contras against the Sandanista junta, he'd dropped the Nixon reference and made it more generic (Congressional Record, March 27, 1986, page S3594):

I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what is was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khme[r] Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; The troops were not in Cambodia…I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me....

Now the campaign has this to say about that seared-in memory:

JOHNSON: John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the recorded to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date.

[BRIAN] KILMEADE [co-host]: I think the term was he had a searing memory of spending Christmas - back in 1986 in the senate floor in Cambodia.

JOHNSON: I believe he has corrected the record to say it was some place near Cambodia he is not certain whether it was in Cambodia but he is certain there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia.

This is, of course, complete crap. For thirty years Kerry has pushed that Christmas In Cambodia myth in order to explain his embitterment about the Viet Nam war, as the catalyst that transformed him into an eager young officer to a cynical anti-war activist. Until this year, no one challenged him even on naming the wrong president, which you think a newspaper like the Herald would have caught. Now he wants people to believe that he meant he was near Cambodia. Well, he was at Sa Dec, which is almost as close to Cambodia as it is to the Mekong Delta -- about 55 miles away. (See the map at Power Line.) What of it? He was supposed to be in Viet Nam! So why the disillusion and embitterment?

The truth is that John Kerry never went to Cambodia on Christmas Eve, Christmas, New Year's Eve, or Arbor Day. He certainly never went there on a Swiftboat, as the Mekong was blockaded to keep all but the light-drafting sampans from crossing the border in either direction, as Stephen Gardner -- Kerry's shipmate -- pointed out yesterday. None of his shipmates, in fact, have ever agreed with Kerry's contention that he went to Cambodia, and even his official biographer left that claim out of his book, released earlier in the primaries.

John Kerry lied about his service record. He took a contentious issue and simply pasted it into his narrative of his military experience in order to add a certain cachet, an odd credibility to his assertions of widespread atrocities when he turned his back on his fellow vets, once stateside. Don't believe me, Kerry could say? Well, I've run illegal clandestine missions into Cambodia and seen it all. I even have the hat! And I tell you, everyone there committed atrocities ...

This isn't just a politician's fib about supporting federal funding for Head Start; this is a man who tells fundamental lies about his background in order to puff up his importance, and for what? To gain the notoriety needed to stick his fellow veterans in the back. To step on the corpses of their reputations into a political career. To get in good with the cool people. What else has John Kerry lied about, and what new versions of his life will be forthcoming?

Tell me I'm wrong. Demand that Senator Kerry release his full service record so that he can prove me and the Swiftvets wrong. If he can't get his dates and places straight for what he's featired as his primary qualification for the Presidency, then let's get the records out and see what they say. He and his party demanded it of George Bush when they called him a deserter with a hell of a lot less cause than the Swiftvets have provided. It didn't take much courage for him to press Bush for those records when everyone happily smeared with the AWOL charge; failure to produce them now will demonstrate Kerry's cowardice in the most clear and objective manner possible.

A Fitting And Moving Eulogy

A short while ago, my friend Haddayr Copley-Woods lost her beloved father Joe Woods at the far-too-young age of 59 to a sudden heart attack. Haddayr writes a regular column for the Minnesota Women's Press, and I knew eventually her grief would find its way into her writing. Today she writes an exceptional and moving tribute to her father:

When I was a little girl, I sometimes stood next to my father at the basement sink, imitating the movement of his strong, calloused hands as he dipped them in Goop cleaner, carefully scrubbing to the elbows. He would rinse blackened oil and axle grease from his enormous forearms in precise movements and lather again with soap. Like him, I would carefully dry each finger, and we would head to dinner.

I worshipped him then. Later, I merely loved and respected him. ...

Although he was a hard worker (over his short lifetime: a college instructor, a master mechanic, a trade writer and columnist, a truck driver), fatherhood was his most defining characteristic. He raised us on socialist, Taoist and humanist philosophy, with sprinkles of sturdy skepticism and Irish humor. He told us terrible, wonderful things like: “Defy authority. Do not defy it because it is wrong. Defy it because it is there.” When we did, he stood by us. Years later, he built a secret door behind a bookcase—he believed every grandparent should have one. My son Arie was delighted.

He told a great story, teaching me that it was timing, character and exaggeration—not slavish attention to correct detail—that mattered. He was fiercely loyal. He taught us to love classical and traditional folk music. He was a proud Midwesterner.

Obvoiusly, Haddayr and I have differing political philosophies, but we remain friends, which speaks to the maturity that some lack in today's highly partisan environment. I suspect that had I ever met Joe Woods, we would possibly have had some engaging, interesting, and possibly loud debates on politics -- but that we would have both enjoyed our time together. I'm sorry that I never got the chance to find out. All I know is that he raised an exceptional person in Haddayr, and my sympathies are with her and her entire family.

Put the partisanship away for a moment and read Haddayr's column. The comments will remain open for anyone who wants to extend their sympathy to the Woods family.

Surveillance Tapes Set Off New Worries: NYT

The New York Times reports today that the FBI has held a Pakistani and his videotapes, narrated in Arabic, of some unusual sightseeing activities -- building and transit systems in the South and a dam in Texas:

The federal authorities, on heightened alert over the prospect of another Al Qaeda attack, are conducting a terrorism investigation into an illegal immigrant from Pakistan found with videotapes of downtown buildings and transit systems in four Southern states and of a dam in Texas, officials said on Tuesday.

Officials acknowledged that they had no direct evidence linking the suspect, a former Queens resident named Kamran Shaikh, to terrorism. But they said they remained keenly interested in determining why he made the extensive videos, which included narratives in Arabic.

"These were not your normal tourist videos," said a senior law enforcement official in Washington who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation. "This could turn out to be something legitimate and innocent, but it's raised our suspicions, and we think there's something else going on here. We don't like the look of it."

The arrest underscored the increasing nervousness among federal counterterrorism officials about the possibility of a terrorist attack in the near future, perhaps before the November election. Ten days ago, the Department of Homeland Security declared a high risk of a terrorist attack against financial institutions in Washington, New York and Newark after receiving information from Pakistan about detailed reconnaissance missions conducted at possible targets three or four years ago.

It certainly doesn't make anyone feel any better that the man identified as Kamran Shaikh also traveled under an alias, Kamran Akhtar, or that he gave federal investigators false information regarding his immigration status. He's now facing charges on those immigration issues while the FBI tries to determine what else Shaikh/Akhtar was doing with the videos.

Reporter Eric Lichtblau includes this chilling tidbit only at the end of the article without much elucidation:

Officials said Mr. Shaikh's last known address was in the Elmhurst section of Queens. The apartment where he lived sits on the top floor of a brick building in a quiet residential neighborhood. The name "K. Shaikh" still appears on the door, but a superintendent at the building said Tuesday that he did not think Mr. Shaikh or his wife and young son had lived there for about eight or ten months.

If he hadn't lived there in eight or ten months, where has he been living? Since his name is still on the door, the rent must be paid up. Who paid it? If it was Shaikh/Akhtar, how did he get the money to maintain at least two residences? This sounds extremely suspicious and certainly should alert those areas surveilled to be on alert for any other suspicious activity.

However, if anyone actually came out and said that ... all we'd hear about from the lunatic fringe is the timing of the information.

Day Of Reckoning For Sadr?

Reuters reports that the US Marines are poised to deliver a final resolution to part-time insurrectionist Moqtada al-Sadr:

U.S. marines said on Wednesday they were preparing a final assault on Iraqi Shi'ite militia in the holy city of Najaf, after a radical cleric ordered his men to keep fighting even if he was killed. ...

"Iraqi and U.S. forces are making final preparations as we get ready to finish this fight that the Moqtada militia started," Colonel Anthony Haslam, commanding officer of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Najaf, said in a statement.

Haslam gave few details, but his threats and Sadr's defiance have raised the stakes in a battle that is the toughest test yet for Allawi's six-week-old government.

Most of Sadr's men and the young cleric himself are holed up around Najaf's ancient Shi'ite cemetery or the adjoining Imam Ali Shrine. Storming such holy symbols could touch off a firestorm among Iraq's majority Shi'ite community.

As I noted earlier, Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi declared the Imam Ali mosque and its environs an open area for battle as Sadr continued to use it for a military base of operations. This freed the Iraqi/US security forces to finally clear the mosque of its Mahdi infestation. Allawi is bright enough to understand the risks of attacking the shrine, but the risks of doing nothing while Sadr foments armed insurrection are far greater. No government can tolerate that and remain in power; eventually, people understand that the government is too weak to enforce their own laws, and they gravitate to wherever power accumulates.

If the handcuffs are truly off, then Moqtada al-Sadr is (as my blog-friend Brant puts it at SWLiP) Moqtada al-Toast. We'll see. The Marines will leave no doubt about where power lies in Iraq, if they are allowed to do so.

Kerry Plan Signals Enemy To Wait US Out: Bush

George Bush hammered John Kerry for his so-called "secret plan" to accomplish a significant reduction in American troop strength within six months of his inauguration. Bush rightly ridiculed the proposal as a signal that American resolve would be fatally weakened in a Kerry administration:

Kerry said this week that he hoped to begin reducing U.S. troop strength in Iraq within six months of taking office, if elected, but that it would depend on broader international assistance, better stability in Iraq and other factors.

Bush dismissed the plan as a politically driven one that would cut short the mission and aid the enemy.

"The key is not to set artificial timelines," Bush said Tuesday while campaigning for re-election in Niceville, Fla. He said the Massachusetts senator's plan would signal the enemy that, "Gosh, all we've got to do is wait them out."

Not only that, but as the LA Times reported earlier this week, Kerry's European partners won't go for any plan which deploys European troops to Iraq, especially if by "European" you really mean Franco-German. Kerry regularly lambastes Bush for not having a plan for the peace, but so far it seems like Bush's plan has worked out quite well. We transferred sovereignty back within 15 months to a government that has strengthened itself as a result and gained tremendous legitimacy with its people. By contrast, in the war that Kerry and his supporters point to as an example of Clintonian success, we are still in Kosovo after five years, and no one has yet decided who has sovereignty -- so we're stuck until the Europeans (see above) finally get their stuff together and make a decision.

Pulling back our troops before the Iraqis can handle their own security -- again, part of the Bush plan to stabilize post-war Iraq that looks to be working well -- only encourages the radical Islamofascists and Ba'athist holdouts to keep their powder dry for a few months, and then wreck the progress after we leave. Sound familiar? It's the classic Viet Nam exit strategy that the leftists forced on the US. Declare Iraqification, refuse to supply the means for the Iraqis to stand on their own, and then scramble for the last helicopter out of Baghdad while the Islamofascists seize everything in sight -- and plunge Iraq into decades of oppression and enslavement.

Zell Miller once remarked that the Kerry campaign combined the worst of the Walter Mondale and George McGovern campaigns. At first, I thought that was hyperbole. Now I'm thinking it might be an understatement.

Christmas In Cambodia, Part VI: Silent Night (And Day)

Fox News updates the fallout from the collapse of the Christmas in Cambodia mythology (via Instapundit). After reviewing the story in a rather dispassionate manner, Fox includes this update to the Kerry camp's reaction:

The Kerry campaign first asserted that the Massachusetts senator never said that he was in Cambodia, only that he was near the country. But when presented with a copy of the Congressional Record and asked about Kerry's letter in the Boston Herald, the campaign said it would come up with an explanation. After repeated phone calls, there was still no clarification.

Can they still be trying to formulate a response? Or will they just remain silent on the issue as long as possible, while idiots like Atrios and Tom Tomorrow try to change the subject to George Bush's rugby career at Yale? (No, I'm not joking ... QandO has a great rundown on this.) Hugh Hewitt asked last night what the lefty blogger response would be, but in my wildest fantasy I wouldn't have guessed that they would come up with something so wildly ungermane and pathetic as this.

Let me make the difference clear for the insane:

1. Bush did not make his four months of in-pitch service in Rugby the central qualification for his presidency, either in 2000 or in 2004.

2. Bush did not avail himself of the "three injuries and you're out" clause at Yale in order to withdraw from the conflict.

3. Bush did not testify at the Greek Council after his release from the squad about the atrocities that his fellow rugby players, as well as football, basketball, and lacrosse athletes routinely committed as the result of the nefarious policies of the corrupt Yale administration.

4. As far as can be known without releasing his records, Bush never claimed to have illegally infiltrated Penn's rugby pitch, becoming embittered as Yale's president insisted on the radio that Yale had no men in clandestine missions.

5. Bush did not wear his rugby uniform in protests with Peter Gent against the violence and immorality of the continuing Rugby Leagues.

6. Bush did not use his Christmas At Penn story to get up in the US Senate (or anywhere else) to deny assistance to people fighting to free themselves from an oppressive Communist regime.

7. When Bush gets on stage in New York and surrounds himself with his former rugby mates for his acceptance speech, salutes them, and leads off with "I'm George Bush, and I'm reporting for the first shift!", well, then we'll get back to you on this.

Blogstamps: Buy Them Now At The Politburo Diktat

Time out for a bit of fun! Rusty, who's filling in for the Commissar over at the Politburo Diktat while the Commissar takes a bourgeois vacation, keeps up the spirit of the P.D. with a new series of blogstamps. Captain's Quarters is among those blogs honored with its own issue:

Check them all out -- collect the entire set! And don't forget to visit Rusty's fine Munuvian blog, My Pet Jawa, while you're at it.

The Intransigence Of The Lunatic Fringe

The Elder at Fraters Libertas has been on assignment overseas this past week or so, which appears to consist of touring Dutch museums and eating at fashionable cafes. However, he took time out from his grueling schedule to address a serious issue -- the continuing insistence among the lunatic Left in equating Bush with Naziism. And this time, they have absolutely no excuse:

There's somethin' happenin' here. What it is became a bit clearer to me Sunday in Amsterdam. I toured a museum dedicated to the Dutch resistance during the Nazi occupation. As I made my way through the exhibits, I noticed a few other Americans taking it in as well. I overheard one of them, a woman, make the comment "Now doesn't that sound familiar?" For a moment I paused, but then decided that her remark couldn't be about what I thought. It just could not be.

But it was. After I finished the tour, I stopped by a street-side café next door for a beer and a bite. A short while later the group of Americans that I had noticed at the museum pulled up a table at the same café within earshot. They began discussing the various exhibits at the museum and, before long, my initial suspicions were confirmed. They, the woman in particular, saw parallels between the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands and what they believe is occurring today in John Ashcroft's Amerika. ...

We're through the looking glass here people. I can almost understand ignorant lefties throwing around their "Bush is a Nazi" claptrap without really understanding just how ridiculous that comparison is. But these people had just come from a museum that graphically detailed the brutality inflicted by the occupying Nazis[.]

Read the rest of the post; it's brilliant, and disturbing. It parallels something that we see in blogging -- that evidence and rationality cannot dent the impervious conspiracy-theory shell of the lunatic fringe, who keep posting old memes even after they've been thoroughly debunked. The most frightening part of the Elder's post is that we're apparently exporting this lunacy now.

Iranian Chutzpah Reveals Their Intentions All Along

The Iranians have presented a list of demands to their European enablers that not only reveals the true intentions of the mullahcracy but the absolute uselessness of EU leadership. Britain and other EU nations were "stunned" to receive demands not just for dual-use nuclear technology, but for the delivery of weapons to the Iranian mullahs and a defense pact against Israel:

Iran has issued an extraordinary list of demands to Britain and other European countries, telling them to provide advanced nuclear technology, conventional weapons and a security guarantee against nuclear attack by Israel.

Teheran's request, said by British officials to have "gone down very badly", sharply raises the stakes in the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme, which Britain and America believe is aimed at making an atomic bomb.

Iran's move came during crisis talks in Paris this month with senior diplomats from Britain, France and Germany. ...

Iran said the EU-3 should support Iran's quest for "advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use" - a reference to equipment that has both civilian and military applications.

The Europeans should "remove impediments" preventing Iran from having such technology, and stick to these commitments even if faced with "legal (or) political . . . limitations", an allusion to American pressure or even future international sanctions against Iran.

More astonishingly, Iran said the EU-3 should agree to meet Iran's requirements for conventional weapons and even "provide security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran.

The so-called EU-3 -- Britain, France, and Germany -- are still debating their response, which tells you the entire story of the nuclear disarmament talks with Iran. The EU-3 demanded to take the lead on negotiations aimed at forcing Iran to comply with its treaty obligations for non-proliferation. France and Germany especially insisted that the issue not be brought to the UN Security Council in order to avoid actually having to take action against Iran for non-compliance, figuring that European wisdom would win out over Iranian instransigence -- and American bluntness.

Well, guess what? The same thinking that led to the twelve-year Iraqi quagmire has delivered again, only this time the stakes are much higher. Iran has to understand that these demands are not only impossible, but could not be designed better to insult the EU-3 and humiliate them in front of the world. What does that tell you?

Iran has nuclear weapons ready to go.

Non-proliferation talks with dictators are useless unless the talks are backed up by action. Iran clearly knew that France and Germany don't have the capacity to act, and as long as Britain allowed itself to be yoked to these two military cripples, neither would they. Had Russia, China, or the US been invited to the talks, it's possible that the outcome would have been different. The mullahs would have taken the threat seriously instead of laughing at the empty threat that a Franco-German military alliance presented.

The US has to bring this to the UNSC for a final reckoning whether the EU-3 likes it or not, and none of this sixteen-resolutions-broken process, either. Either they go the way of Libya or they go the way of Iraq, and they have a short window in which to comply. European dithering will be the death of the West yet, if we allow it.

And remember which candidate has the fetish for European approval in the upcoming presidential election. Casting a vote for John Kerry is an endorsement of this fecklessness. He's made his insistence on Franco-German approval quite clear all campaign long.

Stephen Gardner Speaks

Stephen Gardner, a member of John Kerry's Swiftbaot crew, appeared with Hugh Hewitt on his show tonight after I had already been on. Although I missed Hugh's show -- I was taking a break at work when I went on -- Hugh has posted the transcript of the Gardner interview on his blog. Gardner specifically and categorically refuted Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story ... and since he served on Kerry's boat in December 1968, he should know:

HH: Now you served with him on Christmas Eve 1968, correct?

SG: That is correct.

HH: What did you do on Christmas Eve 1968?

SG: Well, I damn sure wasn't in Cambodia, I'll tell you that.

HH: (Laughter) Do you remember?

SG: We were basically just down in the lower part of the Sa Dec. just patrolling.

HH: All right. Were you looking for Bob Hope that night?

SG: No, (laughter) this was just how bad this guy is. People get a whiff of this and get a hold of it. Because you are just getting the edge of what drives John Kerry.

HH: What is that Steve Gardner?

SG: He is an opportunist, number one. But he is a self-seeking opportunist who used the laws that were designed to help the honest men who were over there in Vietnam who had gotten wounded three times to get them back out of it. He knew the rules well, and he used that to get out of there early.

Gardner also scoffs at the notion that Kerry transported a CIA agent into Cambodia or anywhere near there, as Kerry still insists by the tale's inclusion on his web site:

HH: OK, well put. Now, Steve Gardner, John Kerry has also been discovered to have been telling a story that he took a CIA man at least one CIA man into Cambodia and that he kept his hat. When you were on the boat with John Kerry, for your two months and two weeks of the tour that he served, did you ever have a CIA man on board?

SG: Number one, no.

HH: Did you ever take anyone to Cambodia and drop them off?

SG: Categorically no.

HH: Did you get near Cambodia and drop anybody off?

SG: The closest we can get to Cambodia, and that's a long swim, is 50 miles.

For those who value only the testimony of people from John Kerry's boat, Gardner should answer your objections. Read all of Hugh's enlightening interview with Gardner.

The Bush Mythology

I've written rather extensively about the John Kerry/Christmas in Cambodia mythology, and that appears to be exactly what it is. Even by his own journal, he spent Christmas 1968 in Sa Dec, which was more than 50 miles from the Cambodian border. Three of his five crew members deny ever going into Cambodia (the other two won't comment), and one of them even explains that the boat Kerry commanded couldn't possibly have made it into Cambodia due to the anti-incursive obstacles planted in the area. Not only that, but even a Swiftboat could hardly cruise 60 miles out and 60 miles back, in hostile territory, in time for Kerry to have visions of sugarplums dancing in his head, as he put in his journal at the time.

But as I've written about the efforts of the Swiftvets in attempting to correct the record, a number of commenters have insisted on arguing not the merits of the case, but instead engaging in ad hominem attacks on the Swift vets and George Bush. The same people who castigate me for casting aspersions on the record of a decorated vet (Kerry) have no difficulty doing the same to 200+ vets with nothing at stake in this election except their reputations, which to me is the height f hypocrisy, but that's why we have these debates.

However, there are those who continue to operate under the delusion that George Bush was a deserter (the first to get an honorable discharge) whose daddy paid off people to get him into the TANG so that he could avoid Viet Nam. For some reason, even though this was thoroughly debunked early in the last election cycle, it got exhumed with a flourish in this one. Al Gore avoided getting involved in it in 2000, but this time both Terry McAuliffe and John Kerry have personally pushed this story forward for months.

Too bad they can't read the news, because this was debunked in 1999:

In its report, the Los Angeles Times said it found no evidence that either Bush or his father, former President George Bush, had personally tried to influence or pressure anyone to get the younger Bush a place in the Texas Guard. Bush's father was a congressman from Houston at the time.

But the Times also found that despite a long waiting list nationwide, Bush easily got in the Guard and received a commission as a second lieutenant, despite lacking the credentials many other candidates had, such as ROTC experience. He also had no previous aviation experience. ...

However, the Dallas Morning News, which also looked into Bush's military record, reported that while Bush's unit in Texas had a waiting list for many spots, he was accepted because he was one of a handful of applicants willing and qualified to spend more than a year in active training flying F-102 jets.

This year, after Kerry paraded his "band of brothers" on the campaign trail, everyone kept asking Bush why he had no group of admiring veterans from his days in the National Guard -- which as any Guard member could have explained, service dates are too random to form many lasting ties. However, no one seems to have paid attention to CNN when they reported on Guardsmen who recalled Bush's service:

On Friday, a retired officer with the Alabama Air National Guard told CNN that he witnessed Bush serving his weekend duty in 1972 -- an account that could be significant given the persistent Democratic questions.

Speaking Friday from Daytona Beach, Florida, John B. "Bill" Calhoun said he commanded Bush and that Bush attended four to six weekend drills at Dannelly Field in Montgomery. He said Bush was with the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Alabama in 1972.

The drills consisted of eight-hour shifts Saturdays and Sundays, Calhoun said.

"We didn't have the planes that he could fly," Calhoun said. "But he studied his manuals, he read flying safety regulations, accident reports -- things pilots do quite often when they are not getting ready to fly or if they don't have other duties."

Or the Birmingham (AL) News, when they also reported on witnesses to Bush's service:

Joe LeFevers, a member of the 187th in 1972, said he remembers seeing Bush in unit offices and being told that Bush was in Montgomery to work on Blount's campaign.

"I was going in the orderly room over there one day, and they said, `This is Lt. Bush,'" LeFevers said Tuesday. "They pointed him out to me ... the reason I remember it is because I associate him with Red Blount."

Or this confirmation that Bush volunteered for Operation Palace Alert, which would have sent him to Viet Nam in combat had he been accepted:

A former senior Virginia Air National Guard commander, who served with George W. Bush in the Texas Air Guard, says Bush volunteered for Vietnam combat service but was turned down because he did not have the required flight experience. ...

According to Campenni, Bush inquired about participating in a volunteer program called Palace Alert that used Air National Guard pilots flying in the F-102 Delta Dagger interceptor jet in Vietnam.

The Air Guard advised Bush he did not have the desired 500 hours of flight time as a pilot to qualify for Palace Alert duty, and, in any event, the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.

For some reason, even though George Bush has never made much out of his time in the TANG, his opponents this year have attempted to smear him with various factually-deficient charges of desertion and draft-dodging, even though Bush flew a notoriously dangerous fighter jet in home-defense missions. They have built up a mythology of Bush the Deserter, Bush the Dodger, Bush the Evil, because mythology is how they lived their own lives.

As we watch the Christmas in Cambodia mythology disintegrate before our very eyes, taking with it John Kerry's entire supposed motivation for his disenchantment with the war and the US government, Kerry has been exposed as an unprincipled phony, using bits and pieces of other people's lives to build his own resume. The subset of people supporting Kerry by using the Bush mythology may prove just as resistant to reality as John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe (and Michael Moore, et al), because they'd rather live in their fantasy world where everything wrong in the universe can be traced back to Evil W. Terrorism? George Bush provoked it, and even if he didn't, he's covering up for Saudi air-force pilots who really committed 9/11 in order to control world oil output. WMDs? George Bush made it all up, even though the same data led Congress to declare regime change the official American policy in 1998, and even the French and German intelligence agencies believed them to exist in large quantities. It's beyond irrational; it approaches schizophrenia.

Fortunately, the rational outnumber the irrational, even among Democrats, and after the shock they receive from realizing the decades-long deception Kerry has foisted upon them, they will retreat back to reality. Let's hope that happens before they put this serial prevaricator into the White House.

Whither The Port Side Of The Blogosphere?

I was just on the Hugh Hewitt show, discussing the Christmas In Cambodia myth that just exploded in the Kerry/Edwards campaign's face. I joined Hugh and Roger Simon (hey, who says the blogosphere ain't cool?) in reviewing the latest developments in the story and trying to guess whether the mainstream media or the lefty bloggers would ever give this any play. We also discussed the moldy hat that Kerry toted around in his briefcase, informing anyone to whom he showed it that it was given to him by the CIA agent he took into Cambodia on his Swiftboat, as described by the Washington Post (via Power Line):

A close associate hints: There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attaché everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.

"Who told you?" he demanded as he reached inside. "My friends don't know about this."

The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.

"My good luck hat," Kerry said, happy to see it. "Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia."

Kerry put on the hat, pulling the brim over his forehead. His blue button-down shirt and tie clashed with the camouflage. He pointed his finger and raised his thumb, creating an imaginary gun. He looked silly, yet suddenly his campaign message was clear: Citizen-soldier. Linking patriotism to public service. It wasn't complex after all; it was Kerry.

He smiled and aimed his finger: "Pow."

Later in the day, Power Line also noted this interesting excerpt from Byron York at NRO, where he quotes Stephen Gardner -- one of Kerry's crew on the Swiftboat -- as categorically stating that it would have been impossible to traverse into Cambodia on the patrol craft:

"It was physically, totally, categorically, across-the-board impossible to get into the canal that went to Cambodia with a swift boat. There were concrete pilings that were put in the water...plus, the Navy kept patrol boats there to make sure nobody went in. When I was on the 44 boat, it was a physical impossibility to take a swift boat into Cambodian waters."

Beyond moving the story itself forward, though, Hugh wanted to talk about the response from the blogosphere and the media, as I mentioned. Neither Roger nor I would agree that the media would pick this up tomorrow, although we both thought they couldn't hold out too much longer. I predicted that it would only break through in the media as part of character attacks on the Swiftvets themselves and not on the merit of their claims, although that would follow -- and I also predicted that the Washington Post would be the first major to treat the story correctly. I wish I could claim prescience, but I had already seen this AP report about co-author Joe Corsi and the Left's desperate attempt to discredit him:

In chat room entry last year on freerepublic.com, Corsi writes: "Islam is a peaceful religion — just as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered and the infidels are killed."

In another entry, he says: "So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the lawyers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it."

Corsi, who described himself as a "devout Catholic," said the comments are being taken out of context. "I considered them a joke," said Corsi, who owns a financial services company and has written extensively on the anti-war movement.

In a March posting, Corsi discussed Kerry's faith, writing: "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judaism? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"

Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, are Catholic.

"I don't stand by any of those comments and I apologize if they offended anybody," Corsi said.

This set off the wingnuts over at Washington Monthly, the lefty blog hosted by Kevin Drum, who is more rational than most of his commenters. I found this only because I happened to look at my referral log and I found a number of visits from one of Kevin's posts. The comments were filled with triumphal glee at having pegged Corsi as a "freeper", and most of them acted as though the case had been solved. The Freeper did it!

The only problem is that the Freeper just wrote the book, not the testimony, even if you do discount people just for posting at the Free Republic. (I don't. YMMV.) The testimony comes from over 200 Swiftboat combat veterans who served in the same unit and area as John Kerry. However, WM's readership -- and I'll bet the same holds true at Eschaton and Talking Points Memo -- only want to talk about Corsi's association with FR and his terrible taste in posts. The Swifties themselves are sneered at as "insane", and I'm not kidding, that's the term they're using over there.

So much for valuing their service!

In fact, it reveals what I originally warned about last week. The Left doesn't talk about Kerry's Viet Nam service because they value it -- they talk about it because they despise the war. They only value it for the credibility it gives Kerry in despising the war as well, and his mythology as a man who ran illegal patrols into Cambodia while a corrupt President denied his existence just makes it easier for them to carry that banner into battle themselves. Finding out that he lied, and worse, that he co-opted their talking points to build a sham background in order to vault into the leadership of the anti-war movement -- and that just to leverage it into a political career -- would be such a tremendous betrayal that they'll never address it. Far better to talk about Corsi's freeperisms and the insanity of men who served in combat than to face that.

In short, they're cowards. They don't want to get the facts, so they just smear everyone involved and shade their eyes when viewing their icon. That might work for a few, but the scales are falling from the eyes of others, and Kerry will find himself very alone over the next few weeks.

Release the records, Senator. Release your complete military records, or suffer the humiliation that is a coward's due.

Silencing The Swifties

Apparently unable to respond substantively to the charges outlines by the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, the Left has instead decided to run with the Kerry/Edwards strategy of suing them into silence. The AP reports that three so-called "watchdog" organizations have filed a complaint with the FEC, attempting to get an injunction against any further ad buys:

Three campaign finance watchdog groups filed a complaint Tuesday accusing a group of Vietnam veterans of violating the campaign finance law by airing an ad that challenges Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's military record.

Democracy 21, the Center for Responsive Politics and the Campaign Legal Center argue that the ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth violates a federal ban on the use of unlimited donations, often referred to as "soft money," to influence federal elections.

In the ad, the group accuses Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, of lying about his war record and betraying fellow veterans by later protesting the conflict.

They are being deliberately disingenuous and obstructionist. The "soft money" regulation applied to money spent on behalf of a candidate, not on individual advocacy -- and it's clear in their ad that the Swiftvets are focused on John Kerry's representation of his service in Viet Nam. They aren't sponsoring a candidate at all -- but the liberal activist groups want the feds to shut them down while supporting groups that have expressly made getting rid of George Bush their goal, like MoveOn.

Is this how low the Kerry campaign and its supporters are willing to go? They think nothing of suppressing the rights to free speech for those who fought for them, all the while besmirching their reputations and avoiding the issues they raise. Maybe the 200+ Swiftvets are wrong and Kerry is right, but if so, Kerry's supporters have a funny way of going about proving it.

Silencing the veterans may not be entirely equivalent of attempting to squelch the votes of servicemen and servicewomen overseas during the last election, but it's in the same ballpark, and demonstrates an unfortunate predilection towards the wholesale discounting of the veterans' input into our political process.

Media Nibbling At The Edges Of The Swiftvet Story

There are finally some indications that the mainstream media may take a closer look at the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign on John Kerry's war record -- the main qualification that the Democrats have put forward for his candidacy. Last night, Nightline covered the story, although as Instapundit reports, not so much to cover the allegations as to cover the Swiftvets instead. Now John O'Sullivan takes up the cause in today's Chicago Sun-Times, and he's not Koppeling things over:

When Sen. John Kerry saluted and announced that he was "reporting for duty" at last month's Democratic Convention, he made his military record a legitimate subject of political attack and journalistic investigation. That moment was the culmination of the powerful "Vietnam theme" that has distinguished the Kerry presidential campaign from almost all recent Democratic campaigns.

He had turned around a failing primary season in Iowa with the filmed testimony of the sailor whose life he saved when he pulled him back into the swift boat in which they served. He had taken former swift boat veterans along with him on the campaign trail. And in Boston he filled the podium with these veterans and retired senior military officers to hammer home the message that the Democrats under John Kerry are safe on security. Kerry has done everything possible to reassure the voters -- and thereby to neutralize a long-standing Republican advantage -- on national security. ...

For some years many Vietnam veterans had quietly seethed at Kerry for profiting politically from his attacks on their service. Now that Kerry was in the running to become president -- while maintaining his accusations, however half-heartedly -- they were provoked into responding.

As O'Sullivan notes, the Democrats opened themselves up to this attack by recklessly tossing around allegations of desertion and cover-ups at the President during the early primary campaign:

These allegations are both more serious and better supported by evidence than, for instance, the claim that George W. Bush shirked his duty in the National Guard. They are exactly the kind of charges that would set off a firestorm of controversy in normal circumstances. Yet a strange nervous silence, broken only by a handful of stories and commentaries, has settled over the story.

And what of the media? O'Sullivan wants to know why they have not covered this story in any fashion similar to the way the press went after Bush about supposedly being AWOL from his National Guard duty:

As the recent Pew poll demonstrated, there really is liberal media bias. Only 7 percent of the national press describe themselves as conservative. Establishment journalists would almost certainly prefer the swift boat allegations simply go away. But the matter is not that simple. To begin with, the press has an obligation to follow its own rules. A major story needs two sources to justify publication. These stories have more than 250 sources; they are retired senior officers; and they are not skulking in the shadows but putting their names and reputations behind the allegations.

Read all of O'Sullivan's remarks. They aren't as interesting for their content as they are for their very existence on the pages of a major daily. The mainstream media will need to decide whether they think John Kerry is a worthy shoal on which to beach their illusions of fairness and nonpartisanship, because that myth has just about run its course. Even their own outlets openly scoff at their threadbare attempts to convince people of their fairness, and the treatment of the Swiftvets compared to that of the foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric of Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore confirms its collapse.

Rassman Shoots Back, Readers Question His Presence

Jim Rassman, the Kerry campaign mainstay who reminds everyone that the young lieutenant saved his life under fire, attempts to return the favor in today's Wall Street Journal On Line. Rassman attempts to do this with a handy bit of misdirection and a few ad hominem attacks on the Swiftvets, in whose company he spent a few days back in 1969:

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

Rassman then goes on to excoriate the more than 200 veterans who served in Kerry's unit for the months before, during, and after his abbreviated tour of duty as liars and partisan hacks. Rassman notes that he has voted "largely Republican" most of his life, but presumes that the Swiftvets are all of the same diabolical VRWC first exposed by Hillary Clinton:

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

People who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat? The Swiftvets number more than 200 men who did serve together in combat -- and in fact served together for far longer than Rassman did with Kerry. The notion that this underfinanced group of Viet Nam veterans (who only raised $150,000) somehow represents the spearpoint of a huge Republican smear machine attack is laughable. Rassman wants us to take his word based on his combat experience, but then denigrates hundreds of other combat veterans as unworthy of speaking their minds about a colleague they knew a hell of a lot better than he did.

Rassman is correct in one point in his essay. In their response to John Kerry's threat to sue them into silence, the Swiftvets indicate tha the incident for which Kerry won that Bronze Star included no enemy fire at the time of the rescue, that the disabling fire came from a mine and not enemy fire, and they also indicate that they have evidence to back that claim up. If true, it does undermine Rassman's credibility, even if it just means that he was too dazed to understand what the circumstances of his rescue really was:

As recounted in the attached affidavits of three on-scene participants (and verified by many others present) Kerry's operating report, Bronze Star story, and subsequent "no man left behind" story are a total hoax on the Navy and the nation. As recounted in the affidavits of Van Odell (Exhibit 6), Jack Chenoweth (Exhibit 7), and Larry Thurlow (Exhibit 10) (and verified by every other officer present and many others), a mine went off under PCF 3 -- some yards from Kerry's boat. The force of the explosion disabled PCF 3 and knocked several sailors, dazed, into the water. All boats, except one, closed to rescue the sailors and defend the disabled boat. That boat -- Kerry's boat -- fled the scene. After a short period, it was evident to all on the scene that there was no additional hostile fire. Thurlow began the daring rescue of disabled PCF 3, while Chenoweth began to pluck dazed survivors of PCF 3 from the water. Midway through the process, after it was apparent that there was no hostile fire, Kerry finally returned, picking up Rassman who was only a few yards from Chenoweth's boat which was also going to pick Rassman up. Each of the affiants (and many other Swiftees on the scene that day) are certain that Kerry has wholly lied about the incident. Consider this: How could the disabled PCF abandon the scene of the mine? Why did Kerry have to "return" to the scene?

A CQ reader who wishes to remain anonymous sent this over to me this morning. The reader claims that he had Special Forces experience in Viet Nam and has this to say about Rassman:

There are a lot of angles to the Kerry saga. I doubt anyone gets to every question, but some are compelling to me. The question that goes begging today is why was Rassman there at all?

I don't believe SF will take an official position on this, so I'll post what I have heard. I have never bad mouthed fellow SFers before, but I do have these comments from some sources I trust.

Rassman was reportedly the Asst S-1, which means he was the assistant admininistrative officer. Not exactly a key sought after job for an SF officer LOL. In fact I don't recall knowing of any official Asst S-1 officer slots in the field. Jobs like that are created to keep idiots off the teams.

He was supposedly in charge of awards and decorations (A&D) in a field unit. SF didn't issue many, so it was hardly a taxing assignment. The man doing that job at SF HQ RVN was a Sergeant. Giving it to an officer in a field unit as a primary duty is beyond unusual.

He was probably AWOL when he was with Kerry. At best someone may have said, OK go, just to get him out of the way.

My comments and speculation.

If Rassman was an A&D clerk, his knowledge of how to get awards approved was probably very interesting to Kerry. Since reports indicate he wrote the citation for Kerry's SS, I believe this speculation is well-founded.

And how does an SF LT fall out of a 50' boat? I have been through days and weeks of small boat training and drills, we never had anyone fall out.

Rassman says he was under fire. Anytime anyone was shooting within 50 yds of me I always assumed I was the target until I could prove otherwise. Rassman could not do that while in the drink. I will take the word of the other boat crews that there was no enemy fire at all. They had the best view to assess the situation. My mind keeps going back to Rassman's A&D job. He knew if there was no enemy fire there would be no award citations.

This entire operation smells bad to me. Kerry was in command he gets credit for everything his unit did and everything it failed to do. The Swiftvets are getting heavy pressure and questioning. I would like to see a reporter question Rassman in detail.

To me, the Bronze Star story is really the least of Kerry's problems. However, if the official after-action reports ever come out from the other teams there that day, it may prove rather embarrassing for Rassman, regardless of how many times he can say Spaeth Communications and John McCain in a 1500-word essay. And that's really the crux of the matter: we need to see the entire file on John Kerry to determine who's telling the truth. Is it John Kerry and a handful of people, or over 200 combat veterans who were also there and saw him in action?

Until John Kerry releases his complete military records, the credibility of the Swiftvets will continue to grow. As long as Kerry keeps answering their well-documented allegations with nothing but intimidation tactics, his credibility will be completely suspect. Jim Rassman cannot save John Kerry from himself.

UPDATE: CQ reader Jack wonders if he's missing something. It appears that Rassman has told different stories about this Bronze Star incident. Story 1, January 2004 -- he's on a boat following the one Kerry commanded:

Former Lieutenant John Kerry was reunited today with fellow Vietnam veteran Jim Rassman, who says Kerry saved his life during combat.

On March 13, 1969, Rassman, a Green Beret, was traveling down the Bay Hap river in a boat behind Kerry’s when both were ambushed by exploding land mines and enemy fire coming from the shore. Kerry was hit in the arm, while a mine blew Rassman’s boat out of the water. With enemy fire coming from both sides of the river and swift boats evacuating from the area, Kerry’s crew chose to turn their boat toward the ambush to save Rassman.

Story 2, today's WSJ -- Rassman was on Kerry's boat:

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

Well, which was it? Was Rassman on Kerry's boat at the beginning of the action, or on another boat? I would assume that the first version would be the most reliable, but it would also detract from Rassman's contention that he "served" with Kerry.

Beldar also gives Rassman a fisking.

Mark Steyn: Kerry Doesn't Add Up

The priceless Mark Steyn, the prose laureate of the Right, deconstructs the Christmas in Cambodia mythology with the skill of a surgeon in today's column. Steyn also answers those courageous Democratic Underground commenters here at CQ who called us Nazis for questioning Kerry's war record, but left no name or e-mail address on their missives:

For decades, John Kerry has told anyone who'd listen that at Christmas 1968 he was on an illegal mission inside Cambodia. On the floor of the Senate in 1986, while attacking President Reagan for turning Central America into another Vietnam quagmire (wrong as usual), Kerry said: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared – seared – in me."

The illegal Yuletide foray was so seared into him that he brought it up at every opportunity.

As he told the Boston Herald in 1979, "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

LBJ was President on Christmas Eve 1968, but let that pass. Here's an Associated Press story from 1992: "Navy Lt John Kerry knew he had no business steering his Mekong River patrol boat across the border into Cambodia, but orders were orders… By Christmas 1968, part of Kerry's patrol extended across the border of South Vietnam into Cambodia."

Just one problem. It never happened. Every living officer up his chain of command says Kerry was never ordered to Cambodia. At least three of his five crewmen say their boat was never in Cambodia. And if you don't believe any of his fellow veterans, read the excerpt from Kerry's own journal published in Tour Of Duty, the recent hagiography by Douglas Brinkley.

On December 24 1968, Kerry was at Sa Dec – that's well inside Vietnam, 55 miles from the Cambodian border – and waxing wistful to his diary about a quiet Christmas far from home: "Visions of sugarplums really do dance through your head and you think of stockings and snow and roast chestnuts and fires with birch logs and all that is good and warm and real. It's Christmas Eve."

I'm Vietnammed out. But it's the centrepiece of Kerry's campaign: the other day, asked a straightforward question about 9/11, he stuck to the current millennium for a good 20 seconds and then veered off into "the war that I fought in was a war where we saw America lose its support for the war, where the soldiers came back having had to do what our soldiers are doing today, carry an M-16 in another country, try to tell the difference between friend and foe. I know what it's like to go out at night on patrol", etc, etc. So, since Vietnam seems to be the only subject on which he has anything to say, it would be reassuring to know that at least he's got that right.

Read the whole thing. And remember who brought up Viet Nam service first and accused who of lying about their service first. That honor belongs to Terry McAuliffe and the Democrats, and John Kerry himself indulged in it during the spring. Don't ask us to spare him the same scrutiny he demanded of George Bush, even though Bush wasn't making Viet Nam a part of his campaign at all.

Caption Contest Winners!

Your entries overwhelmed Right Wing Duck -- when I told him that we had a record number of entries in this week's Captain's Caption Contest, he couldn't believe his ears! And not just his, either ...

Here's RWD on the contest:

"Wow, Captain this was a lot harder than I thought. I
didn't know which one to choose, so I asked the French Embassy for
help. They suggested I surrender. Then I called the UN but they
wouldn't return my calls. So I acted unilaterally - screw the French!
If you guys were liberal I'd worry about hurting your feelings - but
you're not so let me just say this - a lot of you should get
professional help!"

Here are the winners, with or without that vaunted French military alliance:

Captain's Award (Roll Call Edition) - DANEgerus:

All I see is 4 vegetables with 6 ears.

You Have The Conn #1 (Kellogg's Or Post?) - Sligobob:

As so, early in the campaign, the corn meets the flake.

You Have The Conn #2 (Match Game '04) - Tongue Boy:

"Will someone tell Charles Nelson Reilly to quit screaming in my ears?"

You Have The Conn #3 (Don't Squeeze The Charmin) - Steverino:

...and after my economic policies get enacted and you lose your job
and can't afford toilet paper anymore, you can use THESE!

Report To Sick Bay (On The Double) - tied:

Rocat: You'd best butter up, America!!! John Kerry's comin'!!!

Furious: "His'n'Hers -- Batteries not included..."

Special Award: Best use of old and new (Old people are cute) - MDatek:

JF'nK: On the right is Punch and on the left is Judy.
whack-whack
Unidentified Reporter: So could you say this is a metaphor for the
current political climate, the right beating up on the left?
JF'nK: No you Sonuva....It's a f*$kin puppet show. You, Secret Service
guy, make him.... disappear.
Unidentified Reporter: Help, Help, I'm being repressed to the, no....
not the Free Speech Zone!!

Best use of a semi-modern Reference [Beavis] - Thief:

I AM CORNHOLIO! heheh....MY BUNGHOLE IS REPORTING FOR DUTY!...
heheheh...ARE YOU QUESTIONING THE PATRIOTISM OF MY BUNGHOLE? heheh....

Thanks to everyone who entered, and congratulations to the winners! Remember, here at CQ, everyone's a winner -- just some of us have higher winning percentages than others. Comments on this post will remain open, as usual, in order for the winners to gloat, the others to disparage Right Wing Duck's intellect and/or my parentage, and for any other entries submitted just for the sheer enjoyment of amazing your friends and confounding your enemies.

As I mentioned this weekend, your donations continue to flow into the tipjars set up to help me defray the costs of attending the Republican National Convention, and they are much appreciated. You raised about $150 more this past weekend, pushing the total to about two-thirds of the travel expenses for the trip. I'm extremely grateful, and I hope to give everyone their money's worth when I'm at Madison Square Garden for the show. The tipjars will remain on the left sidebar until the convention.

Send me a photograph or an e-mail with a link to a great picture you think should be the subject of our next Caption Contest, and let me know if you'd like to be the guest judge! I'll have another picture for Friday -- so be sure to come back then for the next contest.

Christmas In Cambodia, Part V: Close Enough For Government Work

Instapundit reports this evening that the Kerry campaign is now backing away from three decades of Kerry assertions that the young lieutenant took part in illegal military operations in Cambodia:

Via the show, I heard a Carl Cameron story on the Kerry/Cambodia issue that ran last hour. It sounded devastating, and the Kerry campaign sounded disorganized and un-credible. They're now saying that Kerry was "near" Cambodia (58 miles away), but can't explain why he repeatedly said he was actually in Cambodia.

If indeed the Kerry/Edwards campaign has retreated on this point -- and I don't have the Carl Cameron story on Fox to review -- then the effect will be staggering. The entire narrative of Kerry's transition from eager young lieutenant to disillusioned veteran supposedly began on that Cambodian Christmas Eve, when under fire in a country on which we had not declared war, he heard his President deny that any American servicemen operated anywhere except Viet Nam. That experience, supposedly "seared" into his memory (as he told the Senate in 1986), propelled Kerry to testify to atrocities and war crimes committed by his "band of brothers" and lead Vietnam Veterans Against The War.

Now that more of the record has come out and his band of brothers has decided to give testimony to Kerry's actual experience, Kerry appears to be backtracking back to Vietnam on Christmas Eve, saying that he was "near" the border, but that won't help a bit. His entire narrative has been exposed as a house of cards built on a lie, and not just any old lie, either. The illegal incursions into Cambodia energized the anti-war movement, and claiming (falsely) to have participated in them would have given Kerry tremendous credibility to those activists, as well as to the Senators in 1971.

He stole the story to puff himself up in 1971. He kept repeating the story, even on the floor of the Senate, in order to puff up his credibility there as well, this time on Nicaragua -- where his unerring instinct for picking the losing side showed again. And now we see that in the bout for credibility, the 200+ band of Swiftvets has beaten the narcissist by a knockout.

After having retracted his three-decade-old story, what other lies has Kerry told about Viet Nam? Lies about his Purple Hearts? Lies about his Bronze Star? Lies about American atrocities so widespread that all units and the entire leadership took part in them?

The Swiftvets deserve their day of reckoning with John Kerry, and we deserve to see his complete military records, just as Terry McAuliffe and Kerry himself demanded -- and got -- from George Bush, who wasn't making his military service the centerpiece of his campaign. Call Kerry's campaign headquarters and demand that he release the records!

Blog Notes

My random collection of thoughts on a Monday afternoon ...

* Again this week, I will be working evenings in order to take care of some work issues and take the First Mate to some doctor's appointments. My productivity may be lower than normal, but hopefully the quality will remain high.

* I didn't mention it when it happened, but Captain's Quarters passed its 500,000th visit late last month, approximately 10 months after I launched the blog. I have a lot of people to thank for this -- notably Hugh Hewitt, the Lord High Commissioner for the Blogosphere and the father of the Northern Alliance. The guys at Power Line gave me a big lift right near the beginning, too, linking back to me several times and allowing my site to get great early exposure, and the rest of the Northern Alliance guys, too -- King at SCSU Scholars, the gang at Fraters Libertas, and Mitch at Shot In The Dark (all links are on the sidebar). They've been the integral part of CQ's success and have helped us become a Top 100 blog at the Truth Laid Bear ecosystem.

Plus, let's face it -- without the boatload of great links from the Blogfather, who just celebrated his third blogiversary, we wouldn't be anywhere near this level of traffic. Speaking of which ...

* CQ has experienced record traffic over the past two days, and I'd like to welcome anyone who's been visiting over the past few days for the first time. We had 25,000 visitors yesterday, which is a one-day record for this blog, and on a Sunday, it's unbelievable. It looks like we're heading there today, too. It won't stay that high much longer unless more news breaks on the Christmas in Cambodia story, but I hope all of you will be back during the Republican convention.

* Right Wing Duck is still overwhelmed with your responses to the Caption Contest -- I expect to get something from him today, and if I'm able to stay awake tonight, I will post the winners when I'm home from the office. Sorry for the delay!

Off to work...

Maybe This Is Why They Think They Should Vote

Fox News reports that several states have cracked down on a chain of schools that assists immigrants to America in getting a GED, the equivalent of a high-school diploma. That sounds like a worthy goal, no? Well, apparently they took the equivalency issue a bit too seriously, as their source materials are so riddled with errors that it almost sounds like a parody of American education:

California has joined other states in acting against a private school that claimed to award high school diplomas while teaching its immigrant students a curriculum riddled with errors, including the wrong years for World War II and the wrong number of states.

The California Alternative High School in Los Angeles targeted Hispanic immigrants, charging $450 to $1,450 for a 10-week course it said would lead to a valid diploma and help them get into college, find better jobs and get financial aid, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said last week.

But the school's certificate isn't recognized as a high school diploma, Lockyer said, and school officials ignored a previous court order that banned them from telling consumers it was.

Why isn't their program accredited? Their textbooks couldn't pass a third-grade civics class, for one thing:

— The United States has 53 states but the "flag has not yet been updated to reflect the addition of the last three states" — Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico.

— World War II began in 1938 and ended in 1942.

— There are two houses of Congress — the Senate and the House, and "one is for Democrats and the other is for the Republicans, respectively."

Perhaps the school just entered into some wishful thinking. After all, had the Allies launched the war against the Nazis in 1938, it probably would have been over before 1942, and perhaps a lot sooner than that. And I'm sure that some people would love to just have two houses of Congress and divide it by political party, although I rather doubt that it includes Ralph Nader and Michael Moore, for instance. (Hmmm. Sounds better all the time.)

Decades ago, someone wrote a book translating common phrases into English for foreign travelers to Great Britain that was so full of errors that it became almost a satire in itself. Even Monty Python used it for the basis of one of their classic skits (John Cleese was the foreigner, Michael Palin the British shopkeeper). Having an entire school dedicated to illiteracy would be hilariously ironic if it wasn't for its thousands of victims, whose illiteracy will impact us for years to come.

Immigrants Want The Vote Without The Work

The New York Times runs a story today on efforts by immigration activists to allow non-citizens to vote in American elections -- local elections to start:

For months, the would-be revolutionaries plotted strategy and lobbied local politicians here with the age-old plea, "No taxation without representation!" Last month, some of the unlikely insurgents - Ethiopian-born restaurateurs, travel agents and real estate developers in sober business suits - declared that victory finally seemed within reach.

Five City Council members announced their support for a bill that would allow thousands of immigrants to vote in local elections here, placing the nation's capital among a handful of cities across the country in the forefront of efforts to offer voting rights to noncitizens.

"It will happen,'' said Tamrat Medhin, a civic activist from Ethiopia who lives here. "Don't you believe that if people are working in the community and paying taxes, don't you agree that they deserve the opportunity to vote?''

Calling for "democracy for all," immigrants are increasingly pressing for the right to vote in municipal elections. In Washington, the proposed bill, introduced in July, would allow permanent residents to vote for the mayor and members of the school board and City Council.

If immigrants want the vote, they have a well-documented legal path to do so: become an American citizen. "Taxation without representation" only demonstrates a complete lack of historical intelligence on the struggle of the American colonies. No one in the colonies had representation in Parliament. The argument in the eighteenth century had to do with Parliament passing special taxes on colonials without the colonies having even a part in the debate. It had nothing to do with immigrants not being able to vote in elections - it had everything to do with colonials not being allowed to elect their own representatives to Parliament in order to at least have a voice in tax policy.

It's exactly this ignorance of American political development that naturalization is intended to correct. Instead, immigrants want to be granted the franchise without lifting a finger for it.

Plus, no one addresses the difficulty in allowing immigrants to vote in local elections but excluding them from state and national elections. Will Washington require proof of citizenship at the polls for certain elections? Will they stop people from voting if they cannot produce a birth certificate or naturalization papers? If so, you can bet your last dollar that the uproar they cause in doing so will make the debate over Florida in 2000 sound like a college glee club concert. States have trouble funding the transition from paper to higher-tech balloting technologies now. How will they finance two sets of voter rolls, one for local elections and another for all others?

I'm not anti-immigrant; as the descendant of immigrants on all sides of my ancestry (only third-generation on one descent), I believe that controlled immigration to continue to be a huge benefit to America. However, the new immigrants need to understand that this is the land of opportunity, not the land of handouts. America has plenty of blessings for those who wish to work for them, just as my ancestors did, and naturalization is no insurmountable barrier for those who wish to participate in our political processes.

Najaf Governor Gives Green Light To Military Action

Moqtada al-Sadr lost important political cover overnight when the governor of Najaf agreed to allow joint Iraqi-American forces to begin military operations to eject Sadr from the Imam Ali mosque, one of the holiest Shi'a shrines and a site that the Americans had carefully avoided attacking:

The governor of Najaf cleared the way Monday for military operations around the Iman Ali shrine, the most holy place in Shiite Islam, where fighters loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are holed up, said a commander for the U.S.-led multinational forces. ...

At a briefing Monday afternoon, a senior multinational forces commander said the governor of Najaf had approved the operations in coordination with the Iraqi National Guard.

The commander estimated that more than 360 of al-Sadr's fighters -- believed to number around 2,000 -- have been killed since the governor of Najaf requested assistance last week from the multinational forces to put down the uprising.

The commander said the militias are in two places -- a cemetery and the Iman Ali mosque. He said U.S. Marines and Iraqi National Guard troops had surrounded the mosque and were sweeping the cemetery in an operation he called "measured and methodical."

Sadr has again overplayed his hand. As several people have pointed out, the sudden need for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani appears to have been timed in order to give the interim government an opening to remove Sadr without Sistani having to approve of their actions. At the same time, Sadr continued to provoke the new government, attacking police stations and advocating violent change, all the time hiding out in the one place he thought the Iraqis and Americans would never dare come.

During this time, he's seen his raggedy Mahdi army reduced by at least 20% through death and an unknown number captured. Sadr continues to pursue his personal vision of power through inconsistent means, but one thing is certain: he is no general, and he faces a determined and experienced military with its last shackles loosed by the Najafians. Even the Shi'a have tired of Sadr and his reckless endangerment of their shrines and have concluded that the only way to get him out is to force him out.

He may well be the most inept Muslim military leader since Enver Pasha, and if he doesn't hike himself out of Najaf quickly, will likely share his fate.

Christmas In Cambodia, Part IV: Patrol Or Tourist?

Longtime CQ reader Retired Military points out yet another article with yet another version of the Christmas in Cambodia story from John Kerry. Kerry had long insisted that he was ordered to patrol in Cambodian waters, and spoke of his disillusionment with the war and how it kindled when he heard the president deny that any servicemen were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968, while he patrolled their waters. He claims that the moment was "seared into his memory," an embittered recollection that would cause him to protest the war and American actions in it on his return to the US.

However, in June 2003, as part of a profile written by Michael Kranish (a name that keeps popping up in Kerry mythmaking), John Kerry tells the Boston Globe that his patrol area was within South Viet Nam -- and he only went into Cambodia to chase down attackers:

The Christmas Eve truce of 1968 was three minutes old when mortar fire exploded around John Forbes Kerry and his five-man crew on a 50-foot aluminum boat near Cambodia. ''Where is the enemy?'' a crewmate shouted.

In the distance, an elderly man was tending his water buffalo -- and serving as human cover for a dozen Viet Cong manning a machine-gun nest.

"Open fire; let's take 'em," Kerry ordered, according to his second-in-command, James Wasser of Illinois. Wasser blasted away with his M-60, hitting the old man, who slumped into the water, presumably dead. With a clear path to the enemy, the fusillade from Kerry's Navy boat, backed by a pair of other small vessels, silenced the machine-gun nest.

When it was over, the Viet Cong were dead, wounded, or on the run. A civilian apparently was killed, and two South Vietnamese allies who had alerted Kerry's crew to the enemy were either wounded or killed.

On the same night, Kerry and his crew had come within a half-inch of being killed by "friendly fire," when some South Vietnamese allies launched several rounds into the river to celebrate the holiday.

To top it off, Kerry said, he had gone several miles inside Cambodia, which theoretically was off limits, prompting Kerry to send a sarcastic message to his superiors that he was writing from the Navy's "most inland" unit.

Back at his base, a weary, disconsolate Kerry sat at his typewriter, as he often did, and poured out his grief. "You hope that they'll courtmartial you or something because that would make sense," Kerry typed that night. He would later recall using court-martial as "a joke," because nothing made sense to him -- the war policy, the deaths, and his presence in the middle of it all.

This narrative makes clear that Kerry disobeyed orders in order to continue his attack, if it happened at all. Otherwise, why would he have sat at his desk hoping to be court-martialed? Compare this to his statement to the Senate in 1986, when his seared-in memory of sitting on a patrol boat in Cambodia, listening to the US president deny he was there embittered him against the war.

Inconsistencies? You bet:

1. Given this account of his Christman in Cambodia, the president (whichever one) couldn't possibly have known of his incursion into Cambodia, since no one authorized it, and even Kerry somewhat hoped to get court-martialed for it.

2. Pushing his Swiftboat into hostile territory to chase down the VC, when would Kerry have time to listen in on American Armed Forces radio? If so, who commanded the boat while he listened to the radio?

3. Wouldn't it be incredibly stupid to have the radio on while trying to engage the enemy on a clandestine mission inside unauthorized territory?

Kerry's story keeps changing over the years -- and the changes are significant, not just minor details. His Christmas in Cambodia myth has had him at various times doing routine patrols to a reckless disregard of orders to complete an engagement. In both cases, having a radio on would almost be equivalent to shouting over a bullhorn that Americans were on the river. It doesn't add up, and neither does Kerry.

Christmas In Cambodia, Part III: Time Flies

Tom Maguire at the excellent blog Just One Minute points out this AP story from twelve years ago explaining Kerry's Cambodia experience. See if you can point out the inconsistencies in Kerry's story back in 1992:

Navy Lt. John Kerry knew he had no business steering his Mekong River patrol boat across the border into Cambodia, but orders were orders. A quarter-century later, Sen. John Kerry says newly declassified documents have convinced him fellow servicemen captured on such trips were left behind at war's end. ...

But for Kerry, who spent six violent months commanding a patrol boat on the Mekong River, there's always been a ring of truth to allegations of abandoned Americans. By Christmas 1968, part of Kerry's patrol extended across the border of South Vietnam into Cambodia.

"We were told, `Just go up there and do your patrol. Everybody was over there (in Cambodia). Nobody thought twice about it," Kerry said. One of the missions, which Kerry, at the time, was ordered not to discuss, involved taking CIA operatives into Cambodia to search for enemy enclaves.

"I can remember wondering, `If you're going to go, what happens to you,"' Kerry said.

Here are the inconsistencies I see:

1. Kerry served four months, not six, in country.
2. Christmas in Cambodia switched to Winter in Cambodia after eight years in the Senate.
3. "Everybody was over there," except for half of John Kerry's crew, who insist they never went into Cambodia. Perhaps only half of the boat ever crossed into Cambodian waters, or the trio waterskied behind on a really long tow rope.

As Maguire says, "Kerry has no after-action reports, no witnesses, a story by Brinkley that puts him too far from the border, and a less-than-full crew supporting him - not good. Unless everyone is lying except John!"

There's only one way to settle this factually -- John Kerry should do what he and his party chairman insisted of George Bush earlier this year, and release his complete military records. If he does that, we can review the records and find out exactly what kind of officer John Kerry was. As long as he threatens lawsuits and has his minions planning character assassinations on other decorated Viet Nam veterans, then we can safely assume that the 200+ men in the Swiftvets are telling the truth about Kerry.

Christmas In Cambodia, Part II: Not Without My Shipmates

Drudge reports that the Christmas in Cambodia story continues to fall apart. John O'Neill of Swiftboat Veterans for the Truth writes in his upcoming book at more length on the Cambodia story than his letter to the station managers I reprinted last night. Here's the key passage that points out the dangerous situation the Kerry campaign faces:

All the living commanders in Kerry’s chain of command . . . deny that Kerry was ever ordered to Cambodia. They indicate that Kerry would have been seriously disciplined or court-martialed had he gone there. At least three of the five crewmen on Kerry’s boat, Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner, deny that they or their boat were ever in Cambodia [emph mine -- CE].

O’Neill observed that the Cambodia incursion story is not included in Tour of Duty (Kerry’s recent biography). Instead, Kerry replaced the story with a report about a mortar attack that occurred on Christmas Eve 1968 “near the Cambodian border” in a town called Sa Dec and Christmas day was spent at the base writing entries in his journal.

This report destroys the argument coming from various Kerry defenders that the criticisms of his combat record come from second- and third-hand sources. One of the recent comments on my blog disputed the Swiftvets story because of a lack of corroboration from those who served closest to the young Lieutenant. In this case, 60% of his own crew disavow Kerry's statements to Congress on his combat record, including Stephen Gardner but also two other crew members.

The effect of the collapse of Kerry's Cambodian Christmas should be devastating. It shows that Kerry repeatedly lied about the nature of his service in Viet Nam, destroying his credibility and bolstering that of the Swiftvets. It also casts a lot of doubt on Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony regarding widespread atrocities committed by American soldiers and Marines in the war and the complicity of US leadership. In fact, such blatantly false assertions and testimony undermine the confidence any reasonable person would have in Kerry's entire character.

No wonder he sicced a passel of attorneys onto John O'Neill and the more than 200 Swiftboat veterans who have stood up to him this year. I guess the combat hero of Cambodia couldn't find the courage to stand up to a collection of Viet Nam veterans, his own colleagues, and release his military records to prove his story once and for all. After all, it's all he and Terry McAuliffe could talk about this winter and spring, releasing military records, as long as the subject was George Bush.

Kerry can spare himself the attorney fees. In the clash of character, Kerry has already lost.

UPDATE: Instapundit and reader Captain Joe point out one report of how the Kerry campaign plans to face up, man to man, with his band of brothers:

The Democrat National Committee has prepared a full-scale assault against the Vietnam Veterans for Truth to draw their character and veracity into question, according to one anonymous source inside the DNC. The campaign of character assassination is scheduled to coincide with the release of the book Unfit for Command which reveals inconvenient facts for the Kerry campaign.

“We have prepared what we call ‘Brown Books’ that contain damaging military records, personal credit histories, medical histories, psychiatric histories, divorce records, you name it,” our source told us. "We've got the goods on the Veterans who oppose Kerry." ...

The “Brown Books” are so called because of their distinctive plain brown covers, which contain no words. Some books have already been delivered to Kerry-friendly reporters. Others are on their way, our source told us. When asked if we could have a copy, our source declined, saying there is a limited number of “Brown Books” and they have been carefully inventoried to control in whose hands the books ended up.

Ultimately the “Brown Books” will end up in the hands of pro-Kerry news agencies and reporters. According to our source, who demanded to remain anonymous for fear of retribution, The New York Times is already on the hook to run a negative series on the Vets, as is the Boston Globe, which is owned by the Times.

Here's a message to John Kerry: If you want to discredit the Swiftvets, release your military records!

NY Security Procedures Get Criticized For Displacing The Homeless

When securing an area for high-risk events, it is common practive to evict any loiterers, as terrorists or criminals can easily hide themselves among them. The Republican National Convention is no different, and since the venue itself sits on top of Penn Station -- a prime terrorist target at any time -- it makes sense that the FBI and other national-security agencies will clear the area of all but those who have a reason to be there.

Unfortunately, since this is the Republican convention, the media reports this basic security concept as a heartless blow to the homeless:

.W. Ballantine, a 77-year-old homeless man, already sleeps most nights in Penn Station and eats many of his meals in neighborhood soup kitchens. But Ballantine's life is about to get much harder now that the Republican National Convention is coming to Madison Square Garden, directly on top of the train station where he usually sleeps. Ballantine, and hundreds of other homeless people like him, will be moved out from Aug. 30 to Sept. 2 so the convention can take place.

"They think homeless people are eyesores," Ballantine said. "They want to hide them so tourists don't see them." Security is already high in New York City, and homeless people worry that even tougher convention security will force them to the city's fringes — far from the outreach workers trying to help them.

"When you lose people and they become fearful, you're not going to see them again," said Arnold S. Cohen, president and CEO of Partnership for the Homeless.

It's hard to say precisely how many homeless people sleep in midtown Manhattan, but a food pantry on West 31st Street serves 500 people a week. The Holy Apostles Soup Kitchen on West 28th Street serves roughly 1,200 people every day.

A Google search shows no media outlets ever raised the issue of clearing the homeless from around the Fleet Center, even though it would have been the exact same agencies following the exact same strategies for security. Not one mention. Why do you suppose that might be?

The war on terrorism and securing political events are serious business. Those who approach them with such studied partisanship reveal themselves to be unserious people. Normally, this would be a debating point for me, but since my tucchus will be squarely above Penn Station, I'd like the government to make it as secure as possible. The plain fact is that no one has the right to live in Penn Station, and overriding concerns of security necessitate that loiterers be cleared from the area.

Bush Foreign Policy, Patience Pays Off In Saudi Arabia

The Bush administration's efforts in the war on terror gets a boost from an unlikely source today -- the Los Angeles Times. Albeit a silent endorsement, the Times' analysis of Saudi Arabia's evolution from tacit supporter of terror to a key ally of the war on al-Qaeda demonstrates that the Bush strategy of patience and diplomatic pressure have paid off with the Saudis, and has resulted in vital cooperation between intelligence services:

After years of giving tacit support and back-channel financing to Islamic extremists, the Saudi government has joined forces with the United States in an intensive battle against Al Qaeda in the desert kingdom.

For the last year, U.S. intelligence analysts have been sitting side by side with their Saudi counterparts at a secret location here in the capital, sharing raw intelligence and plotting counterattacks, said a former U.S. ambassador to the country, Robert Jordan, and a senior Saudi government official.

Even critics who accuse the Saudis of turning a blind eye to militant Islamic terrorism in the past — and who remain skeptical about the extent of their cooperation — agreed that Saudi security forces were taking the Al Qaeda threat seriously and responding forcefully.

Early after 9/11, the Bush administration came under tremendous pressure to name the Saudis as accessories to the attacks. Secret files were requested, and when they were release with heavy redaction, critics accused Bush of covering up for his Saudi "cronies". This resulted in a number of ludicrous conspiracy theories about Bush-Saudi connections, mostly trying to paint Bush as a tool of the Saudis even while he launched two wars they opposed. Michael Moore provides the most blatant example in his wildly paranoid movie Fahrenheit 9/11, but even John Kerry on the stump likes to make veiled references to the urban legend of Saudi ownership of the Bush family:

"If we want our security to be in our hands, if we want our destiny to be controlled by America completely," Mr. Kerry said in Kansas City, "we've got to have America have its ingenuity and creativity produce its energy - not the Saudi royal family."

Instead of focusing on feel-good pandering to the paranoid conspiracy demographic, Bush kept his focus on the most important issue: defeating the terrorists. He demonstrated his independence of action to the Saudi royal family, and the world, when he took action against Saddam Hussein and gave credibility to American policies in the regoion, credibility that had been sorely lacking since the cease-fire and the betrayal of the Shi'a in 1991. Among the many positive developments from this change in directions was the clear communication to the Saudis that our security mattered more than their oil, and that opposing us would put them on the losing side of the war.

This message was driven home by al-Qaeda itself when it attacked Saudi sites with carbombs, supposedly for supporting America in its invasion of Iraq. (It gave no real cooperation, of course; it opposed it diplomatically while putting no operational obstacles in our way.) By keeping diplomatic relations healthy with the Saudis, Bush allowed them to join the team -- late, perhaps, but still effective.

Now we face a choice in November. Do we re-elect the man who understood the greater danger in 2001 and acted to attack it, rather than wait for the next attack? Or do we vote for the short-sighted man who continues to pander to conspiracy theorists and the neo-Stalinists of International ANSWER?

"Hellfighter" Goes On To Main Event

Paul "Red" Adair, the flamboyantly named oil-fire expert whose dash far outstripped his name, died last night of natural causes in a Houston hospital. Adair spent most of the 20th century fighting -- and beating -- the largest oil fires in the world, capping his career with an audacious and tremendously successful effort to avert the environmental and economic catastrophe that Saddm set off in Kuwait:

Red Adair gained global fame in 1962, when he tackled a fire at a gas field in the Sahara - a feat later retold in the John Wayne film Hellfighters.

He also grabbed headlines quenching blazing Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.
And in 1988 he fought the explosion of the Piper Alpha platform in the North Sea which killed 167 men. ...

[H]is expertise in 1991 putting out the blazing oil wells in Kuwait that had been set alight by retreating Iraqi forces was credited with preventing an environmental catastrophe. He took nine months to complete an operation that it had been estimated would take three to five years.

Sometime soon, we should get an opportunity to learn more about this American original, a roughneck who took a dangerous labor and turned it into a profession, a science, and then an art. His life seems ready-made for a biographer, and I'll bet they're lining up to start. (Heck, I'd love a shot at that job!) I have no comment to make about the status of Adair's soul, since I never knew the man, but God has an eye for talent -- and I wouldn't be the least surprised if Red isn't drafting new ways to fight the fires of Hell. He's seen enough of it here in this world to know his stuff.

Godspeed, and thank you Red. Our prayers are with your family.

Captain's Caption Contest #22: Cornapalooza!

It's Friday, so it must be time for another Captain's Caption Contest! As my good friend and colleague Rocket Man at Power Line reminded us earlier this week, politics can be a corny business. All of the sloganeering, all of the baby-kissing, the hand-shaking ... the pandering to local business:

Of course, there's nothing more corny than a good caption contest! So lend us your ears (heh) and especially your wits and enter your best (and corniest) ideas. Guest-judging this week will be Right Wing Duck, a multiple-contest winner here at CQ and the host of a bitingly humorous blog you all should check out. As always, leave your comments on the comments page, and as always, put your best caption entries in the comments section -- NO e-mail, please! (E-mailed entries will be shucked by experts at the Heinz-Kerry compound and fed to the peasants at a local state fair, on sticks, and probably deep-fried.) The contest will remain open until 8 pm Sunday, August 8th, at which point the comments will be closed and Tony will pick the winners.

In the meantime, if you enjoy the contests and the blog, consider dropping in a donation for Captain's Quarters trip to New York as a credentialed blogger at the Republican National Convention. Just click on one of the buttons below and donate whatever you can to the cause -- all donations are cheerfully and gratefully accepted!

Let the games begin!

BUMP 8/7: The entries are as high as an elephant's eye! (Well, if we're doing corn, what better reference than a Rodgers & Hammerstein musical?) ....

BUMP 8/8: Aw, shucks -- you guys definitely have an ear for this week's entry! Keep up the great work -- we're open until 8 pm CT ...

COMMENTS CLOSED: Take it away, Right Wing Duck!

AQ Networks Rolling Up

Al-Qaeda leadership and their networks continue to roll up into hostile hands this summer, as now the United Arab Emirates announce the capture of a "senior" AQ leader and his extradition to Pakistan:

A senior Pakistani al-Qaida operative who used to run one of the terror group's training camps in Afghanistan has been arrested in the United Arab Emirates and handed over to Pakistani officials, the information minister said Sunday.

Qari Saifullah Akhtar is in Pakistani custody, the latest in a string of major breakthroughs against the al-Qaida network, Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told The Associated Press.

Akhtar ran an al-Qaida training camp in Rishkhor, Afghanistan, where terrorists learned kidnapping and assassination techniques, as well as traditional combat skills used by Taliban fighters in their war to win control of the country before they were ousted in late 2001.

When President Bush announced that the US would go to war against al-Qaeda and Islamofascist terrorists, he said that the war would take a long time and not exclusively consist of open battles fought on traditional battlefields -- although it would include some of the traditional warfare, too. He talked about clandestine operations and victories that would take months to be known to the American public. Bush told us that we would need to stand fast and stay the course, as reversal and early withdrawal could do more damage than doing nothing in the first place.

Here we have an excellent example of Bush's analysis. From one arrest and flip of an AQ agent, we now have begun rolling up large sections of the terrorist network. Far from being a unilateralist, Bush turned Pakistan from a neutral -- at best -- to an important ally and has most Muslim nations cooperating to destroy AQ's ability to launch new operations. As we capture more and more of their network, we will hopefully uncover ongoing operations before they launch. In fact, I am certain we already have done so, which is why things have been so quiet for the past three years.

Al-Qaeda had the patience to plan its operations years in advance and see them through to fruition. Does the American public have the same resolve in defeating the Islamofascists? I suppose we will see in November.

UPDATE: Via Instapundit, CNN has even more interesting background on Akhtar:

A Pakistani al Qaeda operative believed to have been close to al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar was flown to Pakistan after he was arrested in Dubai, Pakistani intelligence sources said.

Qari Saifullah Akhtar's capture may help in the hunt for the al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, the sources said.

Ahktar has been linked to two assassination attempts against Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, the sources said.

That explains why the Pakistanis wanted Akhtar and why he wasn't handed over to American intelligence first. Musharraf wants to take care of his would-be assassins himself, I'm sure, rather than wait for the wheels of American justice to roll to their conclusion. Besides, we really want Akhtar's intel, not his corporeal presence. As long as he rots, it can be in Pakistan for all we care.

The global effort to target al-Qaeda appears to be drawing ever closer to the center of the Islamofascist syndicate, doesn't it? A few more days like this, and we'll start hearing the Democrats whine about the timing of these victories again.

Scum-Sucking Spammer Of The Day

I was hoping to have posted something significant this morning, but unfortunately I have spent the first hour cleaning up after a scum-sucking spammer who has been leaving spam comments all over Captain's Quarters. The site referral redirects to www.rxsexualhealth.com, which is a Viagra reseller.

If you would like to make your displeasure known to the fine folks at RxSexualHealth, please e-mail them at admin@rxsexualhealth.com. In fact, if you have any political views you'd like to share, send them to admin@rxsexualhealth.com. If you have pictures of your vacation that you think would interest the folks at RxSexualHealt, send them off to admin@rxsexualhealth.com. If you have a blog, feel free to link back to this post and encourage others to send lots of mail to the fine people at admin@rxsexualhealth.com.

Just don't forget to use the subject line, "Quit Spamming Blog Sites!" on every piece of e-mail you send.

Thank you, and good morning.