It was a Vietnam flashback in Thursday's news pages, as New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg deployed 2004-era Times language to attack the veracity of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the Vietnam veterans group that successfully challenged John Kerry's Vietnam war record. The story concerned Sam Fox, Bush's nominee for ambassador to Belgium, who was forced to withdraw from consideration after Sen. John Kerry made a stink that Fox donated $50,000 to the Swifties. Bush took advantage of the Congressional recess to install Fox as ambassador without waiting for Senate approval.
Rutenberg:
"President Bush used the Congressional recess on Wednesday to push through his choice to be ambassador to Belgium and to fill two domestic policy positions, provoking Democratic ire with all three appointments.
"The ambassadorship will be filled by Sam Fox, a major Republican donor who had withdrawn his name for the job in late March when it became clear that Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee were lining up against him.
"Mr. Fox donated $50,000 to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that opposed Senator John Kerry during his 2004 presidential campaign. The group attacked Mr. Kerry’s record in the Vietnam War with advertising that included unsubstantiated accusations that he had not earned his war medals."
Sound familiar? As Times Watch revealed in a 2004 special report "Double Standard: Times Tars Swift Boat Vets, Plugs False 'Bush AWOL' Story," the Times stuck that exact same warning label ("unsubstantiated") on the Swift Boats Veterans no less than 20 times during the campaign.
By contrast, not once did the Times describe the Democrat's false Bush-was-AWOL from the Texas National Guard charges as "unsubstantiated."
For more New York Times bias, visit Times Watch.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The dems were out foxed. JD
April 5, 2007 - 13:07 ET by JDWThe dems were out foxed.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Yes this is just delicious...
April 5, 2007 - 13:14 ET by bigtimerYes this is just delicious...like I said yesterday here...
Kerry and his ilk have to be fuming!
I have been laughing my rear off since I saw this yesterday!http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264090,00.html
To rework Oscar Wilde..The
April 5, 2007 - 13:15 ET by Jack BauerTo rework Oscar Wilde..
Um....this guy wants to be am
April 5, 2007 - 14:12 ET by HokieconUm....this guy wants to be ambassador to Belgium. Who cares if he donated money to the Swifties? What if he donated to GOPAC...Newbusters...Bought Girl Scout cookies? Matters not for purely ceremonial appointments.
--Hokiecon
just the facts??
April 5, 2007 - 14:23 ET by foolnomore"my goodness" the fact that the "rag'n times" hasn't shut down the "swift boats" makes one wonder, could there,be, some truth to their story??
I doubt the claims of the Swi
April 5, 2007 - 16:52 ET by BruzillaI doubt the claims of the Swift Boat guys will ever be proven or disproven. However, looking at what is known for sure, it doesn't look good for Kerry.
1. While in college in the 1960's, Kerry becomes interested in a future in politics.
2. When it comes time to get drafted, Kerry has no option to flee to Canada, as that'll destroy his chances of a political career, so he can get drafted into the Army (not a good thing to do during a land war), he can enlist into another branch of service, or he can request a deferment. He takes the last option, but the draft board turns down his request. So he enlists in the Naval Reserve (not the Navy), which offers him the shortest service commitment and the lowest probability of seeing actual combat.
3. He gets assigned as an assistant engineering officer on a destroyer, which is one of the safest and best assigments a guy who wants to avoid combat can get.
4. Here's where things get fuzzy for me. Some accounts (Kerry's) have him requesting transfer to the swift boats, which at that time are the dirtiest, nastiest, most arduous, and most dangerous assignments for Navy personnel outside of SeAL duty. Some accounts have him being transferred off the destroyer due to performance issues. Which is true, I don't know for sure. What I do know from 10 years of being in the Navy is that undesireable assignments (like the Swift boats in Vietnam) are often used as punishment tours for less-than-desireable personnel. Someone with a Rambo complex, who's really digging the chance to go in and mix it up with the enemy might volunteer, but there is absolutely nothing in Kerry's history that shows him as anything but a guy who's in the Navy only because he has to be, and who did everything possible to stay as far away as possible from combat.
5. Kerry is the lone Swift boat guy to use a three Purple Heart rule to bug out of combat eight months early.
So, are the Swift Boat guys right or wrong? I don't know, but I think the known facts are pretty clear and show a guy who was desperate to avoid service and combat being shoved into both, and doing everything possible to get out as soon as possible. Is a guy like that likely to volunteer for the most dangerous duty? I don't think so. Is a guy like that likely to fake injuries to get out of harm's way? I think so.
To clarify on point #4 - at t
April 5, 2007 - 16:59 ET by Gat New YorkTo clarify on point #4 - at the time that Kerry asked for a transfer to swift boats they were only being used to patrol the outer waterways and were essentially a relatively safe assignment - much like the Coast Guard. But timing is everything and all that did change when he got his assignment. It was a very volatile time in the Vietnam escalation then so things changed suddenly.
What about ambassador kerry
April 5, 2007 - 17:48 ET by JDWWhat about ambassador kerry meeting with Ortega?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
My assumption on #4 was that
April 5, 2007 - 18:15 ET by BDMy assumption on #4 was that Kerry realized that having a military background, or hero status might be a stepping stone to advancement politically.
So he volunteered for duty. As soon as he arrived he began filming his "Exploits" and began acting erratically.
When he had what he thought was a proper amount of film, he began a concerted effort to gain an exit from theater. Self wounding seems to be the quickest manner to extract himself. He reported himself for treatment to medical authorities for supposed wounds that any member of my Bradley Crew would gain on a daily basis from "Bradley Bites."
When He got his three wounds and an appropriate write up in his Fitrep he was GONE.
Sadly for Kerry, He returned home and discovered that the left in America was no longer interested in warriors, but rather interested in the Anti-warrior and he began yet another metamorphosis by jumping feet first into the Winter Soldier group.
He ran for his first campaign solely on his Anti-war credentials.
Then, fast forward to the last presidential campaign when he discovered that his anti-warrior mode would not work post 9/11 and the metamorphosis was on again, back to his original plan - the war hero "Reporting for Duty."
And...what has always amazed
April 5, 2007 - 22:44 ET by Cape ConservativeAnd...what has always amazed me is the fact the JFK took his movie camera to war! Now, how many others guys did that???? Was he already preparing for his political career while in the theater of war???? As you mentioned, no others were heading "out of town" after receiving 3 purple hearts...especially those with such minor wounds as this lying imposter! Oops, did I just say that about MY senator???? Sorry, if the shoe fits, wear it!
I wish Ambassador Fox the very best. I think he will be an honorable representative of our country (unlike the senator who criticized his appointment)
Cape,It is properly said....&
April 5, 2007 - 22:50 ET by BlondeCape,
It is properly said...."if the shoe fits, Cinderella".
Your point about F'ing is perfect.
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game"
April 5, 2007 - 18:22 ET by w0tmWhenever the Democrats ("Liberals", the Democratic Party died in 1972) hold the presidency (most recently, Bill Clinton), Republicans, with a few exceptions that the media plays to the hilt, play by "the rules" and do not practice Liberal politics of obstruction and destruction. Each time, they are assured by smiling Liberals that, as the minority party, Republicans must act accordingly. And they do. They naively believe, if they ever regain the presidency, they will be treated just as fairly. The Republicans smile and vote in a Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a Supreme Court justice plus block almost nothing the Liberals desire to pass into law. After all, the Liberals promise to be just as fair the next time the Republicans take the White House.
And, once again, the Republicans fall for it. How many times will they lean over to pick up that fake money stuffed wallet with a string tied to it? Answer: forever. Liberals play to win by any means possible as they incorrectly believe that their beliefs are best for the country and the world. So, as true zealots, they do us all a favor by playing to win no matter how it's achieved. While the Republicans only concern themselves with "how they play the game". Be civil, polite and play by "the rules". To Liberals, there is only one rule: "there are no rules!"
Six years ago, when George Bush let Ted Kennedy trick him into believing both political parties could work together in harmony, he lost the battle right then and there. When Bush offered an "olive branch" by allowing most Clinton political appointees to keep their jobs, he lost the battle. If it hadn't been for 9/11, he would have been a one-term president and, right now, with a president Kerry presiding over chaos, we'd be racing to outdo the French in all things socialist.
How many times do the Republicans have to be tricked before they understand they are being played for fools? I wish I could say "many more times" because they will NEVER get it but the Liberals are close to securing permanent one-party government in our country. Soon, they will have no need to trick and deceive Republicans. We've lost. They've won. But it is nice to see Bush do something like this every so often just to show the country Hillary isn't in office yet (unless he defers to president Pelosi in the meantime).
When did truth and reality begin to no long matter? 1964? Yes, I'd say 1964. The Lyndon Johnson little girl picking flower petals as a nuclear mushroom cloud appears in the background political ad. Yes, that is exactly when the world changed and perception became reality. Truth and reality became meaningless with that one ad. Can we ever go back? Can toothpaste be put back in the tube? Can Alice return to Kansas? I live in Kansas and I see no balloons overhead. I'll post again if I ever spot her on the horizon.
w0tm Well said. The Republi
April 6, 2007 - 04:08 ET by old crow0tm
Well said. The Republicans for the most part do play by the "rules". Except that the democrats keep moving the bar or redrawing the line in the sand as you would have it. "Ethics" and "honor" are not in the liberal dictionary. They haven't a clue. I would not say all is lost, but I do worry over their entrenchment in the Washington bureaucracy. They can and do so much behind the scenes that hurt this country only to advance their political agenda and are all infected with the dreaded disease BDS. Keep looking for Alice, she is on her way!
"After The Wizard Of Oz I was typecast as a lion, and there aren't all that many parts for lions."
Bert Lahr.
Alice? Don't you mean Dorot
April 6, 2007 - 04:59 ET by NL207Alice? Don't you mean Dorothy?
NYT
April 5, 2007 - 23:39 ET by Jerry MackHello NYT. Kerry lost the election. Get over it ! Blame everyone but it is not going to change anything. I know it saddens you to hear this: None of Kerrys' critics are going away.