Michael Kranish "dowdified" George Elliott quote for his story.

JustoneMinute ^ | 08/07/04 | TOM MAGUIRE

[Pikamax]

August 07, 2004

Kranish Is Cooked

Michael Kranish rocked us on Friday with a story, headlined "Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry", which told us that:

"a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

Get Maureen Dowd on the line - that may have been the most misleading ellipsis ever published, but since the affidavit was not public, who knew?

Subsequently, Capt. Elliot retracted his retraction, prompting some head-scratching.

Now, both the original affidavit and the re-affirmation (the retraction of the retraction) are available here. I will read it again, and you should, too, but my first reaction is that Kranish wrote a wildly deceptive and misleading story.

Let's restore the missing ellipsis, emboldening the excerpted bit:

3. When Kerry came back to the United States he lied about what ocurred in Vietnam, comparing his commanders to Lt. Calley of My Lai, comparing the American armed forces to the army of Ghengis Khan, and making similar misstatements. Kerry was also not forthright in Vietnam. For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.

Hello, Mr. Reporter! When Capt. Elliot "backed of one of the key contentions", was it the My Lai complaint, or the Ghengis Khan comparison? Or was it one example preceded by "for example"?

Unbelievable. In his re-affirming affidavit, Capt. Elliot cites the same material I did to reach this conclusion - he was not informed of the facts, and "had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing VietCong".

This, from the Globe, now looks wildly ironic:

In the ad, Elliott says, ''John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Asked to supply evidence to support that statement, the anti-Kerry group provided a copy of Elliott's affidavit. Elliott said the same affidavit had been used in the production of the book.

It is unclear whether the work contains further justification for the assertion, beyond Elliott's statement.

Oh, it is going to be pretty clear, I bet. They still need to back it up, but there will be more.

Earlier, I had guessed that the Swiftees would disappear under the headline of "Cranks can't get story straight". But if Kranish has been this irresponsible, the Swiftees will sail on as the heroes of a "Liberal media attempts to squash Veteran truth-tellers" drama.

Don't even ask me about Joe Wilson.

[GeronL]

was Drudge wrong when he said this reporter appeared to be on the Kerry payroll??

[publius1]

I tried to follow this--I don't think I understand it yet. What was the context of the "terrible mistake" or the "mistake"? I mean, I know the story is out there--retract, non-retract--but could sonmeone explain it to me?

Thanx.

[xm177e2]

I think the "terrible mistake" was his decision to sign the affadavit even though it contained a line he could not personally vouch for (that Kerry shot a man in the back). He says he should have had that line taken out when he signed it. He did NOT say it was a "terrible mistake" to sign the affadavit in general--and to prove this, he signed a new, corrected affadavit immediately.

He was saying (paraphrase) "I regret there was a factual error in it when I signed it" not "I regret signing the whole thing," but this "reporter" has spun the quote in an attempt to capsize the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign. It's a dirty trick, an unethical, unjournalistic trick.

[xm177e2]

Here is some of the text of the second affidavit, which makes clear that Elliot never lied, he just wanted a clarification:

3 In support of the advertisement, I provided an affidavit dated July 21, 2004. I wholly reaffirm that affidavit with the following immaterial clarification as to the final sentence only. In that sentence, I state ". . . in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back." That statement is wholly true. As the affidavit makes clear, I received no such report.
4 I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong. For my belief that he was wounded and fleeing (and was shot in the back, I rely upon many sources, including Michael Kranish's (the Boston Globe reporter) own quotation of John Kerry....

(end of except)

What Elliot is saying is that he does not know if it is true that John Kerry shot a wounded Viet Cong in the back, as was implied in his first affidavit, but not stated directly (so technically Elliot never lied). If John Kerry did shoot a fleeing, wounded Viet Cong (nothing wrong with that), which is what Kerry told to Kranish for his biography, then he did not deserve a medal for that fight.

So how did Kerry get a medal for it? Elliot is saying that Kerry lied back then, he told an inflated story to Elliot so Kerry could get a medal he did not deserve. If Kerry did lie to get his medals, it would be a huge blow to his credibility--after all, he's made his service in Vietnam a major point of his campaign.

At least, that's my understanding of this. It is kind of confusing!

[Free Trapper]

Is the biography you mention the same book that is now being pulled from the market?

[iopscusa]

Wonder when the movie Rambo-John Kerry will be out, I always enjoy renactments of histioric war heroes...especially when on Super 8mm film.

[meenie]

With so much lying in the latest political campaign, there has to be some clarification. Is a double lie similar to a double negative in becoming a positive? Can you arrive at the truth by finding that a candidate has lied twice on the same subject? If a candidate lies once, does he have to lie again to be truthful? If one candidate lies and the other candidate lies to accuse the other of lying, does this make the original liar truthful? Does it make his opponent truthful? Does the original lie take precedence over the later lie, or does the latter lie cancel out the original lie?

Inquiring minds would like to know without being lied to.

[stockpirate]

No I don't think he was. But the Kerry staff did a bait and swich to CYA.

[marty60]

That's the way I understood it too. It was that one line, which he had not independantly verified.

[syriacus]

Thanks for the explanation.

[syriacus]

For my belief that he was wounded and fleeing (and was shot in the back, I rely upon many sources, including Michael Kranish's (the Boston Globe reporter) own quotation of John Kerry....

This is the delicious part--

The Kerry/Kranish account of the incident contributed to Elliot's understanding that the man was shot in the back.

[xm177e2]

Is the biography you mention the same book that is now being pulled from the market?

No.

It is my understanding that no book was "pulled," but they decided not to write one of the books in the first place. This book had already been published. I think. I am sure the biography is not the book they decided not to write.

[Republican Red]

No

Kerry was paid this reporter to write the forward in a book that was subsequently pulled. It was on Amazon yesterday.

I copied the editorial write up from Amazon:

Editorial Reviews
From the Back Cover
What kind of president could John Kerry be? Over the last four years we've seen Republican policies in action; now Americans need to know what a Democratic administration would do differently. In this comprehensive book, Kerry and Edwards reveal their plans and promises for America. They chart their strategy to roll back the Bush tax cuts and use the savings to provide funding for their health care plan, education reform, and other initiatives. Kerry/Edwards aim to improve America by: restoring jobs and rebuilding our economy; providing access to affordable health care; creating a new era for America's schools; winning the peace in Iraq; defending the American homeland; instituting a principled foreign policy; helping to create a cleaner and greener America; making college affordable for all Americans; and much more. Can the Kerry/Edwards "Real Deal" succeed? In his introduction, the Boston Globe's Michael Kranish provides keen insight into what a Kerry/Edwards administration could mean for America's future

The fact that the book isn't for sale now doesn't detract form the point that Kranish is unmistakably a Kerry supporter who worked for him. He should not be "covering" Kerry for any paper.

[gunnedah]

Sounds to me he was trying to make sure he was not liable for anything. We all know the ABA is at work and in town they have been running strong and getting rich since the last election.
Intimidation through coercion and threats of law suits. The truth is the only weapon against lawyers who in my opinion like politicians and newspaper reporters they have to keep something stirred up to milk the public it is unthinkable they would have to work for a living.
Think about this,lawyers and reporters have the absolute right to say about anything they wish without repercussions and when is the last time has anyone ever heard of a lawyer suing another lawyer.Just remember a lot of innocent people are in jail over a lawyers inabilty to give them proper defense and they have no recourse.

[Republican Red]

I was wrong the Amazon link is still up on showing this book

Amazon Link

Kerry-edwards
by Michael Kranish

[xm177e2]

Elsewhere on FR, someone said that Amazon entry is in error. Who knows what is really going on with the book? I sure don't.

[Free Trapper]

OK,thanks.

This whole thing has me so confused I can hardly discern up from down.

That has to be the reason for the leftist's lies,to confuse the facts.They don't want the truth out about anything.

[aruanan]

I think the "terrible mistake" was his decision to sign the affadavit even though it contained a line he could not personally vouch for (that Kerry shot a man in the back).

No, given the editing job Kranish did with the quote that is the focus of the essay above in order to make it into something entirely differently than it was, I think the most sound conclusion to draw about "terrible mistake" is that it is simply more of Kranish's creative copy and paste to make a story where there is none. He is, after all, a partisan in the pay of Kerry and Edwards (or was until that campaign book was yanked).

The "terrible mistake" was more likely Elliot referring to his decision to sign the recommendation for the Silver Star in the first place without having known that it was solely for shooting a single, fleeing, wounded Viet Cong in the back. It was helping Kerry get a Silver Star under such circumstances way back then that was truly the "terrible mistake," not signing an affidavit now describing it.

That this is the more likely interpretation, look at these two sentences from Elliot's two affidavits:

1. "For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

2. "had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong"

In the first he says that he hadn't been informed of the paltriness of Kerry's actions in the matter being referred to him for recommendation for the Silver Star. In the second he said that if he had known what had actually happened, he wouldn't have done it.

It's pretty clear that the mistake was signing the recommendation for Kerry's Silver Star based on limited information, not signing the first affidavit about Kerry based on limited information about that particular incident.

What Kranish did was dishonesty of the first magnitude. Not surprising, though, coming from the Boston Globe.

[aruanan]

See post 19.