Apparently, his journal isn’t consistent with the official story of one of his Purple Hearts. No biggie. He can just say he lied to his diary. After all, the press bought it during the Clinton administration (see Steiner, Josh).

No doubt this will be their strategy, since Drudge is reporting that, in desperation at what horrible (as in “incompetent”) liars both the candidate and his spokesmen to date are, the campaign wants to bring back the smooth Mike McCurry, whom the press all loved and were always willing–no, strike that–eager to believe.

I’m starting to think that “Unfit for Command” is likely to be viewed in the future as a much more reliable history of Kerry’s Vietnam activities than Brinkley’s hagiography.

[Thursday morning update]

Hugh Hewitt notes that Brinkley is AWOL:

As for historian Brinkley, he too is unavailable, even though the media wants him and such appearances could sell a lot of his books. His publisher must be wondering why Professor Brinkley is not accepting invitations to appear on cable or nationally-syndicated radio shows, which are the big wins for anyone peddling a book. (Believe me, I know about how books are sold these days, and Brinkley isn’t acting like any other author I have ever seen.) Going to the mattresses hasn’t worked for the past two weeks, and I don’t think it will work for the next two weeks. The story has legs until we get the run down on John Kerry, secret agent man in Cambodia.

Hugh also has some questions for the historian.

One gets the impression from this particular bleat that, even in light of the anniversary, James Lileks isn’t impressed either with minstrels spouting politics, or politicians who (pretend to) take them seriously:

I like Bruckner, and the Pet Shop Boys. I like 1930s pop music, except for country. So? These details give a false sense of intimacy, and while that

If some 527 were to run some ads with quotes from this story, would Kerry benefit, or Bush?

If some 527 were to run some ads with quotes from this story, would Kerry benefit, or Bush?

If some 527 were to run some ads with quotes from this story, would Kerry benefit, or Bush?

Joe Scarborough just had a debate between John O’Neill and John Hurley. It’s the first time I’ve seen a fair debate between the two sides, with no interruptions for ad hominems allowed.

I think that O’Neill has prepared the battlefield very carefully. I also think that Senator Kerry is in big trouble–his self-aggrandizement and lies for the past three-plus decades are finally catching up with him. One almost wonders if the Clintons are orchestrating this to keep the path clear for Hillary in four years.

[Update on Tuesday afternoon (6:20 Eastern)]

Brit Hume is interviewing O’Neill one on one.

Of course, to be fair, probably few of them have any actual firearms experience, given their stance on guns…

The Kerry campaign, in response to charges that he’s soft on intelligence, says that he was Vice-Chair of the Intelligence Committee. This is an assertion easily proven false. Apparently whoever came up with this gem didn’t know the difference between their candidate and his former colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey.

You’d like to think that, given how much baggage from his past the Senator apparently carries, he’d hire competent people to defend his record. You’d also like to think that the people he’d hire to help run the country, if elected, would be more competent than those he’s hired to run his campaign.

Unfortunately, there’s sparse evidence on the ground that either of these hopes will be other than forlorn.

Of course, to be fair, probably few of them have any actual firearms experience, given their stance on guns…

The Kerry campaign, in response to charges that he’s soft on intelligence, says that he was Vice-Chair of the Intelligence Committee. This is an assertion easily proven false. Apparently whoever came up with this gem didn’t know the difference between their candidate and his former colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey.

You’d like to think that, given how much baggage from his past the Senator apparently carries, he’d hire competent people to defend his record. You’d also like to think that the people he’d hire to help run the country, if elected, would be more competent than those he’s hired to run his campaign.

Unfortunately, there’s sparse evidence on the ground that either of these hopes will be other than forlorn.

Of course, to be fair, probably few of them have any actual firearms experience, given their stance on guns…

The Kerry campaign, in response to charges that he’s soft on intelligence, says that he was Vice-Chair of the Intelligence Committee. This is an assertion easily proven false. Apparently whoever came up with this gem didn’t know the difference between their candidate and his former colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey.

You’d like to think that, given how much baggage from his past the Senator apparently carries, he’d hire competent people to defend his record. You’d also like to think that the people he’d hire to help run the country, if elected, would be more competent than those he’s hired to run his campaign.

Unfortunately, there’s sparse evidence on the ground that either of these hopes will be other than forlorn.

Mickey Kaus has long noted that Senator Kerry does much better when he doesn’t campaign. The less people see of him, the better he does in the polls. So this story, that he’s taking the next three weeks off, isn’t necessarily that surprising. However, I wonder if it’s also a way to continue to avoid press questions about his Vietnam record, and hoping that it will somehow blow over by then? Clearly, his people still don’t have a substantive response to the Swift Vets’ charges, instead deflecting them with a non-sequitur:

Along the trail, the campaign also had to deal with a variety of distractions.

A group of Vietnam veterans, angry at Kerry’s anti-war activities when he returned from Southeast Asia, accused Kerry of misrepresenting his combat record, and the extent of his wounds.

Kerry aides called the charges ludicrous, contrasting their candidates’ three Purple Hearts with the lack of war experience from Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Bush and Cheney’s war records, or lack thereof, aren’t the issue, of course, since they’ve never made them one. Neither of them has claimed their respective behavior in the late sixties as uniquely qualifying them for the job, as Kerry has. Try as the Kerry campaign might, such comparisons are spurious. The issue is not Kerry’s record versus theirs, but his claimed record, on which he’s staked his candidacy, versus the reality.

If Kerry doesn’t fear the truth, he should be demanding that journalists investigate the claims of his former band of brothers, and validate him, instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks on them. But apparently that’s a very big “if.” Easier to go on vacation and attempt to change the subject.

[Late afternoon update]

Here’s another Vietnam vet (he claims to be a former SEAL) who finds Kerry’s Cambodia stories more than a little fishy.

[Another update, a few minutes later]

Brit Hume is not going to let this story go away. After getting into a heated discussion with Juan Williams over this yesterday on Fox News Sunday, he devoted half the panel to it today on his show. And Juan continues to be an obfuscating moron, claiming that the Washington Post and New York Times have already investigated the claims. Both Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke set him straight, but I’m sure that he still doesn’t get it. Fred calls the mainstream media’s failure to report this the biggest dereliction of journalistic duty that he’s ever seen in his career.