Hoffmann’s Grand Deception

I sent this column out to a few regional papers in response to the RTD's shameless printing of the Hoffmann commentary. If anyone would actually publish and/or read my work, this is how it would look.

In his Sunday, September 19^th Richmond Times-Dispatch “guest commentary,” Admiral Roy Hoffmann (ret.) accused Democratic Presidential nominee Sen. John F. Kerry of deceiving the American public with “gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, and out right lies” regarding Sen. Kerry’s Vietnam combat service. Hoffmann’s allegations would be shocking and damning if they were not so baseless and deceptive. Hoffmann slanders Kerry with accusations already refuted multiple times by various sources, including other swift boat veterans.

Hoffmann charges that Kerry did not deserve his first Purple Heart. Hoffmann omits the fact that, according to Navy rules and regulations, Kerry did qualify for it. A Purple Heart is given for “injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action.” Hoffmann does not mention that Kerry and his crewmates were engaged with Viet Cong smugglers at the time of the injury, instead referencing the incident as a mysterious “scenario.”

Hoffmann goes on to challenge Kerry’s third Purple Heart and his Bronze Star citation by questioning the official US Navy version of the events that occurred at Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969. Hoffmann claims Kerry did not deserve a Bronze Star because there was no enemy fire and, by deceptive slight-of-hand, tries to invalidate Kerry’s third Purple Heart by minimizing Kerry’s injury.

Hoffmann claims that Lt. Rassmann fell overboard when Kerry’s boat “fled the scene” following a mine explosion. According to members of Kerry’s crew and Rassmann himself, their boats were moving full speed down the river when the mine exploded. Subsequently, a second explosion occurred, sending Rassmann into the water. With the boat still moving at full speed, the crew did not see Rassmann fall off the boat. Then, one of the crew members spotted him and Kerry turned the boat around. While receiving fire from both banks of the river, Kerry fished Rassmann out of the water.

Hoffmann claims there was no enemy fire during this incident. However, all three of the Bronze Star citations awarded that day note enemy fire. One of the other swift boats had bullet holes in it, according to a damage report. Finally, another participant in the incident that day, Wayne Langhofer (who is independent of both the Kerry campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans), corroborates Kerry and Rassmann’s claim that there was indeed enemy fire.

Hoffman’s claim that Kerry’s medical records from the incident show only a “minor bruise” is simply not true. Kerry’s medical citation states that he received a “contusion” – it says nothing about the injury being minor. Again, this type of injury meets the basic criteria for the Purple Heart, since it was documented as an injury received in combat.

According to an exhaustive examination by the Washington Post, consisting of a review of Naval Historical Records and more than two dozen interviews with former crewmates, the Post concluded that the Swift Boat Veterans, including Adm. Hoffmann, “have failed to come up with sufficient evidence” to disprove Kerry’s and the official Naval version of events.

Not only have the Swift Boat Veterans failed to provide evidence, but Hoffman’s litany of charges against Sen. Kerry is not consistent with his own record. On February 28 1969, then-Captain Roy Hoffmann wrote a message praising Lt. Kerry’s boat, as well as two other boats in the Dong Cung tributary for an “extremely successful raid,” showing “superb coordination,” and representing a “shining example.” Why would Hoffmann heap such praise on a young officer for whom he had such disdain and contempt? Why would Hoffmann speak glowingly of an officer with “a strong anti-war bias”, “self-serving determination,” and “contempt for military authority”?

Over the last few months, Hoffmann has not only been inconsistent, he has contradicted himself. He is quoted in the May 6 Milwaukee Journal has having “no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry’s claims” and saying he “didn’t know Kerry much personally.” However, by August 4 (following the publishing of the Swift Vets book and the release of their ads), Hoffmann had changed his story. Scripps Howard quoted Hoffmann this way on August 4, “I knew him well enough to know him.” On August 5, the Associated Press quotes Hoffmann as saying, “I knew him (John Kerry) well."

Admiral Hoffmann closed his tirade this way, “This is not about politics; it’s about truthfulness, reliability, loyalty, and trust.” Yes, Admiral, it is. And you have not been truthful, reliable or trustworthy.

Rhetoric

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The current administration has used political rhetoric to question the patriotism, courage and competence of its opponents (Kerry, Daschle, Wilson, many others). Here's what someone else said about such tactics a helluva long time ago:

To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as thoughtless aggression was now considered the courage of a loyal ally; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; the ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defense. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect. To plot sucessfully was a sign of intelligence, but it was still cleverer to see that a plot was hatching. If one attempted to provide against having to do either, one was disrupting the unity of the party and acting out of fear of the opposition. In short, it was equally praiseworthy to get one's blow in first against someone who was going to do wrong, and to denounce someone who had no intention of doing any wrong at all. Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership...

--Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 382

Stats Update

I've added historical data to my current data for the key economic indicators that I'm tracking. For some reason, there's a huge gap between the end of this paragraph and the graph, I have no idea why or how to fix it.

Event	Date	Surplus/(Deficit)	Fed Rate	$ vs Euro	$ vs Yen
Fed Rate Increase	09/21/04	($422 B)	1.75	1.2264 Euro	109.94 Yen
Post RNC	09/07/04	($422)	1.54	1.2093	109.32
Post DNC	08/02/04	($445)	1.28	1.2034	111.08
Post Iraq Handover	07/01/04	($477)	1.40	1.2158	108.24
Spike in Iraq violence	12/01/03	($375)	1.03	1.1956	109.61
"Mission Accomplished"	05/01/03	($375)	1.30	1.1238	118.56
Pre-Iraq war	03/17/03	($375)	1.31	1.0606	118.45
Iraq Vote	10/15/02	($158)	1.88	0.9810	124.66
Day after attacks	09/12/01	$127	3.56	0.9069	119.53
Day before attacks	09/10/01	$127	3.50	0.8988	121.08
Gore concedes	12/14/00	$236	6.47	0.8858	112.42
Post election day	11/08/00	$236	6.51	0.8559	107.57
Begin primaries	01/03/00	$126	5.43	1.0155	101.70

Richmond Times Disgrace

On Sunday, the Richmond Times-Dispatch published a "guest commentary" by retired Admiral Roy Hoffmann, a founder of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The RTD published this screed prominently on the front page of it's Sunday Commentary section. The commentary was full of charges that have already been discredited by so many other, more trustworthy people than Hoffmann it's not even funny.

I wrote the Times-Dispatch ombudsman, asking him exactly what the RTD's policies were regarding the vetting of commentaries. He responded with the following:

Editorial operates independently of the News Department and, given that it dispenses opinion,is outside my purview as ombudsman for the news content.

He said he'd forward my message on to the editorial director.

So I decided to write the editorial director demanding a retraction of the Hoffmann commentary and an apology by the paper. I'll update if there's anything on that front.

Interestingly, Media Matters for America also noticed the Hoffmann commentary, and has sent a letter to all editorial directors asking them not to repeat the RTD disgrace.

Poll Position

I've been watching the presidential poll numbers since January and have learned quite a bit about how they are essentially useless in predicting the actual outcome of the election. They do shed a lot of light on things like a candidate's relative strengths on certain issues or in certain battleground regions. For instance, the GOP is running on terrorism - the only issue that the polls have consistently shown Bush having a clear advantage against Kerry.

On actually picking the winner, though, they are useless. Over at electoral-vote.com, you can see an analysis of the polls leading up to the 2000 election. In the three weeks prior to the Great Dispute, only two of the fifteen polls had Al Gore winning the popular vote. As we all know, he won the PV by 500,000, or one-half of one percent. Granted, in a race that close some of the polls would be wrong. But 11 of 15 had Bush winning by at least two points. The difference in poll results should have been evenly divided, not skewed towards one result over another.

So what can we learn from this? First, polls are highly unreliable within the margin of error. All polls list the margin of error - which to put roughly - states that the percentages for each candidate will be within, for example, 3 points of the poll 95 percent of the time. So what does that tell us? Well, when it's a tight race it tell us that you really can't tell if George Bush's four point lead is a one point lead or a seven point lead. That six point difference is several million votes in a national election.

Interestingly, when you have a multitude of polls that are consistently wrong in the same way (i.e. overstating Bush's PV advantage), it does suggest that there may be built-in problems with the polling process that consistently generates similarly mistaken results.

So, are the polls repeating the mistakes of 2000? Are they oversampling republicans and undersampling democrats? Are they completely missing segments of the population that have a distinct partisan preference? These are all important questions that pollsters should be asking themselves. Remember, the 2000 chaos began when election day exit polls showed Al Gore winning Florida early in the evening, then all of sudden shifting later in the evening when a mistake was found in the sample used in the exit polls.

Throw out the manual

Today's Washington Post reports that AG Ashcroft's Justice Department has stepped up investigations of voter registration efforts in swing states. But check out this part of the story:

"A criminal investigation by armed, badged federal agents runs the obvious risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities," the department's manual on elections crime says. "Federal prosecutors and investigators should be extremely careful to not conduct overt investigations during the pre-election period or while the election is underway."

Apparently, the AG hasn't read this manual.

Tracking Key Data

One of my roto baseball compatriots (we'll call him Capital Gangster) asked me to post a table tracking important data on a regular basis. No, not K/IP or the "A" coefficient. I'm talking about economic data. Basically, our feeling is that (and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker agrees) the economy is going to tank (and by tank, I mean absolutlety collapse) sometime in the near future. So, I am posting the basic indicators of the overall strength of American monetary policy to see if the numbers will support or refute our hypothesis.

The following table shows three simple variables: the current federal budget deficit projection for FFY 2004, the federal funds rate, and the value of the dollar versus both the Euro and the Yen. I'm going to develop this more as time goes on, but for now the point is to start tracking these variables and see where they go both prior to and after the election.

Date	Deficit	Fed Rate	US$ vs Euro	US$ vs Yen
9/17	$422 B	1.57%	1.2154 Euro	109.75 Yen

Re-up or Tour Iraq

From the Center for American Progress

RE-ENLIST…OR TAKE YOUR CHANCES IN IRAQ: The ongoing war in Iraq has left the U.S. military stretched paper thin. According to the Rocky Mountain News, the military is strong-arming soldiers into staying in the Army after their service requirements have been fulfilled. Troops from a Fort Carson combat unit say they were issued an ultimatum: re-up for three more years or take their chances in Iraq. Soldiers were told if they didn't sign the recruitment form extending their enlistment through December 2007, they would be reassigned to units likely to ship out to Iraq.

Yet another example of the two-faced nature of the current Administration. We all know that if you don't vote for Bush, you may die (re: Zell Miller and Dick Cheney). Now it seems that, at least for our Guard members, that if you do vote for Bush you could die. So once again (uh...Vietnam) the average soldier gets screwed.

On Iraq

Michael O'Hanlon from the Brookings Institute has this to say:

It would be success to simply not let things get worse, and to simply train Iraqi security forces so that they can take it over in two or three years. ...if we can keep it as one of the two or three most violent places in the Middle East but at least on a long-term trajectory toward stability, that's acceptable. (emphasis added)

Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly sums it up thusly:

It's clear now that (a) George Bush had no idea what he was getting himself into, (b) his initial plan for rebuilding Iraq was a fantasy, (c) each of his succeeding plans has failed within months, and (d) he's just flailing now, desperately hoping to keep things from completely falling apart before the election.

This is George Bush's idea of fighting terrorism. If this is your idea of fighting terrorism too, he should get your vote on November 2nd. If it's not, well.....

One-dimensional character with a silly catchphrase

One of the blogs I read, Talking Points Memo, had a request of its readers:

Kerry needs a catch phrase or catch question about the Iraq war, one that provides offense against President Bush's oft-stated, extremely lame, but also somewhat effective line that the world is safer with Saddam Hussein out of power.

Here's my submission:

"Are you safer today than you were four years ago?

Consider these questions:



1)Are we are safer with a North Korea building nukes

and threatening our interests in Asia and possibly the

entire Pacific?



2)Are we safer with Iran building nukes, threatening

Israel, the world oil supply and our struggling effort

to build democracy in Iraq?



3)Are we safer with Osama on the loose and still

plotting attacks against America and carrying them out

against the rest of the world.



4) Are we safer with health care and prescription drug

costs sky-rocketing to the point that you or your

family and friends must choose between suffering the

ravages of illness because you can't afford treatment

and suffering the ravages of financial disaster

because you can't get insurance?



5) Are we safer with an economy that is languishing,

leaving millions out of productive work and with no

sense of long-term financial security or hope?



6) Are we safer with an education system so

underfunded that it impedes our children's access to

the knowledge and skills necessary to be competive in

the future - thus risking their future economic

security?



7) Are we safer with an administration that has

politicized the terror warning system so much that

when an Orange Alert is announced, it is a more

accurate predictor of a scandal in the Bush

Administration than a threat of a terror attack?



8) Are we safer with the vast majority of countries on

this planet skeptical of our intentions and unwilling

to work with us on the many problems facing our world?

Are we safer with vast populations of people in the

world seeing America as a tyrannical power rather than

a beacon of hope?



9) Are we safer with an envrionment at greater risk to

permanent damage from pollution than it has been in

decades? Is our environment safer today now that it is

being "protected" by the biggest polluters? Is our

water cleaner than it was four years ago? Our air?



And finally,



10) Are we safer with a President of the United States

who has proven over and over again that he will

mislead, cover up, and althogether avoid any

responsibility for the conduct of himself and his

surrogates?



Yes, Saddam is in custody, but do you feel safer now

than you did four years ago? When's the last time you

really felt safe?"

More about AWOL

Check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf

The report format reminds me of my old grad school days.

Afraid of Partisans?

Mike Allen of the the Washington Post reports:

"President Bush may skip one of the three debates that have been proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates and accepted by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Republican officials said yesterday.

"The officials said Bush's negotiating team plans to resist the middle debate, which was to be Oct. 8 in a town meeting format in the crucial state of Missouri. . . .

"The commission said participants should be undecided voters from the St. Louis area.

"A presidential adviser said campaign officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans."

How can we trust this man with the safety of our nation if he's afraid to be confronted by a few partisan Missouri ruffians?

Fuzzy Math

From Prospect.org:

GEORGE W. BUSH SPEECH, 10:50 P.M.: Will the "more than 10 million voters" registered in Afghanistan meme never die? There are still only 9.8 million eligible voters in Afghanistan. This is massive fraud, not success.

Meanwhile, no North Korea, no Iran, no Osama bin Laden -- nothing about the actual national-security problems facing the United States today.

--Matthew Yglesias

More Bull from Bush

From his speech at the RNC last night:

"To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for -- he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts."

And exactly how much do all your "proposals" cost, sir? You know, reforming the tax code, making the tax cuts permanent, comp-time and flex time, portable health savings accounts, worker training, new sources of energy, "opportunity zones", tort reform, 7 million more affordable homes in ten years, keeping the promise of social security, early intervention for at-risk students, healthy start, funding the CHIP program, and oh yeah, fighting the war on terror and Iraq.

How much are all these things going to cost?

About $2 trillion, maybe?

87 Billion Lies

Yet again, during Bush's speech last night, the GOP attacked Kerry for voting for the $87 billion for the Iraq boondoggle before he voted against it.

Of course, the facts (ignored by the GOP) are that Kerry wanted the $87 B taken from a rollback of Bush's tax cut for those making above $200,000 in income and voted for this version of the bill. The President refused to let the tax cut be rolled back, so instead we borrowed the money for the war from the Chinese, Japanese, and other investors. Kerry voted against this version of the bill.

My question is: If the President had no other choice but to pay for the $87 billion by rolling back the tax cut on those earning above $200,000, would he have asked for the money or not?

Is there any journalist on the planet with enough balls to ask him this question?

More Fear Mongering

From the so-called Moderate Republican Mass. GovernorMitt Romney's speech:

"america is under attack from almost every direction"

"american values are under attack from within"

Only a draft-dodging, crack-snorting drunk from Midland Texas can save us!

GOP Platform - Vote for Kerry and Everyone Dies

Reading excerpts from Cheney's and Zell "opportunist" Miller's speeches to the RNC leaves me with the impression that Republicans sincerely believe that if John Kerry was the Continental Congress' choice in 1776, rather than Washington, the Brits would have won the Revolutionary War. Or if it had been Kerry rather than Grant, the Union would have fallen, or if it was Kerry not Ike, Hitler and Tojo would have met and shook hands somewhere on the Great Plains.

"Vote for us or Die. And even if you don't vote for us, we'll probably win any way because we will suppress the black vote, hijack the voting equipment, and obliterate anyone in our path."

This is the reality of Republican America.

Here We Go Again

Well, well, well. According to USA Today, the Swifties are going to run a new ad attacking Kerry for throwing his military ribbons away in an anti-war demonstration in the 1970s. How ironic that these JERKS would attack Kerry for this, while the folks (GOP) for whom they are doing this hatchet job are wearing little bandaids with purple hearts on them. So if Kerry's a traitor, what does that make the Republicans?

Anyone know?....

Oh wait, I know! It makes them patriotic Americans!

Can I get my tax cut now, thanks.

Tarnisher Talks Tarnish

Karl Rove in an interview with the AP on Kerry's anti-war testimony after Vietnam:

"It was a period of intense feeling on both sides for and against the war, but I think that was painting with far too broad a brush to tarnish the records and service of people who were defending our country and fighting communism and doing what they thought was right," Rove said during the 30-minute session with AP reporters and editors.

First, the facts: Number one, our troops were not defending "our country," they were defending the corrupt, unpopular and out-of-touch South Viernamese government from the North. The lying political leadership told everyone that they were defending America, but that doesn't make it so. Number two, how many people thought we were doing what was right? Well, 65 percent of the public felt the war was wrong by 1971. So I think it's safe to assume a large number or troops (who knows how many) also felt that way.

Maybe what Rove is saying is that only those who agreed witht he war really mattered as far as opinions about the war are concerned. So even if, say 40 percent thought it was right, that 40 percent overrides the 60 percent that thought the war was wrong. Well of course, Minority Rules - that's fundamental Republican politics.

Now for the emotional outburst:

So let's see. Wearing Purple Heart Bandaids doesn't tarnish the records of service men. Creating a legal environment that enables high-ranking military officers to sanction torture doesn't tarnish their records. Dodging the Vietnam War by using Poppy's influence to get you into the TXANG or hiding behind educational deferments doesn't tarnish the records of those that served. Nope. Only when you serve bravely and then come home to speak out against a hopelessly lost war in an effort to prevent the loss of tens of thousands of more troops and countless civilian deaths in a lost cause do you tarnish their records.

Yep, this is the America I love.

It's Official: The GOP is Anti-Hope

Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, the GOP-token african-american speaker, had this to say last night at the RNC:

"We heard one word over and over again at the Democratic Convention: Hope.

But there is a problem, my friends: Hope is not a strategy. Hope doesn't protect you from terrorists, hope doesn't lower your taxes, hope doesn't help you buy a home, and hope doesn't ensure quality education for your kids."

So there you have it, the party of anti-hope. Tonight I hear the GOP will assault "joy" and Thursday it may be "pursuit of happiness."