ASK ME NO QUESTIONS, AND . . . .

NEW ORLEANS — Who knows what lurks in the heart and mind of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry?

Not the traveling press corps, that’s for sure.

Kerry has been under wraps for the last month, declining to subject himself to what must surely be the painful process of answering national reporters’ questions.

Kerry used to regularly assure his audiences that, if elected president, he would hold a press conference every month to communicate with the nation’s citizenry. (That was a not-so-subtle dig at President Bush, who has held only 12 formal press conferences during his four years in office, a record low number.)

“I have pledged that I am going to have a press conference at least once a month to talk to the nation about what I’m doing because I don’t have anything to hide,” Kerry said during a campaign stop in Beloit, Wis., after the Democratic National Convention. “I want America to know what I’m doing. I want you to know what I’m fighting for. I want you to ask me questions.”

But Kerry doesn’t make that promise anymore.

(Via Romenesko, who now has a sidebar link to the WP CBS-forgery story).

JAY CURRIE: Blogs 1, 60 Minutes 0. “The more basic question is how could a rabble of bloggers, in one day, provide hard core proof of forgery when major news organizations took those documents at face value?”

UPDATE: Colby Cosh is merciless:

This, I guess, explains just why traditional print and electronic journalists sometimes speak of the Internet as a large, frightening, amorphous, destructive force. Considering that the most respected journalistic entity in the world has been revealed at this hour to be sky-high on goofballs, it also explains why anyone who attempts to defend the exclusive privileges of “traditional media” is eligible for physical annihilation on the grounds of incurable virulent idiocy. Sorry: I know you’ve heard this before–there’s even a lame term of art for it (“blogger triumphalism”). But I have, if you’ll forgive me for pointing it out, blundered into a forefront-ish position in Internet journalism as practiced in a G7 country. And this 60 Minutes business is still making me go “Holy shit.”

Yeah. And even in the — highly unlikely — event that CBS can somehow show, after the fact, that these documents were genuine, it’s obvious now that they acted with enormous sloppiness and disregard for obvious questions about their genuineness before publishing. The journalism is over now, and the most they can do is lawyering.

Hugh Hewitt has more thoughts on old vs. new media. And here’s a much lengthier commentary on the same topic: “Yesterday, the man bit the dog. Boy howdy, did he ever.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: And here’s the sad result when the blogosphere employs CBS’s standards.

Hey, Dan Rather’s job may be open soon. . . .

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: The culprit has been exposed. I never liked that guy.

BEHIND THE CURVE: Bill Hobbs emails to note that, as of the moment, Romenesko has nothing about the CBS forgery story. Isn’t that pretty big, er, Media News? (Bigger than “Bloomberg News techie: I was punished for sex harass complaint!”)

Message to Romenesko — plenty of links below. Feel free to crib! And read this analysis by Donald Sensing, too.

UPDATE: Lots of good stuff to crib from over at Beldar’s place, too! And Beldar once represented CBS in a libel case.

And this just-discovered document will be on Sixty Minutes next week!

ALL THIS BAD NEWS FOR KERRY is good news for Ralph Nader. That, plus thoughts on disaster preparedness, over at GlennReynolds.com.

THE PROWLER reports that CBS got the dubious documents from the Kerry campaign:

More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian. . . .

A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.

“The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush’s file that had Killian calling Bush ‘an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.’ And someone who Killian said ‘performed in an outstanding manner.’ Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different.”

The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. “This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn’t show it,” says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.

Now people are wondering if the whole thing was a Karl Rove setup. Could be, I guess, if Karl Rove is really an invincibly brilliant genius, in which case Kerry might as well just give up now.

Or it could be a case of self-defeating Bush hatred syndrome. They went ahead even though they noticed the signatures didn’t match and the tone was different? But Power Line reports that Chris Lehane is blaming the Bush campaign. He would, wouldn’t he?

UPDATE: Cached version of the Prowler item here, since a Drudge link is shutting them down.

WHAT’S INTERESTING ABOUT THIS CHICAGO SUN-TIMES REPORT on the CBS forged-documents story is that it treats Power Line and other blogs as just another news source:

The morning after the “60 Minutes II” airing, the Internet was buzzing with claims that the documents were forged.

Powerlineblog first aired speculation that there was persuasive evidence from the typefaces and spacing that the documents supposedly prepared in the age of typewriters in the early 1970s showed the unmistakable characteristics of computer printing.

Another blogger, Bill Ardolino at INDC Journal, who had read Powerline, said, “I decided to find a top typeface expert and ran his analysis on my Web site.”

Ardolino’s expert, Philip D. Bouffard, is a nationally recognized forensic authority in typewriter and electronic typefaces.

Read the whole thing. Meanwhile, John Podhoretz writes: “The populist revolution against the so- called mainstream media continues.”

Drudge reports that CBS has launched an internal investigation into what went wrong.

UPDATE: James Lileks:

Blogs haven’t toppled old media. The foundations of Old Media were rotten already. The new media came along at the right time. Put it this way: you’ve see films of old buildings detonated by precision demolitionists. First you see the puffs of smoke – then the building just hangs there for a second, even though every column that held it up has been severed. We’ve been living in that second for years, waiting for the next frame. Well, here it is. Roll tape. Down she goes. And when the dust settles we will be right back where we were 100 years ago, with dozens of fiercely competitive media outlets throwing elbows to earn your pennies.

And that will be an improvement. It might not be an improvement over the media that some media folks claim we’ve had in recent decades, but it will be an improvement over the media that we’ve actually had.

WASHINGTON POST / ABC NEWS POLL: Bush 52-43 among likely voters.

DID CBS PRESENT FORGED DOCUMENTS LAST NIGHT? I don’t know, but it looks as if there’s reason for further inquiry. The Command Post has a roundup on the subject. Power Line seems to have raised this first. INDC Journal has a report from a forensic document examiner. And Hugh Hewitt has an expert on his radio show (I just heard him say he doesn’t think the documents came from a typewriter, as they should have in 1972/73, when word processors were, ahem, scarce), and a roundup on his blog. Here’s a news story on the subject.

I’m not up to expanding on this inquiry, but I feel certain that other people will be looking into it. And CBS — which I heard Hugh Hewitt say wouldn’t answer questions — needs to step up and explain what’s going on.

Meanwhile, Scott Ott will taunt them some more: “Mr. Rather said the authenticity of the 32-year-old email has been confirmed by several Nigerian officials who specialize in electronic funds transfer by email.”

UPDATE: More here, here, and here. Plus this: “The authenticity of newly unearthed memos stating that George W. Bush failed to meet standards of the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War was questioned Thursday by the son of the late officer who reportedly wrote the memos.”

Plus this:“Very likely forgeries.” And these forensics experts, unlike CBS’s, have names.

Roger Simon is already talking Jayson Blair. Are these things forgeries? And if so, by whom? I don’t know. But the evidence that they’re bogus is stronger than the evidence that Bush didn’t fulfil his National Guard service.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A media contact emails: “ABC’S NIGHTLINE DOING THE forgeries tonight, and their experts say most likely forgeries. CBS had serious meetings this evening over this.”

I’ll bet they did. . . . Meanwhile the widow is questioning the documents, too:

“The wording in these documents is very suspect to me,” she told ABC News Radio in an exclusive phone interview from her Texas home. She added that she “just can’t believe these are his words.”

Much more in this story, which probably prefigures what’s coming on Nightline:

More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they had doubts about the memos’ authenticity.

“These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973,” said Bill Flynn, one of country’s top authorities on document authentication. “The cumulative evidence that’s available … indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:”

Read the whole thing. We can’t yet say for certain that it’s a forgery, I suppose — but it looks that way. And we can say for certain that CBS was unforgivably sloppy, at the very most charitable, to bring documents like this forward and present them as genuine without noticing, and answering, these questions beforehand.

Speculations on whodunit, and why, here.

MORE: The forgery story is on page A1 of the Washington Post for tomorrow.

EVAN COYNE MALONEY has a new film out, called Brainwashing 101. You can see it online, or order a DVD (it’s 46 minutes long).

BLOGGING WILL BE LIGHT, as I am sick. Just came from the dentist a little while ago, oral surgery will be required, and it’s probably not a good idea to do too much blogging while medicated.

Check out Tom Maguire and Power Line for a number of interesting new developments. And read this, and this, too. It makes me wonder if my earlier speculation about Karl Rove trying to encourage media self-destruction didn’t have some basis.

DARFUR UPDATE:

Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday that abuses by government-supported Arab militias in Sudan qualify as genocide against the black African population in the Darfur region — a determination that should pressure the government to rein in the fighters.

Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the conclusion was based on interviews conducted with refugees from the Darfur violence as well as other evidence.

“We concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed (Arab militias) bear responsibility — and genocide may still be occurring,” he said.

No doubt the government of Sudan can count on French support, though.

HERE’S A COLUMN by an old-media guy who isn’t happy about having his work fact-checked by the great unwashed.

It’s worth reading in conjunction with this piece, and this one, on a recent example of fact-checking. You can decide for yourself who comes off better. . . .

UPDATE: Susanna Cornett has some questions.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Eugene Volokh offers a Fisking.

And some extremely valuable advice for journalists from the legal world, here.

MORE ON THE FRANCE-IRAQ CONNECTION, and why it led the French to oppose U.S. intervention:

The intelligence reports showing French assistance to Saddam ongoing in the late winter of 2002 helped explain why France refused to deal harshly with Iraq and blocked U.S. moves at the United Nations.

“No wonder the French are opposing us,” one U.S. intelligence official remarked after illegal sales to Iraq of military and dual-use parts, originating in France, were discovered early last year before the war began. . . .

U.S. intelligence would not discover the pipeline until the eve of war last year; sensitive intelligence indicated that parts had been smuggled to Iraq as recently as that January. . . .

As of last year, Iraq owed France an estimated $4 billion for arms and infrastructure projects, according to French government estimates. U.S. officials thought this massive debt was one reason France opposed a military operation to oust Saddam.

The fact that illegal deals continued even as war loomed indicated France viewed Saddam’s regime as a future source of income.

Nice to be reminded of this. Meanwhile, Chirac isn’t exactly living up to the spirit of Kyoto: “The answer was simple: the French air force, which operates the presidential Airbus 319, was ordered to tack another 1,200 miles on to its flight so that Mr Chirac could sleep undisturbed.”

BRENDAN LOY is blogging Hurricane Ivan, which at Cat 5 is looking pretty grim.

TOM MAGUIRE: “Is Nick Kristof Lying, Or Was He Duped?”

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Kevin Aylward unveils the 60 Minutes equal time clock!

MICKEY KAUS:

Spirit-crushing foolishness from my candidate, John Kerry. The nation is trying to figure out how to fight global terrorism and he’s talking about having “not just a Department of Health and Human Services, but a Department of Wellness.” How about a Department of F***ing Perspective? If Bush is smart he’ll be ridiculing Kerry about this for the rest of the month. …Thanks, Iowa!

That last is a recurring theme. Perhaps the Democrats ought to rethink their nominating process.

UPDATE: Related thoughts here: “Americans with grave concerns about Iraq actually deserve a better advocate than Kerry, who wants to reduce those concerns to a false monetary calculation. This is a serious country, and Iraq is a serious business.”

JULIAN SANCHEZ IS RELUCTANTLY DEFENDING DICK CHENEY, who he says has been widely misquoted:

As I read this, he’s not saying the danger is that if we elect Kerry, then the danger is that we’ll be attacked. He’s saying that if we elect Kerry and we’re attacked, then the danger is that we’ll treat it as a criminal act rather than an act of war. And in context, it’s actually pretty transparent that this is what Cheney intended. So transparent once you look at the full transcript, in fact, that I wonder whether some of the misreading isn’t deliberate, either as a partisan tactic or an attempt to generate a news story.

Surely not. Interesting discussion in the comments. Meanwhile, Nick Gillespie says that Kerry has actually been consistent on nation-building. He takes off points for speaking style, though.

UPDATE: While Julian Sanchez defends Cheney, Rick Brookhiser at NRO is criticizing him. . . . Hey, where did Spock get that beard?

LEADERS OF THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS AND THE AMERICAN LEGION have both just endorsed Bush. “George W. Bush picked up the endorsement of two veterans’ group leaders Wednesday as questions about his service in the Texas Air National Guard resurfaced.” (They’re actually influential ex-leaders, according to the story.)

It strikes me that one side-effect of Kerry’s emphasis on his Vietnam service — and his attacks on Bush’s service — is an empowerment of veterans, and veterans organizations. These endorsements wouldn’t have meant much otherwise. Now they do. Is this good for Democrats?

INDEED: “Isn’t strange that the biggest difference between the Bush National Guard stories and the Kerry Vietnam controversy is that, in the President’s case, it’s the major media dogging the story to death?”

What could possibly account for the difference?

UPDATE: John Cole offers the story to the Big Media, free of charge. But will they take it?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s some stuff that seems to have been missed by the press. (George Magazine covered the Bush National Guard story back in 2000? Who knew?) [LATER: Some questions here and here.] And here’s a Chicago Sun-Times article from February that lays out a lot of facts that don’t seem to be getting much attention today. It’s worth reading.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s a summary of Bush’s National Guard Service in The Hill. Seems like he put in more hours in the air than Kerry did in Swift boats:

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. . . .

That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go.

Reading further in this story, I note that the Bush folks seem to want to press this issue, in order to demand that Kerry release his military records in full. Is this another rope-a-dope? Hmm. It just might be: “Kerry Navy probe to expand scope?”

MORE: Reader Ed Brenegar emails: “What is most strange to me is that Kerry bases his qualifications for the presidency on his Vietnam experience, and Bush doesn’t give much credence at all to his NG experience.”

I continue to think that Kerry’s emphasis on Vietnam is a mistake.

Matthew Hoy has further thoughts: “So, what have the Globe and Lechliter done? They’ve looked at all the documents, determined that they are not to be taken at face value and reinterpreted them as they see fit. . . . Is the mainstream media carrying water for the Kerry campaign? I’d have to say so.”

And reader Ellis Disch doesn’t think it matters:

The ‘swing voters’ went overwhelmingly for President Clinton, an admitted draft dodger, over two bona fide war heroes.

This President is not pushing his warrior status for re-election, his opponent is pressing his own. Why does the media think that all of a sudden a swath of voters who could care less what Clinton did during that era (when he wasn’t making it the rationale for his election) will care now?

Barking up the wrong tree. Again.

Well, it gives them something to talk about. Perhaps this is what this commenter at The Belmont Club predicted — a sort of news-media “denial of service” attack, flooding the information channels with this story so that there’s not room for more damaging stuff.

IT’S NOT JUST EVERY BLOG that gives you photos of pig-racing.

ACCORDING TO THE VOTE SMART WEBSITE, John Kerry gets a zero rating from the American Legion. Even Ted Kennedy gets a 50.

Since I don’t know what the votes are for, I don’t know what this means, exactly. But it probably accounts, in some part, for Kerry’s cool reception in front of the American Legion last week.

UPDATE: Reader Greg Campbell writes:

You may notice that Senators received either 0, 50, or 100% ratings from the American Legion for 2003 votes. This is due to the fact that the Legion apparently only endorsed two Senate issues during that year:

Link

As you will note, John Kerry got a 0 because he voted “No” on the first issue (the budget resolution), and did not vote on the second issue (the Tom Ridge confirmation). The budget resolution was mostly a party-line vote (except for John McCain and Zell Miller), and the Tom Ridge confirmation was obviously not in any danger of being voted down (passing 94-0), so I assume Kerry (along with Joe Lieberman) felt it was acceptable to skip it and focus on campaigning.

Hmm. The link above doesn’t make clear that these are the same votes, but this explanation makes sense. Kind of makes you wonder why the Legion bothers with the ratings, then. It also suggests that Kerry’s cool reception didn’t stem from his missing these fairly trivial votes.

IT’S ZELL MILLER VS. FRED KAPLAN: Over at Bainbridge’s place.

JEFF SOYER HAS MORE on the rather hysterical media coverage of the Assault Weapon ban expiration.

Me, I’ll just quote Tom Diaz of the anti-gun Violence Policy Center:

If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another.

That’s right. It was always a political and aesthetic issue — not a crime-control issue. And, of course, that’s the point. As Jacob Sullum observed:

The “assault weapon” ban is important as a precedent precisely because its justification is so slight. It suggests that you don’t need a good reason to limit Second Amendment rights. It also invites further infringements down the road, as supporters take the critics’ arguments to heart and start arguing that the ban is not broad enough. After all, it covers only a very small percentage of the guns used in crimes.

Indeed.

THE MUDVILLE GAZETTE has a lot of interesting stuff. And it’s now selling blogads! Greyhawk, who’s leaving for Iraq shortly, offers this point among others:

John Kerry: ‘Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time’

Me: Thanks – I’ll keep that in mind on the flight over.

Ouch.

APPARENTLY, I LACK FIRE: “Reynolds, at his most, barely reaches the level of mildly peeved.”

I’m the John Kerry of the blogosphere!

(Thanks to Jeff for fixing the permalinks on his page).