MOUNTAINS AND MOLEHILLS

This whole Swift Boat stuff is just starting to get ridiculous. Among the stories that I think are barking up the wrong tree are:

1- The Washington Times story about Kerry's first Purple Heart. From what I understand, even a wound that was self-inflicted (though not intentional) would be eligible for Purple Heart status, since it would have come as a result of engaging the enemy.

2- Fox's Kerry/MLK speech in which he said he was in Vietnam when he heard about King's death in 1968. Outside the Beltway had this story five days ago (which tells you everything you want to know about big media vs. blogs) and one of the readers documented that those on board the USS Gridley during the time when MLK was asassinated were eligible for the Vietnam Theatre service medal. It's a dubious report at best.

3- John O'Neill's "lie" about being in Cambodia. I mean, seriously? The man said (in a conversation to Nixon) "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border." O'Neill says now he wasn't in Cambodia. Okay. I've got him on the program tomorrow (2:20 Eastern), and I'll ask him about this. But there are a couple of points here that the media seems to be missing: John O'Neill doesn't seem to have used his fictitious experience in Cambodia for political gain (a la John Kerry on the floor of the U.S. Senate). He doesn't appear to have used it for street cred (a la John Kerry in his "Apocalypse Now" movie review for the Boston Herald). In fact, if you read the quote, it kinda sounds like he even corrected himself at the time. If not, he's certainly corrected the record now. Remind me again... what's Kerry's latest story? Is it the Brinkley story (multiple forays into Cambodia) or the official campaign story (one foray into Cambodia?). And there's one other difference: John O'Neill's made himself available to answer all these questions. Senator Kerry's making himself available to John Stewart. Otherwise, Kerry seems to be letting his surrogates do the fighting for him... kinda like what the Democrats are accusing Bush of doing during Vietnam.

The reason why I point out these three stories is that there are going to be attempts by conservative and liberal reporters to make every little thing (on both sides) an issue. I know there are people on both sides who read this blog, and I just want you to know that I am trying to separate the legitimate from the illegitmate stories.