Posted on 08/24/2004 6:31:29 PM PDT by LS
One of the most powerful messages to come out of "Unfit for Command," the Swiftvets' book on Kerry, is how many times they cite Kerry's court hagiographer, Douglas Brinkley, in the book. That's because Brinkley wrote "Tour of Duty" for Kerry based on interviews with Kerry, plus access (that no one else seems to have) to his notes and journals.
The Swifties demolish Kerry's claims so effectively, and so often, that it now calls into question Brinkley's work as a historian. Did he not attempt to contact ANY of the Swifties? Did he not interview any of them? Why not? What are the ethical problems with a so-called "historian" who doesn't even examine all the evidence?
Not long ago, Michael Bellisiles lost his job at Emory over "irregularities" in his citations for his book, "Arming America." It turns out he apparently fabricated much of his research, at least according to an Emory University panel that investigated his work.
Is the same thing happening now to Brinkley? Does a historian have an obligation, even when writing for a patron, to at least tell the truth? Stay tuned. Brinkley may become just another of the many "casualties of war" related to John Kerry's brief stint in Vietnam.
Exactly. I've been telling my wife this for days. I think Brinkley's reputation will be severely diminished by the time this election. He's an historian? Sounds more like pulp fiction to me.
From what I understand he only interviewed the guys ON the same boat as kerry..except gardner said he couldn't find him but some newspaper did in just a day or so.
> Did he not attempt to contact ANY of the Swifties?
Do you have any idea how many "historians" Kerry had to
sift thru before he found one that wouldn't ask too many
questions?
:-)
I think.
Exactly. And the line that "they weren't on Kerry's boat" is like saying that someone in Miles Keogh's company didn't know that Custer was being surrounded by Indians, because he wasn't in CUSTER'S company. Ridiculous.
It will be interesting to see if Brinkley decides to turn on Kerry in order to save his hide. His source lied, that's the bottom line. To protect himself, Brinkley will have to publicly say he trusted Kerry as a US senator and thus committed the worst sin a reporter can be guilty of, not double checking his source.
Excellent post. As an avid reader of history, I may disagree with an authors conclusions, but there is an implied trust that the basic facts are correct. If the points you make are true...he is toast. I read elsewhere that this author is not communicating with anyone at present. What does that say?....hmmmm
Brinkley was sweating bullets last night on Hardball; he's had to "clarify" so many items in that book, I wish I had kept count.
He has a vested interest in these guys being LIARS because they are going to blow his livelihood right through the roof.
IMO, he is a waste; and I'm happy to say he's just signed with NBC/MSNBC; that's why he can't be interviewed by anybody else!
> It will be interesting to see if Brinkley decides
> to turn on Kerry in order to save his hide.
Based on that Globe article linked above, it's way too
late for that.
The Globe is owned by the NYT, by the way.
Bump for the new Bellesiles award candidate, Douglas Brinkley. Brinkley, no Bancroft award (or soup) for you.
hagiographer?
Is that the person that does Hillary's hair?
Hmm, well, Brinkley double checked his source, but only half heartedly. He didn't want to hear a discouraging word, so didn't look for any. He's part of the entire RAT scheme with the MSM to orchestrate the political landscape from the primary season to the election. We had Wilson, Clark, one movie after another, Moore's included, The Manchurian Candidate...which by the way seems to have landed with a thud..hehehe...all the lies about Bush being AWOL from the national guard. The cover of this week's New Yorker...Cheney on the table at the doctor's having his blood pressure checked...the scale on the wall like the terror threatometer. Are we supposed to glean from that that Cheney's had heart problems? Okay, then I expect next week that the cover will be Kerry having his prostate checked for a possible recurrence of cancer. Right? Guess not. The New Yorker's got exerpts from Brinkley's tome.
I recall reading a review on "Tour of Duty". It remarked that all of Kerry's crewmen were interviewed and quoted in the book -- save one.
That would be Steve Gardner. His absence was explained away by his "conservative politics". Brinkley evidently contacted him, but it wasn't clear whether Brinkley decided against using Gardner's comments (because they were undoubtedly negative) or because Gardner declined to be interviewed.
I'm not sure Brinkley interviewed any of Kerry's commanders -- on the Gridley or in the Swift divisions.
Accordingly, Brinkley didn't so much provide a biography of John F. Kerry, but a "Reminiscences of..."
GENIUS!
He was writing fluff for the campaign not a serious book. He was writing "John Kerry as told by John Kerry.
Brinkley claims he couldn't locate Gardner before his book was published. But another BoB called Brinkley, claiming he had just gotten a phone call from Gardner. Brinkley then uses rest of article to do the traditional liberal anal exam of Mr. Gardner.
If Kerry wins Brinkley will be set for life. He will be Kerry's official biographer his career as a historian and an academic secure.
If he reveals what he knows and tells the truth before the election, Kerry loses and no one will give a rats rear end about Kerry biographies and he will be a pariah in the left wing world of academia, he will not get any TV show invites.
His problem is if he withholds the facts and continues to cover for Kerry, the truth will come out some day and he will be disgraced and he will be remembered as someone who betrayed his profession.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.