Print out and wear as a Campaign Button or go HERE to print.
Feel free to reuse this anywhere you wish...
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.
Bellisiles faked his research and got caught. He flat-out cheated, and that was proved. Even hard-wired liberal history professors understand that that is a no-no. Brinkley's wrong, on the other hand, was to accept Kerry's personal journal as accurate. As it turns out, that was a dumb decision.
Bellisiles was, in effect, beaten like a rented mule. Brinkley is only damaged. And apparently Brinkley recognized that he was being set up for the fall, and he made for high ground. Recall that the Kerry Campaign announced weeks ago that Brinkley would publish an explanation of "the truth" about Kerry's "Christmas in Shambodia" in that well-known academic journal, the New Yorker.
That article never appeared. Douglas Brinkley's number of interviews given on the subject of Kerry in Vietnam, rounded to the nearest one, is zero. Brinkley has read the handwriting on the wall, and made himself scarce. He is therefore damaged, but not destroyed. IMHO.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Carville, Davis, and Other Pests -- 'Those We Don't Speak of' "
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
Print out and wear as a Campaign Button or go HERE to print.
Feel free to reuse this anywhere you wish...
Looks like Kerry decided to follow that line of thinking.
That is devastating.
I think it would have had something to do with how much Kerry was willing to PAY to get the "historic" book he wanted. If we follow the money .. no telling what we'll find.
It is not a sin, it is a lifestyle with the AbCnNbCbs club.
But see, that's a big point: contacting the guys on KERRY'S boat does not equal talking to the guys who were THERE---within 5 feet of Kerry. It would be like talking to one guy in one militia unit on Bunker Hill but not another guy 4 feet away because he is not in the same "unit."
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.