# Posted 10:44 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

LOST IN AN OCEAN OF DETAILS: This morning, the NYT delivered its much awaited hit piece on the Swift Vets. The LA Times printed a lot of the same material in a similar article two days ago, but I'm a provincial New Yorker, so I didn't notice.

Now let's get to the bottom line: Who's right, the NYT or the Swift Vets? My gut instinct says its the Times, but I'm reserving judgment until I can digest all of the criticism that the Times has provoked. What is clear, however, is that the Times itself sees this as a black and white issue. Its correspondents write that

On close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements.

A NYT editorial seconds the motion. The first place I turned for a rebuttal was Instapundit, who links to comments by Ed Morrissey and Patterico, among others. The biggest point that Glenn, Ed & Chris score againt the Times regards the bizarrely conspiratorial tone of the piece, much of which focuses on the Swift Vets' connections to influential Texas Republicans. Or as the NYT would have it,

Mr. Kerry called [the Swift Vets] "a front for the Bush campaign" -
a charge the campaign denied

A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures, and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.

Clearly, the authors of the NYT article want to cast themselves in the heroic mold of Woodward & Bernstein. Only their tenacious research has uncovered the "web of connections" behind the Swift Vets. Of course, the identities of the Swift Vets' donors are public knowledge. And other newspapers have already sketched out their connection to the White House.

But more importantly, who do you expect to fund anti-Kerry attack ads? The College Republicans? No, of course not. It's going to be rich and well-connected GOP backers who take it on themselves to be the President's hatchet men.

That kind of relationship hardly justifies Kerry's remark about the Swift Vets being a "front" or the NYT's endorsement of that remark by juxtaposing it with the Times' own allegations of impropriety.

However, Josh Marshall disagrees. He writes that

In any real world sense, this is a front for the president.

If by "any real world sense" Josh means that the Swift Vets' backers are more interested in beating John Kerry than in the issue itself, sure. But when you throw around words like "front", you're saying that the White House is breaking the law by coordinating its re-election campaign with a nominally independent group.

According to Atrios, that's exactly what's going on. According to a Kerry press release, the Bush campaign has been coordinating with the Swift Vets in at least one county in Florida. If that's true, I expect to see more coverage of it.

Now, I agree with Josh that the honorable thing for Bush to do is to condemn the Swift Vets if he doesn't believe they're telling the truth. But since Josh constantly insists that the only way to win an election is to play hardball, his high-minded challenge to the President rings just a little bit hollow.

To be contiued...
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion