KOPPEL UNPREPARED! ONeill kept lying in Koppels face. And Koppel? What else? Unprepared!!
MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2004
KOPPEL CONFLICTED: As we told you on Saturday morning, Ted Koppel was unprepared for Thursdays interview with John ONeill (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/16/04). But even as we typed that report, the Washington Post was landing on doorsteps, describing the gentlemans inappropriate personal conduct and inexcusable conflict of interest. For the record, reporter Anne Schroder showed no sign of knowing that she was describing a conflict. But who is Ted Koppel? To get the flavor of Koppel conflicted, go ahead—just click here. (Read it all.)
Yes, Koppel finds time to hob-nob with the people he covers—but no time to do basic background reading. More tomorrow on Koppel conflicted. Today we give you something thats worse. We give you Koppel unprepared:
KOPPEL UNPREPARED: Simply put, John ONeill wont stop lying. Last Thursday night, Nightline reported an investigation of the events for which Kerry received the Silver Star. Nightline reporters had gone to Vietnam and interviewed witnesses to these events. A full report can be read here, but lets make a long story short. The recollections of local villagers support the official account of this story. By contrast, these villagers—who witnessed the Silver Star events—contradict the things John ONeill has long said. Local villagers say they will never forget that day—and they support John Kerrys account.
But ONeill simply wont, or cant, stop lying. Last Thursday, he was interviewed in Nightlines final segment, after Ted Koppel presented ABCs report. Here was his first exchange with Koppel:
KOPPEL (10/14/04): As I mentioned to you before the broadcast, Mr. O'Neill, we're just going to have time to focus on the one issue that we have looked at tonight. That is the Silver Star issue. And if I could—go ahead.ONeill just wont stop lying. He now refers to a sampan incident in which a small family was killed, although it is clear, from every record and from ONeills own book, that a twelve-year-old child was inadvertently killed in this incident, not an entire family. (Indeed, the dead childs mother and a second child were rescued—brought aboard Kerrys boat.) Steve Gardner, ONeills own eyewitness, has never disputed these facts—facts which are universally agreed to, except when ONeill goes on TV and lies in the face of the public. And did Kerry actually flee two times—in the Bronze Star incident, for example? As we have noted, ONeills own witness, Larry Thurlow, is on record denying this claim (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/15/04). But so what? ONeill keeps mouthing (and embellishing) his phony stories, and interviewers like Koppel keep letting him do it. Back in August, we asked a question to which we lacked a clear answer: Does John ONeill ever tell the truth? By now, the answer is abundantly clear. Without question, ONeill is one of the most consistent liars in recent American political history. He is also one of the most effective—thanks to the work of unprepared journalists like the man to whom he spoke Thursday night.
What is ONeills account of the Silver Star incident—the incident he came on Nightline to discuss? According to ONeill, Kerry shot and killed a teenager in a loincloth—a hapless lone assailant. According to ONeills book, Unfit for Command, Kerry has lied over the years in pretending that other enemy forces were present. According to ONeill, Kerrys Silver Star citation is factually wrong when it refers to a confrontation with a superior enemy force. And on Nightline, ONeill pushed this story-line hard. Indeed, ONeill told Koppel that his account is supported by two well-known Kerry biographies—even by Kerry himself! What follows is ONeills first remark to Koppel about the Silver Star event. First he cites the Globe biography. Then he cites a second bio, Tour of Duty, by Douglas Brinkley. Note—ONeill persistently calls these books autobiographies, although neither was written by Kerry:
ONEILL (10/14/04): This is the book, Ted, published by the Boston Globe [holds up book]. This is their autobiography [sic] of John Kerry, with his assistance. Ted. In their autobiography [sic], they describe, on page 101, a single teenager in a loin cloth, Ted. They weren't trying to make it up. This is—this is John Kerry's own approved biography, Tour of Duty [holds up second book]. On page 296 of that book, John Kerry says, Boy, he's glad there was only a single person there and not more. What you've done is gone into a closed society, instead of interviewing direct witnesses, and produced a story that isn't even the story in his biography or that of the Boston Globe.According to ONeill, the two biographies say the same thing—that Kerry confronted a single assailant. As the discussion continued, ONeill repeatedly made this claim—and Koppel never disputed it:
ONEILL: Ted, this is the biography by the hometown newspaper of John Kerry. It says there was a single Vietcong teenager in a loincloth.Eventually, Koppel explained what Nightlines reporters had found. Did Kerry kill a single, teen-aged assailant? Turns out he was 26 or 27 years old, Koppel said, was sent by provincial headquarters, was a leader of a 12-man Viet Cong unit that was sent to that place, and—I am simply giving you what the folks on the scene describe—in order to ambush American Swift boats. Why do you have trouble accepting that? In his response (full transcript below), ONeill disputed this notion, again falling back on those two biographies:
ONEILL: Ted, I have a lot of trouble, Ted, because you went to a country that is a closed society. You ignored every single report. You've ignored the written biography of John Kerry by the Boston Globe that concludes exactly what we did. Michael Kranish, who interviewed American after American, including Kerry's crewmen. You ignored Kerry's own autobiography [sic], Tour of Duty, in which he says there was, there was—he was glad there was only a single gunman.On and on the battle raged, with ONeill repeatedly citing the two biographies. With apologies for the length of our excerpts, here is the next exchange:
KOPPEL: Do me a favor. Just explain to me, just explain to me if you can, why you think it is that a bunch of peasants in a truly remote part of southern Vietnam would have an interest in making up stories that would somehow benefit John Kerry and raise questions about your version of that particular incident? What motive could they possibly have?Over and over, ONeill kept saying it: The Boston Globe bio supports my account. So does Brinkley; so do Kerrys crewmen; and so does Kerry himself! ONeill specifically said that the villagers recollections represent a totally new story. At no point in the back-and-forth did Koppel ever challenge these claims.
But John ONeill was lying again—and Koppel showed no sign of knowing it. In fact, the Globe biography doesnt support ONeills account; it plainly contradicts it, in plain detail. Was there only a single gunman? Or was the man whom Kerry killed part of a larger Viet Cong force? As ONeill noted, Michael Kranish wrote this part of the Globe biography; here is his account of what occurred when Kerry killed the man with the B-40 rocket launcher. Yes, this comes from the very same page ONeill cited to his unprepared host:
KRANISH (page 101-102): Kerry, faced with the deadly prospect that a deadly rocket grenade could come whizzing toward his crew, had made a split-second decision to leave his crew and pursue the Vietcong fighter. This guy could have dispatched us in a second, but for—Ill never be able to explain, he with his B-40 rocket and us in our boat, and he didnt pull the trigger. I would not be here today talking to you if he had, Kerry said in an interview.Was this Vietcong fighter a single assailant? As usual, ONeill was lying about the Globe biography, in which Kerrys crewman plainly says that the boat was getting fire from both sides of the river as Kerry chased down the assailant. One page earlier, Kranish describes the firefight that immediately preceded Kerrys killing of the guerilla:
KRANISH (page 100): The machine guns on the No. 23 boat were thundering in response to the attack as skipper [William] Rood beached the boat. Reese, who believes in retrospect that this was the boat he was on, went ashore with other U.S. and South Vietnamese forces and promptly engaged in a firefight with Vietcong. As Rood later wrote in a naval report, the U.S.-led forces routed more than 20 VC from their spider holes and entrenched positions, fleeing across open fields and heavy mangroves. Accurate gunfire cut down 3 VC and the chase which ensued netted Vietnamese militiamen, 6 VC dead and 6 weapons captured.Compare that with ONeills stupid statements on Nightline. Meanwhile, here is the final paragraph of the Kranish account:
KRANISH (page 103): The fighting had happened in a burst, and now it was over. Ten Vietcong had been killed and remnants of the Vietcong force had fled, according to after-action reports. U.S. forces and their South Vietnamese counterparts scoured the landscape and discovered an underground Vietcong encampment, complete with sewing machines to make uniforms.Thats what it actually says in the Boston Globe biography, although Koppel showed no sign of knowing. And ONeill was wildly dissembling about Brinkleys biography too. For example, heres how Brinkley describes the scene as Kerry and his crew examine the body of the dead guerrilla:
BRINKLEY (page 292): In the distance they could see VC running toward a tree line out of range, looking for cover in the U Minh Forest. Meanwhile, the PF [South Vietnamese] soldiers began hiking their way through the tall elephant grass. Along the way they engaged in firefights that claimed the lives of two more Viet Cong operatives. Spider holes were all over the shore, Fred Short recalled. The VC were all over the place. But after February 28, there were nine fewer of them, thanks to the uncommon bravery of John Kerry and the rest of the crew of PCF-94.Fred Short, of course, was one of Kerrys crewmen—the crewmen who supposedly agree with ONeill. But Kerrys crewmates, and Kerry himself, have always described the scene this way, not in the ludicrous way ONeill described to Koppel.
But what about that passage on page 296, the passage ONeill cited to Koppel? Did Kerry really say he was glad there was only a single person there and not more? As usual, ONeill was slickly dissembling. Here is the passage in question:
BRINKLEY (page 296): The day after the action that won him the Silver Star, Kerrys PCF-94 was ordered back to the Bay Hap River, but not a man on the boat felt good about it. Morale was just beginning to reach the lowest depths, Kerry wrote in his journal for March 1, 1969...As Kerry saw it, he had simply been lucky that the VC rocket had missed his Swift, and that he had thought quickly enough to beach it [and kill the assailant]. He could not stop wondering: Instead of one VC with a B-40 in the spider hole, what if there had been three, or five, or ten? He knew the answer, of course; in all likelihood Western Union would have been delivering death notices to the families of the men under his command, not to mention to his own parents.By this time, Brinkley has already described the VC attacks along the river and the number of VC who were eventually killed. He has quoted the Silver Star citation, which praises Kerry for attacking a numerically superior enemy force in the face of intense fire. In this one passage, Kerry is thinking that if there had been more VC with B-40s at that particular spot, he and his troops would have been killed before he could have gone ashore. And as usual, ONeill cherry-picks that single passage to mislead the public about what Brinkleys book says. Both these books describe a substantial enemy force during the events for which Kerry won the Silver Star. ONeill was baldly dissembling again. Quite clearly, its the thing he does best.
Yes, John ONeill simply wont stop lying. But if ONeills dissembling is all too familiar, another familiar situation obtained during that Nightline session. And here it is: Throughout the discussion, Koppel didnt show the slightest sign of knowing that ONeill was deceiving his viewers. Koppel showed no sign of having read the Boston Globe or Brinkley biographies. He showed no sign of knowing what Kranish and Brinkley have actually said, even as ONeill lied in his face—and lied to Nightlines viewers.
Kranish and Brinkley both describe robust enemy attacks on this day. We were getting fire from both sides of the river, Short told Kranish. The VC were all over the place, he told Brinkley. Both writers describe the number of Viet Cong dead; both quote the Silver Star citation, which refers to a superior enemy force. But Koppel never showed any sign of knowing what these books actually say. Koppel had gone on the air unprepared—and ONeill took full advantage.
Should Koppel have known what these two books say? The answer is simple: Of course! As Koppel noted at the start of this session, he had invited ONeill on the air to discuss one incident only—the Kerry Silver Star event. How much background reading would it have taken for Koppel to be up-to-speed on this matter? The Globe biography devotes seven pages to this incident (pages 97-103). Brinkley starts on page 289, and continues to page 296 (seven pages). ONeills book also gives the event seven pages (pages 80-86). In short, the three essential Kerry books devote twenty-one pages to the Silver Star event. And Koppel never showed any sign of having done this limited reading.
How easy is it to be John ONeill? Very, very easy. Indeed, what is most amazing about this Nightline show is ONeills confidence—his plain belief that he could lie to his millionaire host, and that his millionaire host would be unprepared to challenge his blatant misstatements. Throughout a long and unedifying exchange, ONeill persistently gave the impression that there was only a single person there and not more—that Kerry confronted a lone teen-age assailant, not an entire Viet Cong force. He insisted that this is what the two biographies say; that this is what Kerrys crewmen have said; and that this is what Kerry himself has said! All these claims are blatantly false. Koppel, unprepared, didnt know it.
But this is the way of your millionaire press corps (links below). Yes, they do find plenty of time to hob-nob with the people theyre supposed to be covering. But they simply refuse to do background work—to familiarize themselves with the simplest facts about the topic theyre allegedly covering. Simply put, Ted Koppel is too rich and unconcerned to bother with basic background reading. Result? ONeill simply lied in Koppels face. And give ONeill credit—his did know his man. He gambled that Koppel would be unprepared. Predictably, he wasnt disappointed.
TOMORROW: Ted and Colin, sittin in a tree
VISIT OUR INCOMPARABLE ARCHIVES: Do any of our millionaire journalists ever do any background reading? In August, ONeill lied to George Stephanopoulos—and Stephanopoulos, unprepared, didnt know (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/24/04). Just three days earlier, Swift Vet Larry Thurlow gave bogus info to Chris Matthews—and Matthews was unprepared too (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/20/04 and 8/21/04). Two months later, Koppel still lacks the simplest information about the basic Kerry biographies. He does find time to talk muscle cars with his best buddy, Colin Powell, of course.
Of course, Koppel is perpetually unprepared, and he makes no bones about it. To see him brag to Larry King about his cluelessness, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/3/03. In that HOWLER, by the way, you can get a glimpse of the real concerns that actually do float Koppels boat. Watch him struggle to get the facts about the size of the basement in his neighbors McMansion! Youll catch a glimpse of the actual values that drive your astonishing press corps.
THAT WOULD BE ROOD: William Rood was Kerrys fellow officer on the day of the Silver Star incident. On August 22, he described the events in the Chicago Tribune, where he has worked for thirty-six years (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/24/04). As he started his front-page essay, he described his disgust with the likes of ONeill:
ROOD (8/22/04): Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.As Rood described what actually happened, he contradicted everything ONeill said on Nightline. On the Bay Hap River, [a]mbushes were a virtual certainty, and that day was no exception, he wrote. Did Kerry deal with a single teenage assailant? Heres the start of Roods account:
ROOD: The first time we took fire—the usual rockets and automatic weapons—Kerry ordered a "turn 90" and the three boats roared in on the ambush. It worked. We routed the ambush, killing three of the attackers. The troops, led by an Army adviser, jumped off the boats and began a sweep, which killed another half dozen VC, wounded or captured others and found weapons, blast masks and other supplies used to stage ambushes.As Kerry and Rood proceeded a short way upstream, [i]t happened again, another ambush, Rood wrote. As we headed for the riverbank, I remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn't fired as two men jumped up from their spider holes. No, Kerry didnt chase and kill a lone teenage assailant. By contrast, heres what Rood wrote:
ROOD: Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.On August 22, this appeared on page one of the Chicago Tribune. On that same day, it was reprinted on page one of the Los Angeles Times and on page one of the Boston Globe. It was the subject of a major New York Times page one story, and the Associated Press sent out a report. But apparently, Koppel is too lazy and compromised to waste his time with reports like this too. As we noted on Saturday, Rood has never been mentioned on Koppels show, and Koppel didnt bring Rood up when ONeill kept making his absurd allegations. Do the men who were there support ONeills account? ONeill kept saying it, over and over. Koppel, unprepared, stared at air.
Rood told his story on August 22. Who knows? Maybe Koppel was spending the day with his buddy Colin, talking about their fast cars.
FOR THE RECORD: For the record, here is the initial exchange which defines the Koppel-ONeill dispute:
KOPPEL (10/14/04): I am...asking you to respond to what you have just heard from a bunch of people who do not seem to have—no, we got the title, Unfit for Command. You know, just do me a favor. Stop picking up books and let's see if you and I can more or less look at one another and just get a few questions and answers back and forth. You wrote—you wrote that there was only one man. And in fact, you didn't describe him as a man, you described him as a kid. You described him as a kid in a loincloth.But their story isnt totally different; their story is the same as Kerrys. And its the same as in the Globe and Brinkley biographies, although Koppel showed no sign of knowing it.
By the way, wed like to link you to the full transcript, but ABC makes you pay for transcripts. Somebody has to pay the freight for Koppels fast cars, after all.