Where Kaus Slept: Not In Vietnam!

Midget Mickey Kaus triumphantly trumpets -- with an exclamation point! -- his supposed debunking of a lie told by Senator Kerry. Kaus claims that Kerry lied when he said he did not sleep on the Mall in Washington D.C. while protesting the Vietnam War with his fellow veterans. The hairless hack unequivocally states:

Kerry didn't throw his own medals over the wall in that 1971 antiwar protest and he didn't sleep on the Mall with his Viet Vet buddies either. He snuck off and slept in a Georgetown townhouse.

But Kaus doesn't even begin to make his case for his assertion. The only source he cites is a Robert Sam Anson piece from the New York Observer in which Anson plainly does not state that Kerry slept at a Georgetown townhouse.

The hairless hack also sneers at Kerry's website for its denial of the charge:

Kerry's own Web site dismisses the Kerry-slept-in-Georgetown charge as an attempt to "smear him with the same unsubstantiated charge the Nixon White House used in 1971." Now not so unsubstantiated ... although I suppose Kerry will now claim he secretly snuck back to the Mall to sleep after the brandies in the library. ... (Emphasis added.)

Had Kaus bothered to read the Kerry page to which he links, he would have seen this:

In Fact, Kerry Biographer Says Kerry Slept on Mall, Used house for business and organizing (its not like he had a cell phone in 1971).

"Although he slept on the Mall, he [Kerry] used the Georgetown home of Oatsie and Robert Charles as a place to conduct business." [Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty, p. 364]

So the Kerry campaign's description of Kerry's activities is fully consistent with the Anson article, while Kaus's misreading of the article is not. And the website provides a source -- the Brinkley book -- which the hack didn't bother to consult.

Let's recap: Little Mick asserts, unequivocally, that Kerry "didn't sleep on the Mall .... He snuck off and slept in a Georgetown townhouse." He then links to an article which doesn't say that Kerry slept in a Georgetown townhouse, as proof of his claim. He then bashes the Kerry campaign for calling the charges "unsubstantiated" without bothering to substantiate the charges. And he insinuates that Kerry will have to change his story ("I suppose Kerry will now claim...") when Kerry's story is already consistent with the Anson piece.

That's got to be the Triple Crown of Hackery!

But that's not good enough for Kaus; he wants the Lifetime Acheivement Award. In a later post, Kaus simpers:

If Kerry spent only one night in Georgetown and several nights on the mall, why didn't he just say that, instead of denying the charge and letting his campaign call it a 'smear'? If he just drank brandy in the library (see Update), why doesn't he say that?

You see, it's Kerry's fault for denying the allegation that was made against him, rather than another one that exists only in Kaus's mind. ("Kerry failed to reveal that he drank brandy during the same time he was protesting the war!") And it's not Kaus's burden to present actual evidence for his own assertion. Here are my questions: If Kaus has no evidence that Kerry slept where he says he did, why doesn't he say that, instead of repeating a smear? When the Anson article doesn't say what Kaus claims, why doesn't Kaus just say that?

It's amusing -- and easy -- to point out Kaus's hate-fueled hackery, but the deviant workings of a small and twisted mind aren't all that important. The more significant matter is Kaus's bashing of Kerry on matters of little significance. Kerry served -- and slept -- in Vietnam, while Kaus, though fit for service, did not serve his country in the armed forces. Did Kaus protest the war or make any sacrifices to end the war? Who knows. But the fact that Kaus is obsessed with Kerry's sleeping arrangements and completely ignores the relevant issues behind the trivia -- the validity of the War in Vietnam, military service, the military draft, and the right to dissent against government policies -- demonstrates that Kaus is a man of no substance, unfit (though entitled) speak on any matters of national importance.