Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Cowards All Around
Michael Tomasky has a very excellent summary of the irresponsible tack the media has taken in it's coverage of the various accusations against Kerry.
An excerpt:
So now we're having a debate about whether the man who did the honorable thing may have embellished his record a little (although nothing in the documentary record suggests he did this), while we have two cowards who did everything they could to stay miles away from the place Kerry demanded he be sent. This is the fundamental truth. And while yes, Kerry has made his war service a centerpiece in a way that Bush and Cheney for obvious reasons did not, is it really Kerry who deserves scrutiny for how he behaved in 1968 and 1969?
This notion that "Kerry brought this on himself" for making his service part of his campaign is something I've read in several places. Certainly Kerry's service is scrutinized when this happens. But to claim somehow that it's Kerry's fault because Bush's surrogates are publicly lying about Kerry? And when did outright lying about a man meet the standard of free speech (another saw I've read on some sites)?
There are those who appear to want Bush to win so much that they're willing to suspend common sense in order to bash Kerry and ignore the glaring flaws of their own guy. I'd venture to say that the vast majority of those supporting Bush would need to do that in order to actually vote for him.
|
An excerpt:
So now we're having a debate about whether the man who did the honorable thing may have embellished his record a little (although nothing in the documentary record suggests he did this), while we have two cowards who did everything they could to stay miles away from the place Kerry demanded he be sent. This is the fundamental truth. And while yes, Kerry has made his war service a centerpiece in a way that Bush and Cheney for obvious reasons did not, is it really Kerry who deserves scrutiny for how he behaved in 1968 and 1969?
This notion that "Kerry brought this on himself" for making his service part of his campaign is something I've read in several places. Certainly Kerry's service is scrutinized when this happens. But to claim somehow that it's Kerry's fault because Bush's surrogates are publicly lying about Kerry? And when did outright lying about a man meet the standard of free speech (another saw I've read on some sites)?
There are those who appear to want Bush to win so much that they're willing to suspend common sense in order to bash Kerry and ignore the glaring flaws of their own guy. I'd venture to say that the vast majority of those supporting Bush would need to do that in order to actually vote for him.
Return to Main
