sisyphusshrugged | will wonders never cease

CBS News has picked up Micheal Tomasky's takedown of media coverage on the Swift Boat Vets

At first blush, the treatment given to Michael Dobbs' page-one swift-boat article in Sunday's Washington Post seems at least vaguely reassuring. There's the neutral headline "Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete," but below that, a deck-headline informing readers that "Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode." The banner treatment, running across three-fourths of the front page above the fold, places the onus of proof where it belongs -- on the accusers, not on Kerry, a point that Bob Novak and others have chosen to ignore, obscure, or even refute; and in announcing that the proof isn't there, it seems to be a plus for Kerry.

So what's wrong with this picture? This: The Washington Post should not even be running such a story -- a takeout of something in the neighborhood of 2,700 words, I'm guessing, delving into the remotest arcana about what really happened on the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969 -- in the first place. Len Downie and the paper's other editors would undoubtedly argue that the story represents the Post's tenacity for getting to the truth, without fear or favor. But what the story actually proves is that a bunch of liars who have in the past contradicted their own current statements can, if their lies are outrageous enough and if they have enough money, control the media agenda and get even the most respected media outlets in the country to focus on picayune "truths" while missing the larger story.

And the larger story here is clear: John Kerry volunteered for the Navy, volunteered to go to Vietnam, and then, when he was sitting around Cam Ranh Bay bored with nothing to do, requested the most dangerous duty a Naval officer could be given. He saved a man's life. He risked his own every time he went up into the Mekong Delta. He did more than his country asked. In fact he didn't even wait for his country to ask.

George W. Bush spent those same years in a state of dissolution at Yale, and would go on, as we know, to plot how to get out of going to Southeast Asia. On that subject, here's a choice quote. "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment," Bush told the Dallas Morning News in 1990. "Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

Let's parse that quotation phrase for phrase. We do not, of course, know the full context of the conversation he was having with the reporter, and we don't know exactly what question Bush was asked. But his words begin from the presumption that actually going to Vietnam was absolutely not an option. The quote is entirely about how to avoid going. He wasn't prepared to damage his hearing intentionally for the sake of securing a deferment (he probably meant a 4-F classification and confused the two). And he wasn't willing to go to Canada. So he took the third option, the Air National Guard. And note how the choice was about bettering himself, not about thinking of a way to best render service that this child of privilege might -- had he been possessed of the moral fiber and sense of duty of, say, John Kerry -- have considered his obligation, especially considering that, on paper at least, he supported the war

and Bob Schieffer gets a few whacks in (I don't agree about Bush's record - he did write a book in which he lied about it - but at least he has an opinion about what's actually happening, and they're not all that thick on the ground these days)

Well, here we go again.

Just when we needed a campaign about serious issues -- and for a minute there, it looked as if we might get one -- along comes the Swift Boat crowd and their charges that John Kerry didn't deserve the medals he won for valor under fire in Vietnam.

Never mind that the accusers can't quite seem to get their stories straight; negative television commercials are powerful things and the polls suggest the allegations have caused Kerry's support among veterans to slip.

So now Kerry is regrouping to counterattack. He's rolling out his retired military people to argue with the Bush military brigade or, as I understand it, Bush supporters who have no connection to the Bush campaign.

You can make the argument that since Kerry chose to flaunt record his military record, that record is fair game.

But I find the whole thing insulting to the rest of us, just as I found it insulting when some Democrats who, as I understand it, support Kerry but have no connection to the Kerry campaign tried to steer that campaign away from real issues to focus instead on George Bush's attendance record during his long-ago days in the National Guard.

It seems to me that this is the sort of thing news organizations used to do a long time ago. Nice to see it again.

edit: Ho. Ly. Cow.

via

lawgeekgurl, this from prominent socialist publication Business Week:

The next time the nation gets into a war, why would any American with an interest in national service show up to fight? When did the U.S. come to blithely accept the tarring for political gain of honorably discharged combat veterans? Obviously, I'm talking about the attacks on John Kerry by a bunch of angry, Bush-backing Vietnam-war vets who claim the Democratic candidate doesn't deserve all of the medals, which include Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts, that he won in combat in Vietnam.

But I'm also talking about the attacks on Republican Senator and former prisoner of war John McCain -- a genuine hero by anyone's definition -- during his South Carolina primary battle against George W. Bush for the 2000 Presidential nomination. And the relentless assaults on the patriotism of Democrat Max Cleland by Republican Saxby Chambliss, who defeated Cleland for one of Georgia's Senate seats in 2002. If you want proof of Cleland's patriotism, all you need to know is that he lost three limbs in Vietnam.

It's time for Bush in particular -- and Americans in general -- to get on the right side of this issue once and for all. No moral equivalency exists between Kerry and Bush on the issue of service in Vietnam. Kerry served in combat. He was shot at. Not Bush. If you don't think it's important for a President to have served in combat, fine, make your choice on other grounds. But if you do, Kerry is your man, at least on this one issue.

REPUBLICAN RECOMMENDATION. All of the Swift-boat comrades who served on Kerry's boat have showed up at his side to campaign for him and defend him. They're the ones with the most direct knowledge of what happened and they confirm that Kerry deserved the Bronze Star for his leadership during a skirmish on March 13, 1969.

...

"FOG OF WAR"? Contrast that with George Bush, who few witnesses can recall having seen during a long stretch of his National Guard duty during the Vietnam War. News organizatiosn have done plenty of digging into the past to determine whether Bush used personal influence to get himself into that National Guard assignment. It's hard to say for certain. But no poor people were in that unit. The only ones in it were people with pull.

...

The purpose of the attacks against Kerry, however, isn't to get at the truth. It's a media campaign, with TV ads intended to create a vague, negative impression where none existed. The people behind the ads know that by any realistic assessment of the facts, Kerry has a major advantage over Bush when it comes to their respective military records. They want to muddy the waters to reduce Kerry's advantage. It's amazing that such bald-faced tactics can gain any traction with voters.

NO EQUIVALENCY. The critics know that if they can just manufacture the appearance of controversy, most reporters -- in the name of "balancing" their stories -- will play along. Attacks on Bush, such as an ad funded by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org that questioned Bush's military record, have been given equal weight with the vets' attack ads in some stories.

The Bush campaign and editorial writers are calling on Kerry to distance himself from the MoveOn ads in the same breath that the Kerry campaign and editorialists are asking Bush to renounce the Swift-boat vets' ads. Kerry has repudiated the MoveOn ad (after some prodding from McCain).

But sorry, my fellow journalists, there's no equivalency here. MoveOn is an avowedly partisan group that openly opposes Bush. The Swift-boat vets tried to cover their political tracks while claiming inside knowledge about Kerry most of them clearly don't have. And several of them have flip-flopped from publicly praising Kerry to attacking him.

A nation has to honor its war veterans whatever their political party, while remaining realistic about the horrors of war. If some Americans do otherwise, all Americans are shamed. McCain has also called on Bush to denounce the attacks on Kerry and condemn that kind of low-life negative campaigning. It's time the President complied in no uncertain terms, and it's time he meant it.