Soccer Dad

The Post's Concerns

In two recent edtiorials, "Swift Boat Smears" and "Swift Boat Sniping" the Washington Post has turned its (negative) attention to the charges of the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth.
(More on that later.)
How, then, did the Post address the issue of the charges that President was AWOL? In an editorial from Feb 12, 2004 titled "A Dubious Debate" (no link found) the Post opined:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe reignited the issue when he accused Mr. Bush of being AWOL for a year during his National Guard service. This charge is a bit hard to take from Mr. McAuliffe, given his role in helping to elect Bill Clinton, who managed to extricate himself from any duty. And surely Mr. McAuliffe would not have been hurling words such as "AWOL" had his party been poised to nominate former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who obtained a medical excuse because of his bad back and then spent the next year on the ski slopes.

Note there is no outrage that the charge was made. Only that it was hypocritical for McAulliffe to make the charge. Compare that with:

But a new assault on Mr. Kerry -- in an ad by a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and in a new book -- crosses the line in branding Mr. Kerry a coward and a liar.

(from "Swift Boat Smears")
Since that editorial appeared, Mr. Kerry's veracity has indeed become an issue. The Kerry campaign has now backed away from the "Christmas in Cambodia" claim and it's been established that the circumstances of Mr. Kerry's first Purple Heart were questionable. (His own diary providing the evidence that it wasn't earned while he was under fire.)
In the later editorial, "Swift Boat Sniping" the Post had this to say:

Mr. Kerry's conflicting statements about where and when he was in Cambodia remain troubling. He has backed away from repeated claims that he spent Christmas Eve 1968 in Cambodia, a memory that, he said in a 1986 Senate speech, is "seared -- seared -- in me." This does not undermine Mr. Kerry's military bravery, but it does raise an issue of candor. It's fair to ask whether this is an episode of foggy memory, routine political embroidery or something more.

So Kerry's been exposed as a liar, and his claims of bravery aren't worth a second look?
John Kerry carefully cultivated an image of a brave soldier who then bravely opposed the war he fought in. How carefully did he cultivate his image?
He recreated his battles for a camera. He clearly inflated the circumstances surrounding at least one of his Purple Hearts. And he remembers - it was "seared" into his memory - that he was on an illegal unacknowledged mission in Cambodia.
This is more than just candor. It goes to the heart of the myth that Kerry created for himself apparently to enhance his political viability. A newspaper has the responsibility to peel away the layers and see if that myth is true. The Washington Post (and it is not alone) has shirked that responsibility.
And I love this:

This smear is contradicted by Mr. Kerry's crew mates, undercut by the previous statements of some of those now making the charges and tainted by the chief source of its funding: Republican activists dedicated to defeating Mr. Kerry in November.

But it appears that there were inconsistencies on both sides, the Post just takes one of those sides seriously. But if funding damages credibility, I should like to point out that the Kerry campaign has bought banner and pop up ads at the Washington Post's website. It would appear that it is money well spent.

Posted by SoccerDad at August 26, 2004 6:17 AM