<$BlogRSDUrl$>

My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.

2004-08-21

A Little Redundant Dissection

Sure, others more gifted than I have done this, but let's pick apart the statement made yesterday by Sen. John Kerry:

"More than 30 years ago I learned an important lesson. When you're under attack the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attack. That's what I intend to do today."


Speaking of the organization airing the ads that challenge his war record, Kerry said, "Of course, this group isn't interested in the truth and they're not telling the truth. ...


"But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know. He wants them to do his dirty work."

Yeah. So let's go from the beginning.

"More than 30 years ago I learned an important lesson. When you're under attack the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attack.

First of all, his whole strategy in dealing with this issue has been hapless, at best, and arrogantly superior, at worst. It has taken him three weeks to "turn his boat into the attack." Why, with that sort of reaction time, it's no wonder the SVFT are questioning the valor of his service. Secondly, wouldn't "turning" involve some bold move such as, say, holding a press conference and releasing all the military records of the era? Perhaps going on a hostile venue such as Brit Hume's show to deal with the issues head-on? But instead, he chooses to fire back from the cover of a union hall--kinda the rhetorical equivalent of "bravely" returning fire from the shadow of a destroyer with F-102's flying overhead.

"Of course, this group isn't interested in the truth and they're not telling the truth. ... So, pray, do tell the truth, won't you Mr. Kerry? You, on the one hand, have been demonstrated to have lied repeatedly about an incident on Dec 24, 1968. At this point, that simple fact draws into question the veracity of every wartime claim you have made. So please, don't just TELL us the truth--back it up with corroborative documentation. Hey, I know--sign a form 180 and let us look for the whole truth ourselves. And when I say "us", I am, of course, referring to the alternative media--the big boys don't want this with a ten-foot pole.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. First of all, no. . .that's NOT what we really need to know about them. That's interesting, and goes somewhat to motive, but it really has nothing to do with the issue at hand. At this point, what we really need to know about them is "are they telling the truth--which implies 'are you NOT telling the truth.'" In classic fashion, Sen. Kerry evades the real issue with subterfuge and misdirection--hey, maybe he did learn a little something from the CIA/magic hat guy.

And, by the way, "funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars"? That's hardly the sort of money you are used to seeing thrown about by the 527s on your side. For example (courtesy LGF, via Powerline)"Now that John Kerry and the Democrats have started denouncing section 527 committees, it's worth pointing out that of the twenty-five largest contributors to 527's, only one -- that's right, one -- is a Republican. The top two donors are Peter Lewis ($14,030,000) and George Soros ($12,600,000). Altogether, the 24 Democrats contributed $56,693,000. The lone Republican donated $1,020,000." So those "hundreds of thousands" ought to be pretty influential. I would say these guys are getting an awful lot of bang for the buck. And, by the way, anybody want to place a bet on Peter Lewis or George Soros having given money directly to the Kerry campaign?

They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know. He wants them to do his dirty work." Speaking of unsubstantiated charges. . . Is that like how you denounced Whoopi Goldberg: "Oh, some things were said that I don't agree with and in some pretty unfortunate terms.. ." or something like that. THAT kind of denouncement? Or perhaps your denouncement of Michael Moore :"Oh, gee, I don't need to see the movie because I've lived it." So if that's everything we need to know, than we infer that everything we need to know about YOU, Sen. Kerry, is Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg. . . and the Dixie Chicks, Bruce Springsteen, Sheryl Crowe, etc. . . I'll put 256 Vietnam Vets and officers up against your dozens vets and that crowd ANY DAY.

And in the end, Sen. Kerry still had not addressed the core issue: did he or did he not invent, exaggerate, or embellish significant parts of his war record? And, if his war record is central to his claim on the White House, is that issue not central to the public's assessment of his fitness for office?

By the way, if you fall back on "the Navy said so," you'd better follow that up with "and the Air National Guard said so about the President, so we accept as axiomatic that he served how he was supposed to serve."
Posted by: Michael / 8/21/2004 12:06:00 AM

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?