Balancing Act

The media has finally decided to drop other shoe regarding the Swift Boat Morons who lie. I don't know if bloggers had much to do with this, but once again they were out in front.

Juan Cole had enough yesterday:

The true absurdity of the entire situation is easily appreciated when we consider that George W. Bush never showed any bravery at all at any point in his life. He has never lived in a war zone. If some of John Kerry's wounds were superficial, Bush received no wounds. (And, a piece of shrapnel in the forearm that caused only a minor wound would have killed had it hit an eye and gone into the brain; the shrapnel being in your body demonstrates you were in mortal danger and didn't absent yourself from it. That is the logic of the medal). Kerry saved a man's life while under fire. Bush did no such thing.

Cole goes on to suggest that Bush's history of drug and alcohol abuse might explain his propensity for rash behavior and actions--such as the insane siege of Fallujah last April, or his earlier history of showing, um, a certain undue enthusiasm for executing people.

Likewise, The Rude Pundit offered his own take:

And, therefore, what they really want to attack is John Kerry, the "wild-eyed" hippie activist, and not Kerry, the soldier. Check out their new ad, titled "Sellout.".

In "Sellout," Kerry's testimony about war crimes in Vietnam before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1971 is quoted out of context. Where Kerry is talking about testimony already given about atrocities, "Sellout" gives only the part of the quote that makes it seem as if Kerry is speaking these things for the first time. (Kerry didn't only say, "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads," but had attributed the stories to "honorably discharged" vets who had testified at previous hearings.) But that fact's been argued about over and over.

Let's look at a couple of opening paragraphs from Kerry's testimony in 1971:

...we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Unfortunately, the key lines--"...many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes...they told stories that, at times..." will never be cited by the Swift Boat Morons and the morons that love them. Because that would destroy the premise of their argument--that Kerry "betrayed" the veterans of the Vietnam war. Anyone with more than two functioning braincells, though, can see quite clearly what Kerry is doing, that is, RECOUNTING WHAT HE HEARD at a conference in Detroit.

For instance, if I write that David Irving, infamous Holocaust denier, once said, "I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend," that's NOT me denying the Holocaust. However, by Swift Boat Moron logic, that could be lifted out of context and presented as if it was.

The Rude Pundit, in the link above, uses a more recent issue to drive home the same point:

Put it this way: let's suppose that Joseph Darby, the soldier who blew the whistle on the torture at Abu Ghraib (and now hiding from death threats), decided to run for office. Let's say that a group called "Iraq Prison Guards for Truth" ran an ad with all kinds of sinister music, with former Abu Ghraib guards saying shit like "Joseph Darby betrayed us." The Rude Pundit would hope beyond hope that the majority of people would decide the "Iraq Prison Guards for Truth" was a bunch of batshit insane, crazed monkeys who should be locked up for the public good.

Anyway, the media, as I said, is finally showing a tiny smidgen of spine--here, linked to from Atrios, are several columns that call the Bush Team to answer for reckless and spurious charges. Because, to be fair, we should compare and contrast BOTH candidates. While Kerry was showing qualities that define leadership (whether you like him or not), Bush was, well, busy partying and blowing off any responsibility. Once again, a link from Atrios:

• Why did Bush, described by some of his fellow officers as a talented and enthusiastic pilot, stop flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972 and fail to take an annual physical exam required of all pilots?

• What explains the apparent gap in the president's Guard service in 1972-73, a period when commanders in Texas and Alabama say they never saw him report for duty and records show no pay to Bush when he was supposed to be on duty in Alabama?

• Did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting into the Guard and securing a coveted pilot slot despite poor qualifying scores and arrests, but no convictions, for stealing a Christmas wreath and rowdiness at a football game during his college years?

This is the backlash I wrote about recently (I don't really feel like scrounging up the link, but it's somewhere below). Because Bush found it necessary to go so negative, so early, he will now pay the price. That said, he did succeed in the sense that Kerry was put on the defensive, and that was at least part of the plan. But the downside is that Bush exposes his own chin, and I don't think it's been proven that he can take a punch.

In the end, this entire week will speak strongly to questions of character, which will find Bush on the short end of the stick--in fact, almost any discussion of the two candidates, be it character or issue-based, will find Bush wanting. His only real chance is to spew smoke and bullshit, and hope for the best.

Well, on another subject, I'm off to the city today. If I find time to post, I'll do so, but can't offer any guarantee. Once again, thanks to those of y'all who stop by to read, and, if nothing else, I'll be back next week. I look forward to not only posting, but to reading what y'all are saying as well. Later.