Bush, of course, released his service records. And the chattering died when the supposed "inconsistencies" vanished. But Kerry supporters and the press prefer the playground to transparency and truth. And so, says Lee Cearnal of the Houston Chronicle, "Even when he's caught in a lie, media aren't scrutinizing [Kerry] the same way they did Bush":
The same news media that demanded George W. Bush release his National Guard records -- and went over them with a microscope -- have shown an appalling lack of interest in John Kerry's military service. And as it turns out, there are far more legitimate questions about the latter than the former. . .(via Instapundit).
As to the truth of [Kerry's Cambodia] tale, there is only Kerry's word, which the press seems quite willing to take, to the extent of not reporting on the controversy at all. It is not a trivial matter. Kerry has pimped the story repeatedly in an effort to paint himself as a stand-up eyewitness to events that were both illegal and, in his view, immoral.
And that's not the only issue that reporters are curiously incurious about. At least one of Kerry's Purple Hearts has been challenged by his unit's medical officer, who notes that the wound was barely visible and was treated with a Band-Aid. Some questions should also be asked about his Silver Star: Should shooting a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back -- as justifiable as it was as an act of war -- be worthy of the nation's third-highest award for courage?
To those of you who say such questions are unseemly, consider that John Kerry's principal claim on the presidency is that he served four months and 11 days in Vietnam. OK, fine. Let's examine the records -- all the records, which, unlike Bush and contrary to popular perception, Kerry has not released -- and have a debate. We would be if it were George W. Bush. The media would see to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment