John Kerry's Attack Machine
Setting The Character Assassination Record Straight
March 31, 2004
by Frank Salvato
The term “character assassination” is being thrown around a lot by the Democrats these days. They use it whenever they don’t like something they’ve heard from the opposition. But they especially like to employ the term whenever the Bush Administration tries to defend itself from scurrilous and often disingenuous attacks from individuals and organizations that would celebrate in President Bush’s demise.
Being part of the so-called “right wing attack machine” that all the Bush-haters insist exists in this country, perhaps I am being hypersensitive to their contention that character assassination is at play. Of course if I were truly hypersensitive I suppose they would lay down their hate rhetoric toward me and embrace my “disability.” Be that as it may, I am finding it hard to equate character assassination with pointing out inaccuracies, defending oneself against outlandish claims and being afforded the wherewithal to set the record straight.
We heard that the Bush Administration was attacking Paul O’Neill’s character when they pointed out inaccuracies and false statements after O’Neill unleashed a book full of salable misinformation that may have pleased the corporate literacy world but fell short of earning a place on any list that in reality had non-fiction in the title. After the mainstream press was literally dragged kicking and screaming into the task of researching O’Neill’s arguments it was revealed that perhaps many of the critical elements of the book were “a bit over the top.” O’Neill, it would seem, was pulling the trigger for his own character assassination.
We hear it all the time where John Kerry is involved. He and his surrogates adore lambasting President Bush for things like not having released the results of a proctology examination he was subjected to over three decades ago. They do this while inferring that President Bush has something to hide. Of course, this isn’t character assassination. This is simply getting to the bottom of things they feel the American public should know. As with Reagan’s polyps, I would rather not know the results of said examination even if they were afforded to the American public.
By contrast, when the Bush Administration uses direct quotes from Kerry’s testimony before Congress to spotlight the actions he took and the sentiment he held in his heart after his early return from Vietnam they call it character assassination. When they simply refer to his voting record in the Senate to spotlight the fact he has been on both sides of every issue since his political career began once again they call it character assassination. Or when they accurately quote the contradictions he makes publicly about his politics the Democratic operatives again call it…everyone join with me please…character assassination. I wonder what they will call it when people from the right side of the political spectrum start demanding that his military records be made public, something that so far he has failed to do. I am sure when this happens they will try to find a more caustic word for assassination (unpatriotic or un-American perhaps).
Now we have the so-called “character assassination” of Richard Clarke. The left is quick to point out that Clarke served under several presidents, most Republican and one two-term Democrat. They are quick to point out that he was the Counter-Terrorism chief not only under Bill Clinton but also in the beginning days of the George W. Bush presidency. They like to cite his years of public service and they call him a man of credibility. But when the Bush Administration tries to set the record straight by rebuking assertions made in a book Clarke wrote for personal gain the Democrats say the Bush Administration, the “right wing attack machine,” is assassinating Richard Clarke’s character. Pay no attention to the fact that Clarke’s own words of contradiction assassinate his character.
It would seem the Democrats believe it is unfair for anyone, especially President Bush, to be afforded the opportunity to defend oneself in the face of their twisted and sometimes slanderous contentions. If one defends oneself against their attacks they are either part of the so-called “right wing attack machine” or they are trying to assassinate someone’s character. In the eyes of the Democrats not only are they correct all of the time, politically correct as well I might add, but they feel they are beyond reproach on any opinion they deem themselves fit to formulate. The arrogance is thick in the Bush-hating crowd, don’t you know.
So, now that we have set the record straight about the ground rules for this presidential election perhaps we should declare them once and for all so there are no misconceptions:
Be it known to all far and wide, when those who hate President Bush and support John Kerry make an assertion we had all better take what they say as fact. When someone comes forward, regardless of whether they have come from inside, where once affiliated with or come from outside the Bush Administration we had better not question the facts of their assertions. We had better not uncover flaws, contradictions, confront non-truths or provide undisputable facts proving their contentions blatantly wrong. God forbid we should ever flat out catch them in a political spin or a lie.
The Kerry campaign, the DNC and groups like MoveOn.org would be quite pleased if we, the American people, just fed on the scurrilous accusations that the Paul O’Neill’s and Richard Clarke’s of the political world use to attack our president and accepted them as fact. They would rather we embrace the Kerry spin and catch phrases as truth, and use of unsubstantiated “facts” while avoiding any discussions of substance as legitimate. They would rather we accept their charges of “character assassination,” no matter how disingenuous. After all, who are we to question the almighty DNC and the liberal left? In their vision of a perfect United States, government always knows what is best for the American people. In their eyes, government is always the answer. To question that would be…well…character assassination.
mensnewsdaily.com |
