Beldar has a good take on the WaPo editorial
..........Elsewhere, the WaPo duly notes some of the conflicts in the versions of events regarding the Rassman rescue and Kerry's Bronze Star. "But the weight of the evidence supports Mr. Kerry," opines the WaPo.
Well, okay — that's one conclusion that can be drawn, and it depends on how you assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence. Given that this is on the editorial page, I can't fault WaPo's editorial writer(s) for coming to, and expressing, an opinion.
Personally, however, I'd find that opinion more persuasive if, for example, on the question of whether there was hostile fire from the shores, WaPo could give a better reason for believing Rassman, Sandusky, and Wasser on the one hand, over O'Dell, Chenoweth, and Thurlow on the other — beyond the fact that the SwiftVets' largest financial backer is a Texas Republican. Yes, it's certainly worth considering what motivations these conflicting witnesses have when one's deciding whom among them to believe. But I find it rather hard to accept that the hulls and superstructures of the Swift Boats involved in this rescue — none of which displayed any bullet holes when they returned — were guilty of partisan bias.
Still, I didn't expect WaPo to write its first editorial on this subject with a title like "John Kerry's Got Some Serious 'Splainin' to Do!" The fact that this mainstream media outlet is beginning to react to the SwiftVets controversy in a serious manner is significant. This editorial may calm the butterflies in the stomachs of Sen. Kerry's supporters — until they realize that the "ignore it and it will go away" dike has now been thoroughly broken. |
