Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (29417)	2/13/2004 2:53:51 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) of 793868

Trap sprung. I asked Peter for the evidence supporting the allegations that Bush was a "deserter" or "AWOL", allegations that he and the TNR staff have been rolling about in for days. I've seen this comparison mentioned a couple of times today. I don't think it's a valid one. The deserter/AWOL business is a matter of hyperbolic labels applied to the spotty record of Bush's attendance. The allegation is that he did not attend the requisite drills. So we have an allegation, which is being investigated, and a labeling. Acts and the extreme characterization of those acts are two different things. The characterization is to be condemned if it is to be repeated at all. There is substance to the act; it is worthy of investigation. In Kerry's case, the alleged act is also worthy of investigation and it is being investigated. Both acts are being treated the same, best I can tell. News media are investigating and are reporting or will be reporting what substance they find. You can't fairly compare the treatment of an act with the treatment of a characterization. If the media fail to report what they find as they investigate Kerry, then you have a complaint.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next