I'm afraid your blogger is guilty of many of the same things he attacks the Times for. In addition, he depends too much upon unfounded leaps of logic. For example, he assumes that the Times has Kerry's medical records, but that doesn't mean they do.
What he notes is that the Times is not citing Kerry's medical records for evidence. Now, if we are discussing the extent of someone's wounds, you'd think the medical record would be the first place to turn and you'd expect mention of it - you would want to know what it said; even if it said nothing, that also would be significant.
Yet, strangely the Times doesn't mention the record, citing some picture of Kerry with a bandage on his arm as evidence - and as the blogger points out, as evidence, it's worthless, and the Times had to use carefully shortened quotes to make it seem like it was worth something.
Now either the Times has the record or it doesn't. Logic would tell you that if it had the record, and the record supported Kerry, the record would have been cited. So either it doesn't support Kerry, or they don't have the record. If they don't have the record, it means Kerry hasn't released it. Why not, if it would support him or at least not contradict him?
What's the simplest explanation here? |
