>>Let's just say that if Kerry had the facts behind him, I think even he would have a much easier time defending himself.<<
Nadine -
Not necessarily. Let's take the "He voted against body armor for the troops" accusation that was leveled at Kerry during the campaign. This was based on the fact that he had voted against an 87 billion dollar allocation for the Iraq war, a package which among many other things included body armor for the troops.
That was turned into an attack on his patriotism. Kerry was portrayed as not supporting the troops because he voted against that bill.
Kerry's response was, "Actually, I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." Ouch! Open mouth, insert foot. Not a good line by any stretch, and one that was used to mock him for the rest of the campaign
But the truth behind that stupid line is that in a procedural vote, he voted for the allocation. Then some provisions were added that he did not support, having to do with no-bid contracts for some items if I remember correctly. Because he didn't support those provisions, he voted against the final bill.
So there's a case where the man didn't do anything wrong at all. He was sticking by his principles, and that was turned into an attack on his patriotism. (Classic Karl Rove tactics.) Yet even though the facts supported him, he couldn't come up with a better defense than ... well, it's so lame that I can't bring myself to retype it.
What I'd say is that the accusations of a completely fabricated military record have not been proved, or even that well supported, and it really shouldn't be up to Kerry to prove that they are false. So if he does a crappy job of defending himself, how is that proof that the allegations are true? The burden of proof should lie with the accusers.
What Kerry's inability to satisfactorily defend himself proves is that he's a bit of a doorknob, but that's all it proves.
- Allen
PS: Here's something for you to think about. Karl Rove has been accused of doing some absolutely hateful, vile, unethical and immoral things in past campaigns by a number of people, including Al Franken (in his most recent book, The Truth, with Jokes). He has not sued Al Franken, nor in any way defended himself against any of these charges. Does that mean the charges must therefore be true? |
