For several days now, there has been a virtual hailstorm of controversy regarding some documents released by CBS News which were allegedly from 1LT George W. Bush's commanding officer in the National Guard. It is both alleged that (1) the memos "prove" 1LT Bush disobeyed a direct order to get a physical, and (2) that the documents are in fact forgeries created by the DNC in an attempt to take attention off of Kerry's Vietnam controveries. For days now, we have been hearing about the minutiae of Selectric typewriters, font irregularities, and proportional spacing. By now, the debate of experts over superscripts versus line spacing is almost making us notalgic for discussions of hanging chads.
Let me say again what I said the day this story broke: no matter the truth of the documents, they have NOTHING to do with the presidential race. Or shouldn't. If the documents are true (which looks increasingly doubtful) then 1LT Bush is at worst guilty of something he has already confessed to: not taking a physical required for flight readiness, because he was not taking part in flight duties. Some are charging this is a court-martialable case of disobeying a direct order. Please. I have many friends in the military who tell me stories about their experiences. Common sense survives army discipline, most of the time. And there are plenty of experiences that Mr. Bush admits to in that time period far more serious than missing a physical. (The DUI charge revealed shortly before the 2000 election comes to mind.) It was all prior to his conversion experience that made him the man he is today. But the Left is hanging onto this as their smoking gun. They somehow think this shows President Bush's inability to command, and his lack of character. While the Right is happy to debate serif versus sans serif for hours, because they know as long as the debate is over the authenticity of the documents, it is robbing Mr. Kerry of time to actually put out a message.
Let us be clear: the best-case scenario for the Left here is that (1) the documents are proved genuine, and (2) the president has already admitted everything in them. This moves the debate back onto who did what, when, and who disobeyed orders in the Vietnam era. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that this logically returns discussion to John Kerry's alleged sojourn in Cambodia - against explicit orders on the record, if he was there. It logically reraises the question of John Kerry's medals, and the charge that at least one was from shooting a civilian in the back. And it returns attention John Kerry's own words as an anti-war protester where he admitted to "war atrocities" that he himself committed.
If you are an undecided voter who has the choice between voting for a man who disobeyed orders and skipped "turn-your-head-and-cough" (Bush) and a man who disobeyed orders in a war zone, committed murder, and admitted committing atrocities (Kerry), who would you vote for? I think the best-case scenario for the DNC in this match-up is the voter staying home or voting for Nader. But it is more likely, they would go ahead and vote for Bush.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder