|
| Media Crybabies for Kerry |
| Tuesday, September 28, 2004 |
Supporters of John Kerry, including supposedly
impartial reporters, are faulting President Bush for
characterizing the challenger's comments in something
other than the light most favorable to the challenger.
Here's an example, from an Associated Press dispatch
titled "Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq":
He stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the
week "he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam
Hussein to the situation in Iraq today." The line drew
gasps of surprise from Bush's audience in a Racine,
Wis., park. "I just strongly disagree," the president
said.
But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York
University on Monday, he called Saddam "a brutal
dictator who deserves his own special place in hell."
He added, "The satisfaction we take in his downfall
does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for
a chaos that has left America less secure."
One could argue that Bush's characterization of
Kerry's statement is unfair or tendentious, but that's
a matter of opinion. Hence it belongs in an opinion
column, like this one by the Washington Post's E.J.
Dionne, and not in a purportedly objective wire story.
Besides, the AP seems to agree with Bush's
characterization of Kerry's views on Iraq, as
evidenced by these two AP headlines from last week:
"Kerry Says He Wouldn't Have Ousted Saddam" and "Kerry
Faults Bush for Pursuing Saddam."
In a similar vein, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post
on Friday published an "analysis" critical of
Republicans for arguing that John Kerry's belligerent
defeatism on Iraq emboldens the enemy there (a view
with which we agree). "Such accusations have been a
component of American politics since the Alien and
Sedition Acts of 1798 and surfaced in the modern era
during the McCarthy communist hunt and the Vietnam War
protests," writes Milbank.
The next day's New York Times carried an editorial
bearing the odd headline "An Un-American Way to Cam"
(presumably that last word is supposed to be
"Campaign"). Naturally, it's the Bush campaign that's
"un-American," according to the Times. Milbank quotes
a Kerry spokesman who likewise calls the Bush campaign
"un-American." So who exactly is the McCarthyite here?
Yesterday's Times includes a piece by reporter David
Sanger on the two remaining members of the axis of
evil, Iran and North Korea. It concludes with this
observation: "No doubt Mr. Kim [Jong Il], an avid
viewer of satellite television, will be tuned to the
debates for any hint that Mr. Kerry would give him a
better deal." (Hat tip: blogger Tom McGuire.)
If it's un-American when the Bush campaign suggests
that Kerry's weakness is emboldening the enemy, what
is it when David Sanger does so?
|
posted by J.R. @ 1:14:00 AM   |
|
|
|
| |
