[Mb-civic] These Charges are False

[Barbara Siomos]

    These Charges are False... 
    Los Angeles Times | Editorial 
    Tuesday 25 August 2004
 
It's one thing for the presidential campaign to get nasty but quite
another for it to engage in fabrication.

    The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry
was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its
roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge,
however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of
Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times"; "there are [pick a
number] Communists in the State Department." But make sure the
supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy
refutation.
 
    Then sit back and let the media do your work for you.
Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report
the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the
canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright:
These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general
sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's
service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about
real issues (like the war going on now) by these laboratory concoctions.
 
    It must be infuriating to the victims of this process to be
given conflicting advice about how to deal with it from the same
campaign press corps that keeps it going. The press has been telling
Kerry: (a) Don't let charges sit around unanswered; and (b) stick to
your issues: Don't let the other guy choose the turf.
 
    At the moment, Kerry is being punished by the media for
taking advice (b) and failing to take advice (a). There was plenty of
talk on TV about what Kerry's failure to strike back said about whether
he had the backbone for the job of president â€" and even when he
did strike back, he was accused of not doing it soon enough. But what
does Bush's acquiescence in the use of this issue say about whether he
has the simple decency for the job of president?
 
    Whether the Bush campaign is tied to the Swift boat campaign
in the technical, legal sense that triggers the wrath of the
campaign-spending reform law is not a very interesting question. The
ridiculously named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is being funded by
conservative groups that interlock with Bush's world in various ways,
just as MoveOn.org, which is running nasty ads about Bush's avoidance of
service in Vietnam, is part of Kerry's general milieu.
 
    More important, either man could shut down the groups
working on his behalf if he wanted to. Kerry has denounced the MoveOn
ads, with what degree of sincerity we can't know. Bush on Monday â€"
finally â€" called for all ads by independent groups on both sides
to be halted. He also said Kerry had "served admirably" in Vietnam. But
he declined an invitation to condemn the Swift boat effort.
 
    In both cases, the candidates are the reason the groups are
in business. There is an important difference, though, between the side
campaign being run for Kerry and the one for Bush. The pro-Kerry
campaign is nasty and personal. The pro-Bush campaign is nasty, personal
and false. 

    No informed person can seriously believe that Kerry
fabricated evidence to win his military medals in Vietnam. His main
accuser has been exposed as having said the opposite at the time, 35
years ago. Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events
in question, as well as by documentation. His accusers have no evidence
except their own dubious word.
 
    Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the
newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are
false. Or at least, there is no good evidence that they are true. George
Bush, if he were a man of principle, would say the same thing.