Replies

I'm not arguing that at all. I merely pointed out that the Washington Post article from which the post you reference was taken, was used to paint a favorable picture of Kerry. When I first read this thread, I thought, as did others, that the Washington Post was, for once, showing a bit of balance. After reading the full article however, it looks more like their traditional spin than anything resembling balance.

Having said that, it does appear that Kerry's post Vietnam activities are now coming to light even in the MSM, and that is good, balance or no balance.

I'm sorry if my post came off sounding like I was disputing anything you had posted. My whole point was to challenge the apparent reference in the WaPo article to the proposal being "overwhelmingly voted down", when the parts of the document I read don't indicate that. In the past few minutes, I have gone back and began scouring the document again to see if there was something in it that I missed. It is a rather large document, and is a compilation of a lot of reports that are not always in chronological order. I did find a page that talked about how in December of 1971, Scott Camil (who was the main proponent of the assassination plot) was basically told to not associate with national VVAW group anymore, although apparently he then planned on continuing with his own splinter VVAW local group. I still have not found where the proposal was overwhelmingly voted down or where Kerry had "an angry showdown" with radicals (presumably Scott Camil. I'll keep looking.

No problem. Keep looking, and let's hope the MSM gets the smell of blood, because as partisan as they are, they just can't keep away from red meat! It works something like this: Freepers find something good, or authors like O'Neill put out a book. Then Hannity, Rush, and Laura Ingraham get a hold of it. After a couple of days, FoxNews starts putting it out for discussion on the morning shows and ultimately Brit Hume. At that point the rest of the MSM either ignores it and loses audience or grabs a piece of the meat. Now at this point, Kerry is in full defensive posture.

The media keeps saying that the President needs to get away from Vietnam and talk about today's issues, and then you look at a typical Kerry campaign stop (like today) and you see Rassman talking about how Kerry is the right man to protect his back. Then Kerry or someone else wonders out loud where Bush was during Vietnam. Then they wrap it up by again complaining that this campaign is not about Vietnam, but jobs, etc. But the pressure must be kept on Kerry.

One or two a week is all it takes!