Replies

It is obviously a hit piece but it misses the mark. They spend the first 10 or 20 paragraphs trying to tie the SBV to the Bush campaign through a 7th degree of separation type of relationship. It's ridiculous. They do point out every single inconsistency of the vets, but they spend so much time trying to make the Bush connection that anyone reading this is going to give up long before they get there. They do point out the Cambodia deal.

My wife, the librarian (and sadly a dues paying member of the ALA), who voted for Nader last election read the first 2 on-line pages and said "this is ridiculous, it reads like a campaign press release for Kerry"

Of course its a campaign press release for Kerry. The NYT would defend him if he were caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. So its not surprising to find them sliding around his lies and making a big deal out of the contributions to the Swifties and inconsistencies in a few of their Vets' testimonies. They don't even deal truthfully with the "Christmas In Cambodia" story and that is dismissed in one paragraph at the end of their piece. It passes for what the NYT thinks is "fair and balanced" investigative journalism. Au contraire. Partisan hit pieces like this are among the reasons the Old Media is losing credibility every year with the public. They still don't get it.