![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
heidiI guess that's their new name?
I just posted on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
show_w_the_door re one of the "swift boat vets" in the ad, who's currently a DA in Oregon. It seems he's signed a sworn statement based on secondhand information. Oops!
Edited to add: From today's LA Times, an editorial which pretty well explains the issues within the media about things like false charges. It says:
Ben Wasserman also has an interesting, very detailed and very point by point analysis of the conservative media coverage of the allegations against Kerry:
More politics stuff - today, I have my first training session for Primary Day Legal Training so I can be a poll-based attorney on Primary Election Day. In order to be available that day, I am doing early voting (I'll be using an absentee ballot for the general election, but I want to try the electronic system myself before I go and try and help defend the rights of people who risk disenfranchisement (if any, and I truly hope there aren't).
I just posted on
show_w_the_door re one of the "swift boat vets" in the ad, who's currently a DA in Oregon. It seems he's signed a sworn statement based on secondhand information. Oops! Edited to add: From today's LA Times, an editorial which pretty well explains the issues within the media about things like false charges. It says:
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.
Ben Wasserman also has an interesting, very detailed and very point by point analysis of the conservative media coverage of the allegations against Kerry:
Last Thursday, the Washington Post reported that the military records of Larry Thurlow, one of John Kerry's major accusers among the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, contradicted Thurlow's version of events and confirmed Kerry's. At the very least, this cast severe doubt on the charge that Kerry fabricated the events that earned him one of his Vietnam War medals.
The conservative media had been pushing the fabrication story energetically. How did it deal with this new evidence undermining it? As it turns out, at almost every turn it soft-pedaled the new evidence or outright ignored it, showing its bias throughout.
More politics stuff - today, I have my first training session for Primary Day Legal Training so I can be a poll-based attorney on Primary Election Day. In order to be available that day, I am doing early voting (I'll be using an absentee ballot for the general election, but I want to try the electronic system myself before I go and try and help defend the rights of people who risk disenfranchisement (if any, and I truly hope there aren't).
