How do chicken hawks challenge veterans' war credentials?

[mediaman007]

The media has the story right at its doorstep.

Chicken hawk George Bush* challenges:

John McCain, Max Cleland and now John Kerry. Once is shameful, twice is more than a coincidence and three is systemic. How is it that media allows the chickenhawks to get by with this?

What ever happened to don't throw stones if you live in a glass house?

[whistle]

1. They simply have no shame

[shaolinmonkey]

2. It is truly unbelievable. It makes me sick to my stomach.

This "president" is such an enormous failure, such a pathetic caricature of a playboy-turned-politician and they have the gall to attach a life-long public servant. I would love five minutes alone with one of these fuckers.

[Myrina]

3. Bigger question is:

WHY DO WE CONTINUALLY LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT ???

The Dems are on the Defensive over the SwiftSmears, when all
that needs to be done is for that group of Generals (Clark et al)
to make the media circuits and ask: WHERE WAS GEORGE ???

Turn the boat around, Senator ... turn the boat around.

[mopaul]

6. to me, that's the big question too? why?

why is no one stopping them?

[displacedtexan]

4. BushCo is morally bankrupt. Wait. Scratch that.

They had no morals to begin with.

[ugarte]

5. Only in America

Image over substance always.

[Skittles]

7. the corporate media is complicit

they are enabling this trash to get coverage

[sam sarrha]

8. they wear a big campain Button,..., Republican, and proud to be Liar!

or 'Yes i'm Lieing.. my are lips moving'

[Crunchy Frog]

9. jealousy,

and threatened manhood.

[cybildisobedience]

10. your observation, mediaman, is the real story

Every now and then, some pundit or "well=respected journalist" sort of hints at it. Even Russert, for whom I have NO respect, flirted with it in yesterday's interview with Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards reps.
But the fact that Bush does this repeatedly, and that it is indicative of his both his gall and confidence that the media will aide and abett him, is truly disgusting.

As an aside: After the tepid mea culpas over their cheerleading for war on either no evidence, or manufactured evidence, you'd think the media would do the tiniest bit of soul-searching. Maybe one or two of these overpaid charlatans would say, "Hey, I have kids -- I can't leave them this kind of world. I can't subject them to this kind of 'leadership.' "
But it doesn't seem to even cross their minds.
They'll go right on, doing what they do -- repeating Bush talking points, refusing to ask any questions - let alone hard ones - and letting Bush and co. frame the debate.
And in this case, Bush's spotty service, his lack of valor, his privileged and indulgent upbringing and adulthood -- are off limits. It is perfectly justifiable, however, to comb through every detail of Kerry's life and look for inconsistencies, or to allow outright propagandists and liars, to spew their venom all over the airwaves.
It is disgusting.

[CBHagman]

13. Beautiful post.

Get this into an article or LTTE.

[Triana]

11. Because they CANNOT campaign on the issues...

...and their record (particularly George Bush's record of the last 4 years (it's terrible!).

So, they have no choice but to detract attention from it and one way they do that is to challenge their opponent's veteran credentials.

What would happen if George tried to campaign on the economy and jobs (that sux right now), the environment? (oh yea, right), national security (nope. that would bring attention to the debacle in Iraq and what that has needlessly cost in money and lives), or healthcare (uh-uhh. then he'd have to talk about his medicare giveaway to the big pharmaceuticals at the expense of seniors - can't do that).

What's left? Pick on John Kerry's military credientials, that's what.

It keeps him from having to talk about his record on the ISSUES:

healthcare
national security
the economy
environment

etc...

There you go...

[CBHagman]

12. Read "Boy Genius" by Jan Reid, Lou Dubose, Carl Cannon.

It gets into Karl Rove's background and the various negative campaigns he's run.

I've also heard that the Rove theory is that you attack first the strongest points of the opponent and try to co-opt his/her identity for your candidate (in this case, Bush). Thus Bush used the slogan "reformer with results," even though he served a term and a half in a weak governorship, was no one's idea of a reformer, and couldn't point to wonderful results.

In addition, the Republicans operate on a double standard. Any of their chosen male leaders, no matter how incompetent in matters international and military, is deemed a tough guy and a strong leader, even if he got student deferment after student deferment or rode family connections into the National Guard. The GOP doesn't appear to care that Dick Cheney really knows nothing of the life of a serviceman and certainly hasn't faced the sacrifice involved. He's mean and aggressive and never believes he's wrong. The media and much of the public let him get away with it.

We've got to really point out the filth of this system of attacks. First they complained when someone didn't serve in the military (Clinton). Then they systematically trashed a Vietnam veteran (Al Gore) and a Vietnam veteran/POW (McCain). Even worse was done to Tom Daschle (Air Force), and the worst of all was done to Max Cleland. I mean, what's a piece of filth like Ann Coulter - not a journalist, not a historian, not a Vietnam expert -- doing trashing a decorated veteran and triple amputee? Why does NPR let this open sewer near a microphone?

Now here comes Kerry, with five medals and combat service and a leadership record and injury in battle, and IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. They pick at each of them. Three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and it's NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

And the GOP establishment backs up the attacks.

To hell with the lot of them. Raise cain with the media and your members of Congress.

And someone send me Bob Dole's office address (not e-mail; I think a letter would pack more punch), please.

[indyjones1938]

17. reform?

The funny thing about George W. Bush's campaign thus far is that, when he is actually talking issues instead of attacking Kerry, he bills himself as a "reformer." In his bizarre "Ownership Society" commercial, he declares "one of the most important parts of the reform agenda is to encourage people to own something."

Anyone even vaguely familiar with American political history knows that it is uncommon for an incumbent president to run on a "reform agenda." After all, if the economy, educational system, job creation, foreign affairs, etc. were all in decent shape during his first term, there should be no reason to run on a "reform" campaign. It's a case of "if it's not broken, why fix it?" Typically, an incumbent president runs a campaign championing any progress he made during his first term and pledging to build upon it, rather than reform it, during a second term.

So it seems odd that Bush is running on a "reform agenda." Or maybe not, since he didn't make any progress whatsoever, domestic or foreign, during his first. The word "reform" is just a catchy catch-all phrase that people of all political parties like. Everyone wants something reformed, but they don't know exactly how, or why. Bush realizes that he has no record to run on, so he is billing himself as a reformer in an effort to appeal broadly to people of all political stripes.

[PATRICK]

14. How? With impunity

Unless you smack them down hard with as much regularity they will continue. Why should they expose their weakness with an honest strategy when they don't have to? They also have an emotional need to put down their betters which Bush openly admits.

[blm]

15. Chickenhawks OWN or CONTROL most of the media.

.

[CanIgonow]

16. In the cynical times we live in, just slinging mud at an honest person

produces doubts among people that are hard to dispel.If you also keep slinging mud using different mudlingers you think there is a large number of people who hold the same opinion when, in fact, all these are coordinated by a central authority.Add to this the natural inclination of our idiot networks to boost their ratings by feeding controversy and you have the right mix with which our degraded democracy functions.