Isn't it fascinating to watch the Bush vs. Kerry campaign with the continuous charges of "lying to the American people" leveled by both parties at the other? Let's explore some of the more serious charges, shall we?
Kerry to Bush: "He misled the congress and the American people to get us into an ill-advised and poorly managed war in Iraq" (not a direct quote, but you can't dispute the sentiment). Kerry himself hasn't used the word "lied", but "misled" means the same thing in my dictionary, and most of his friends and supporters are not shy about using the "L" word.
Let's consider the facts as we think we understand them. Kerry's argument is based on the fact that we never did find the famous WMD's in Iraq, which admittedly were a cornerstone in the foundation of the Bush administration's argument for pre-emtive action to remove Saddam. If Kerry's telling the truth in saying that Bush lied about those, that assumes that the president was fully aware before launching Operation Iraqi Freedom that no WMD's existed, Saddam represented no threat to the United States, and there was absolutely no cooperation or support being provided from Saddam to Al Qaida.
First, the WMD's: Even Russia, Germany, and France acknowledged prior to the war that Iraq most likely did possess WMD's and was actively pursuing the development and manufacture of more. At this point, weapons searchers are saying they don't appear to be there now. Given the knowledge they existed in the past and the whole world believed Saddam was developing more, shouldn't that raise a more disturbing question than Kerry's intellectually dishonest thesis: If Iraq did have them before the war, what happened to them?
Next, the relationship (or lack thereof) between Iraq and Al Qaida: The 9/11 Commission found no involvement from Iraq with the actual 9/11 attack. However, the commission also stated that there was an established relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida, with multiple meetings between leaders. Iraq has also long been a refuge for Al Qaida and other terrorists. So, if the Kerry charge is that Bush lied about Iraq's involvement in 9/11, he should first produce a tape or transcript with Bush stating that connection. The only truthful charge against Bush on this point is that he allowed the American people to believe there was a connection, but that's a far cry from lying about a specific hand in the 9/11 attack.
Here's the bottom line: If President Bush indeed knew that Iraq had no WMD, no ties to Al Qaida, and was no threat to the United States before launching the invasion, he should not only be voted out of office, but impeached. However, the available facts do not support any of these ideas; in addition, one would have to credit Bush with an astoundingly masterful ruse, since for Kerry's charges to be correct, Bush would have successfully misled not only our people, but his own cabinet and nearly every other country in the world to get to where we are today.
Verdict: Bush Not Guilty and a judge might even rule Kerry Guilty of false reporting - oh wait, that's lying!
Now let's look at an accusation of lying from the other side.
So far accusations of Kerry lying have not come from the official Bush campaign, which has rather been pointing out his voting record in the Senate, left-wing leanings, etc. No "Kerry lied" from them, but there is a recent book apparently coming out from a group of Vietnam Vets who are accusing Kerry of lying about his war record.
What are the facts about Kerry's war record? It seems that he was a "swift boat captain" patrolling the rivers of VietNam, served about four months, and was sent home with 3 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star.
What this group of veterans are saying is that Kerry lied about his heroism and war record, was awarded at least two of the purple hearts for self-inflicted and insignificant wounds, fabricated the story that got him the bronze star, shot a defenseless teenage VietCong in the back, and burned down a peaceful village with his Zippo.
Are they telling the truth? I don't know if we can fully answer that question just yet, as it seems to be a story that is still developing. To honestly analyze the accusations, what must be done is a thorough, impartial investigation. All documentation of Kerry's war record must be reviewed, all who served with him (all supporters, detractors, and neutral comrades-in-arms) must be interviewed, and a picture is sure to emerge of the truth.
Will that happen? Based on my observations of the press the last few years, don't be so sure. We've seen the "liberal" press repeat the Democratic party line daily while asking the hard questions of Republicans, while the "conservative" pundits and internet reporters also highlight the stories that best serve their cause. Whatever happened to unbiased investigative journalism? The American people deserve the truth about these issues and many more being tossed about in the media maelstrom. Where are the new journalistic heroes who are prepared to go find the real truth and report it to the world, no matter who it helps or harms?
Verdict: Not enough evidence to bring to trial (yet)
No comments:
Post a Comment