Cambodia issue on FoxNews
Brit Hume hosted a "panel" on his show on Fox tonight (6 PM EDT) The panel consisted of Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, and Mara Liasson and Juan Williams of NPR. The issue was the Swift Boat Vets' book, Unfit for Command--particularly the part of the book dealing with my recent posts, the Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 story.
It started off with Hume giving some background, including the info that Kerry had spoken on the Senate floor about his "seared"-in memory of Christmas Eve in Cambodia. Hume did not, however (at least by my recollection), directly state that the book calls Kerry's claims of Cambodia-patrolling fictitious.
Hume handed it to Barnes, who basically said that the candidate (Kerry) needs to rectify his statements with the facts presented in the book. Along the lines of (a) were you there; (b) what were you doing there? OR (b) why did you create this story? Not a bad little handle on the issue so far. . .
Liasson was very cordial, basically saying that maybe Kerry THOUGHT he was in Cambodia when in fact he was not. She acknowledges that the questions about Kerry's service are pretty much fair game because KERRY made them so. There was more to it than that, but the gist of her first turn around the panel was not very substantial.
Williams goes off. I won't get into the specifics (for lack of specific memory), but he basically said that the whole issue was a Bush-led conspiracy to attack Kerry's character and characterization of service. From that point on, it was Williams vs. Barnes, with Williams arguing that Kerry's volunteering for service in VietNam should leave him exempt from attacks ON his service there, and with Barnes going further into the Swiftees attacks, bringing up the doctor and the injuries, etc etc.
For his part, Hume did not let Williams, more eloquent and composed than Barnes, off the hook entirely. Facts are stubborn things, it is written, and Hume kept coming back to the facts. Good for him.
All right, first the good news: this issue is now in front of the public. It belongs there, and the right should strive to keep Cambodia front page news until Kerry un-nuances his statements.
But it's not all good. . .
I felt much disappointment for Mr. Barnes' performance on the show. Listen, you will look like a conspiracy theorist if you go too deep into the issue of Kerry's SERVICE in VietNam. He was in uniform, he did some brave things, he got hurt to some degree--let all that be. In short, NO MORE DOCTORS!!! If he shouldn't have gotten the purple hearts, that should have been brought to light THEN, before the award was given. Don't fight that fight now--it's too late.
The issue, that I SOOOO wish would have been brought out more by Mr. Barnes, is that Kerry LIED ON THE SENATE FLOOR! It cannot be debated anymore--he said words that were untrue, and he said those words NOT for lack of information as to their incorrectness (in stark constrast to the Bush/WMD issue, where contrary information was nowhere to be found). It was deliberate and said for effect to further the cause that Kerry supported at the time. It was, in short, the most inexcusable act of deceit from an elected member of our representative government. Let that act stand on it's own, and make Kerry answer for his deceit.
It's not an attack on his uniformed activities, which of course births cries of "foul play" from the left. It's an attack on his service as a SENATOR, which is the fairest game in town. Keep the debate there, and the points will start coming in. Focus, people, focus!!!
It started off with Hume giving some background, including the info that Kerry had spoken on the Senate floor about his "seared"-in memory of Christmas Eve in Cambodia. Hume did not, however (at least by my recollection), directly state that the book calls Kerry's claims of Cambodia-patrolling fictitious.
Hume handed it to Barnes, who basically said that the candidate (Kerry) needs to rectify his statements with the facts presented in the book. Along the lines of (a) were you there; (b) what were you doing there? OR (b) why did you create this story? Not a bad little handle on the issue so far. . .
Liasson was very cordial, basically saying that maybe Kerry THOUGHT he was in Cambodia when in fact he was not. She acknowledges that the questions about Kerry's service are pretty much fair game because KERRY made them so. There was more to it than that, but the gist of her first turn around the panel was not very substantial.
Williams goes off. I won't get into the specifics (for lack of specific memory), but he basically said that the whole issue was a Bush-led conspiracy to attack Kerry's character and characterization of service. From that point on, it was Williams vs. Barnes, with Williams arguing that Kerry's volunteering for service in VietNam should leave him exempt from attacks ON his service there, and with Barnes going further into the Swiftees attacks, bringing up the doctor and the injuries, etc etc.
For his part, Hume did not let Williams, more eloquent and composed than Barnes, off the hook entirely. Facts are stubborn things, it is written, and Hume kept coming back to the facts. Good for him.
All right, first the good news: this issue is now in front of the public. It belongs there, and the right should strive to keep Cambodia front page news until Kerry un-nuances his statements.
But it's not all good. . .
I felt much disappointment for Mr. Barnes' performance on the show. Listen, you will look like a conspiracy theorist if you go too deep into the issue of Kerry's SERVICE in VietNam. He was in uniform, he did some brave things, he got hurt to some degree--let all that be. In short, NO MORE DOCTORS!!! If he shouldn't have gotten the purple hearts, that should have been brought to light THEN, before the award was given. Don't fight that fight now--it's too late.
The issue, that I SOOOO wish would have been brought out more by Mr. Barnes, is that Kerry LIED ON THE SENATE FLOOR! It cannot be debated anymore--he said words that were untrue, and he said those words NOT for lack of information as to their incorrectness (in stark constrast to the Bush/WMD issue, where contrary information was nowhere to be found). It was deliberate and said for effect to further the cause that Kerry supported at the time. It was, in short, the most inexcusable act of deceit from an elected member of our representative government. Let that act stand on it's own, and make Kerry answer for his deceit.
It's not an attack on his uniformed activities, which of course births cries of "foul play" from the left. It's an attack on his service as a SENATOR, which is the fairest game in town. Keep the debate there, and the points will start coming in. Focus, people, focus!!!
1 Comments:
Well said, and spot on.
Post a Comment
<< Home