The River

Monday, September 13, 2004

Kerry forged documents!

I just read a USA Today story on typewritergate. To sum up: FBI forensics experts think they are forgeries. Some font experts say they aren’t. Killian is dead, so we can’t talk to him, but we talked to people who knew him. They doubt the story.

Which of those two groups of experts mentioned carry more weight with the public? Doesn’t the FBI want “just the facts, ma’m”?

You, reader, should doubt the authenticity of the CBS story.

THE story, the one in the media following the CBS 60 Minutes II story, is that the documents may be forgeries. It’s exactly the same tactic as the Swift Boat flap. Get authoritative sounding people to cast doubt and make the opposition defend the accusations.

What is the public left with?

“I doubt Kerry is telling the truth about his Vietnam service. I doubt he was as heroic as he says he was. He brought up the subject, causing the Swifties to come forward.”

“I doubt those documents are authentic. They might be, but they probably aren’t. If not, this might be a dirty trick by the Kerry campaign.”

The media protects Bush. Always. This is why incumbents usually enjoy an advantage. The media aligns with the powerful, not the populace. The populace has serious doubts about Bush and finds him unsatisfactory. They attempt to express this through demonstrations, 527s such as Moveon.org, letters to the editor. These activities are all cast in the shadow of doubt. Who are they? Why do they say such things? To our mainstream-as-presented, they are a yapping dog, a not-to-be trusted “other.”

Also, notice the difference in images used for Switfboat and Doc Forgery stories. Bush is shown in typical “brave soldier” type photos – inside a jet cockpit, in uniform smiling jauntily and confidently for a portrait. Kerry was shown in candid newspaper shots from when he was protesting the conduct of the war or in basic fatigues standing around in Vietnam with some other soldiers. The difference between the two is that the Bush photos contradict the AWOL charge, while the Kerry photos are very neutral and can be read into easily with the “bad soldier, traitorous protestor” story.

The overall upshot: you should doubt Kerry’s claims on his Vietnam service record, and you should doubt news report claims (i.e. Kerry claims) about Bush’s Vietnam-era service record. Doubt Kerry. Doubt him, doubt him, doubt him. Vote for him? What are you, a loser?

Don’t hold your breath for anything definitive to ever come out in the media about either one of these issues. It’s all about doubt. Fight the status quo (Bush)? Ten highly credentialed authorities are lined up to dispute you.

The average undecided American continues to doubt Kerry, cares little about what Bush did 30 years ago, and wonders why the Kerry campaign is stuck on the past.

Next up: Kitty Kelley.

How it will play out: Crazy accusations illustrating the desperate, dirty politics of the Democrats. Nothing definitive, so take it all with a grain of salt. Look at the kind, smiling face of your U.S. President provided with each story. Contradicts this partisan bickering doesn’t it? At least he isn’t stooping to any of this. People will say anything.

Upshot: In the present, Bush is a fine Christian and a good president.

I’d love to jump on all the points the Democrats are scoring, how the Texas Air National Guard story is still alive and that hurts Bush, but I scrutinize message nuance for a living. Follow the pictures for your clue on what the words mean.

Comments:
I, for one, welcome the rule of our new comment format and second the applause left in the Haloscan commenting system attached to this thread.
 
thanks Harry.

I just noticed, it looks like my blog doesn't allow anonymous comments. Will see if I can fix that.
 
Ok. Fixed now. Sorry about that non-blogger account readers. (to think of all the comments I've been deprived of ;)
 
Post a Comment