Wednesday, September 08, 2004

dreaming dems

John Aravosis at Americablog (those Democrats are always wrapping themselves in the flag, aren't they?) thinks that the Bush administration is freaking out over the AWOL story. His evidence? The Bush campaign sent a letter to the campaign email list that documented a long list of smears that the Kerry campaign has recently tried to pin on Bush, including the AWOL story. He writes:
They felt the need to come clean with EVERY ALLEGATION now - not really admit them, but mention them publicly, to at least get them out in the open, and hopefully, from their perspective, take some of the wind out of them.
Um, John? If you read the letter you will see that every allegation they mention has already been made public by Democrats speaking in front of crowds, reporters, and/or TV audiences and/or is about to be published in a book. The Republicans are hardly going to make them more public by referencing the slanders in an email to campaign groupies.
Hell, they even mentioned Bush's alleged cocaine use, and again, interestingly, imply he didn't use cocaine even though the president REFUSES to answer the question whether he ever has or hasn't used coke.
Um, John? If you read the letter you will see that they only imply that he didn't use coke at Camp David while his father was president. And actually, that implication was pretty loose. All they really did was attack the credibility of the author bringing the charges.
This implicit denial on all of these issues in this campaign-sponsored email NOW PUTS THESE ISSUES INTO PLAY. The campaign has delineated a series of issues it says are scurrilous lies. So the media now has a clear right and obligation to demand that Bush answer a few simple questions regarding this campaign missive...
Um, John? Are you saying that by denying the allegations he makes it legitimate to ask the question again? Does that mean that when someone slanders you, it only gives credibility to the slander when you deny it? Does that imply that it wasn't legitimate to ask the questions before? Then where is your condemnation of the Democrats who asked them to begin with?
Read this email, it's quite desperate, and of course, packed full of lies.
Um, John? Can you point out any lies? Or do you just mean that since all the allegations are obviously true, then every implicit denial is a lie?

No, Brer Democrats, please don't smear Bush like this. Anything but this! Please don't be attacking Bush with unsubstantiated and irrelevant allegations. You know how Americans are too righteous to have a president that used drugs, drank excessively, or even might have <gasp> missed a couple of weekends of National Guard duty, all in the dim past. This will kill the Bush candidacy! Please don't do it, Brer Democrats, you big meanies!

(link from Atrios)

No comments: