Kerry's Vietnam record and media bias
There is no greater evidence of the mainstream media's liberal bias than their refusal to investigate and report credible claims challenging Sen. Kerry's reputed Vietnam heroism and his outlandish allegations against his own soldiers in 1971.
Since Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic presidential nominee, stories have circulated on the Web suggesting that some or all of his three Purple Hearts were dubiously earned and that he had to lobby for at least one of the medals after first being denied the distinction.
When I first came across these items I couldn't help but wonder whether the black helicopter crowd was working overtime again. But a surprising number of those who served with Kerry in Vietnam have organized a group, "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," to speak out against the man and his military record. They are not, contrary to Democratic propaganda, being funded by Republican operatives or the Bush campaign.
But concerning Kerry, does it require any leap of faith at all to believe that a man who has confessed to war crimes would exaggerate injuries and campaign for medals in order to build a presidential resume?
Admittedly, eight of the nine survivors who served under Kerry have said favorable things. But O'Neill said that just a few years ago, more than half of them wanted nothing to do with him.
So what happened to make them change their minds? What really happened in Vietnam? And why did Kerry feel it necessary to verbally annihilate the character of the soldiers with whom he served -- when common sense alone tells us that his claims are both absurd and outrageous on their face.
Where are the media outcries about the public's sacred right to know? Just remember: to the partisan media, character only matters if the "character" is a conservative.