|
Dear Mr. Matthews,
I was shocked two nights ago when you addressed the controversy over whether Mr. Bush honorably served in the National Guard when you stated the following:
"Who gives a rat's ass what happened over 30 years ago".
You devoted less than half a show to a controversy that now is being reported throughout the media regarding Mr. Bush. Yet you devoted more than 3 weeks to discussing Mr. Kerry's background and the Vietnam war. Why did you have panel after panel to discuss the issue, interviewing John O'Neill on August 12th, Larry Thurlow on August 19th, Michelle Malkin on August 20th. Why is it that on August 25th, you stated the following regarding Mr. Kerry and whether he honorably served:
"What I would like to see as the moderator here is a debate between John Kerry and George W. Bush over John Kerry's war record."
Why then don't you now wish to see, as the moderator of Hardball, a debate between John Kerry and George W. Bush over Mr. Bush's military record? Why???????
Why is it that the very night after saying "Who gives a rat's ass what happened over 30 years ago" when it came to Mr. Bush's past, you then spent an entire segment of your show going back to examine Mr. Kerry's record and whether POWs were mistreated as a result of his position on the Vietnam war when he returned home from combat?
And please don't blame it on the fact that Mr. Kerry interjected his Vietnam war record as a major aspect of his campaign. While it's true that he stood at the convention with his former crew members, since that time, he has been discussing the Iraq war, health care, the economy, the environment, and terrorism and no one is covering it.
You do realize of course that it was Mr. Bush who started this, right? Mr. Bush was the one who went on the aircraft carrier, flying a military jet, wearing a military top gun pilot's uniform, to speak to a returning warship and proclaimed that his mission was accomplished. Why didn't Mr. Bush appear driving a tank, at a land-based military facility? Could it be that he was suggesting that he too was a former pilot and fellow warrior or was it just coincidence? It was Mr. Bush who called himself a "War President". It has been Mr. Bush posing with military personnel in the background at his speeches, photo-op after photo-op. It was Mr. Bush who touted his own service as a jet pilot in the National Guard in his bio at the White House website. It was Mr. Bush who has constantly referred to war and to his status as the Commander-In-Chief of an army on the battlefield. It was Mr. Bush who went to the theater of war in a surprise visit over Thanksgiving and served Turkey to the troops. It was Mr. Bush who even collected a war trophy of Saddam Hussein, a symbol every bit as dramatic as if he had captured his sword after a surrender, when he insisted on placing Saddam's pistol on the wall of his office. It was Bush who stated "Bring Them On" as Commander-In-Chief, belligerently taunting his enemy.
You know yourself the main reason why Mr. Kerry became the candidate. It was the same reason that Wesley Clark became a prominent candidate. The issue of military leadership in time of war is one invented and marketed to the American people by the Bush Administration. Moral leadership in time of war is the sum-and-substance of the Bush campaign and the Democrats have responded with candidates addressing this issue.
Therefore I fail to understand why war-time service for Mr. Kerry merits 3 weeks of your time, forensically examining the old record from every possible point of view but that Mr. Bush's war-time service is irrelevant to you. Please resign immediately as you have not one shred of credibility left. At least as far as the left is concerned, from my visit to blog after blog where your name has come up, I can conclusively say that your reputation as an objective "hardball" journalist is dead, doornail-dead.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXX
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
