by El Zorro Viejo (aka; Jim)

The talking heads are like sharks who smell blood in the water regarding the "memo" . What we are faced with is a Gordian knot of a problem which may not lend itself to normal analysis. First, we have the problem of "is the document genuine?" What I want to know is the voting record of those who are denying its authenticity. In this highly polarized political environment, even expert testimony is suspect depending upon their political orientation. If a politically conservative "expert" calls them "fakes", I, for one, will be discounting that analysis. If the Colonel's former secretary denies their authenticity, I want to know what her politics are. And I don't want the person in question to be asked: I want all his/her friends and colleagues to be quizzed. If I this is done and I find that said secretary is a to-the-core Bush supporter, then her testimony is worthless.

Then we have the problem of "what if the document is a reproduction (not copy) of the original. Somebody holds the document in front of Burkett's face while he types it over on his computer. The content is not false, but it is not an original copy. Then we would have a computer document that was also an alleged faithful copy of the original. Of course, the problem here is that nobody has seen the original other than Mr. Burkett. How does one go about proving or disproving the authenticity of the document without seeing the original: especially since the author is deceased? This bias, by the way, is exactly what is wrong with the "Unfit for Command" book: the author and responding vets all had political axes to grind. I don't think there is a true word between its covers, but my opinion is just that: opinion unburdened by any actual proof.

Finally, we have the problem of instant news. Should the worse case scenario be fact--that the documents are actually forgeries--then all news organizations become suspect because they all practice a form of this same reporting style. No longer do they have the ability to examine the underlying documentation of any story. As soon as something is placed in their hands, the pressure is to publish (broadcast) ASAP is intense and growing more so virtually daily. And, if the documents are actually fakes, we get back to the question of who most benefits by this charade? Who can say, with certainty, that this has not been a ruse by the Bush organization to defuse a particularly damaging set of facts? Just this last possibility alone needs to be trumpeted by the Kerry camp. The discussion needs to be moved back to the underlying story (that Bush is a coward and a deserter) and away from whether these particular documents are true or not.

For the time being let's assume that they are fakes that could have been planted by either side. While the question of who perpetrated said fraud is investigated, we can also go back to an examination of the original assertation that Bush was, at best, AWOL and at worst a flat out deserter. Kerry needs to regain the moral high ground and to press his attack with vigor, candor and honor.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. ©El Zorro Viejo 2002-2005