Tom Brokaw said the following in introducing yet another Swift piece:
Kerry said the Bush campaign is using quote fear and smear tactics to avoid debating the real issues facing America. He's referring in part to the campaign by a group of Vietnam veterans, some with ties to Bush allies and other Republicans, to try to discredit Kerry's war service.
This piece was aired on August 24, 2004. Let's look at the evidence up through yesterday, the 24th, presumably the day that Brokaw shot this clip:
|Fri, Aug 6:||McCain denounces ad criticizing Kerry|
|Fri, Aug 20:||W.House Says Not Behind Ads, Derides Kerry|
|Sat, Aug 21:||Public relations woman has central role in Kerry ad controversy|
|Sun, Aug 22:||Bush Campaign Drops Swift Boat Ad Figure|
|Sun, Aug 22:||Tangled web links veterans to Bush, Rove|
|Mon, Aug 23:|| Bush adviser quits after appearing in swift boat ad|
(first it was fired, then quit, whatever)
|Tue, Aug 24:||Bush Campaign Lawyer Is Advising Swift Boat Group, AP Reports|
|Wed, Aug 25:||Lawyer Advising Vets Quits Bush Campaign|
Now, I'm no genius, but I think it would be pretty difficult, after seeing all of this evidence (save for the last headline, perhaps), to say anything other than 'some with ties to the Bush campaign.' Instead, we get 'some with ties to Bush allies and other Republicans.' Admittedly, what Brokaw did say was true - it's just that he left out the most important piece of information - that there are ties between the not-so-Swifties and the Bush campaign. Why?
Before Mr. Brokaw did his piece we had the obviousness of the myriad connections between bigtime Republican donors and the Swifties pointing to a direct link, we had a Bush campaign adviser quit (or fired) for directly appearing in a Swiftie ad, we had an FEC complaint filed by the Kerry campaign directly accusing the Bush campaign of illegally cooperating with the Swifties, we had McCain telling Bush to denounce the ads (of course, the only reason McCain would tell Bush to denounce them, as opposed to Sponge Bob, is because McCain knew that Bush was responsible for them, at least indirectly, indicating once again a potentially-illegal tie to the Bush campaign), and various other reports linking the money, people, party, and places associated with the Swifties and the Bush campaign.
What, exactly, does Tom want - in terms of evidence - to allow himself to say that there were, in fact, illegal ties from the Bush campaign to the Swifties? He could at least do us the honor of alleging such a charge since they've been out in the mainstream press for almost a month now.