MICKEY KAUS has much more on the SwiftVets story, and reports: "Respectable big-time journalist friends who met with the anti-Kerry vets recently found them a lot more credible than expected."
And he has this to say about the New York Times:
I do know that if freedom of speech means anything it means that a group of citizens can get together to bring up this sort of charge against a presidential candidate, subject to the laws of libel. But read this New York Times editorial. . . . The Times thinks the ad should be stopped because you just shouldn't be able to make such "outlandish" independent charges in a campaign. They're against the speech, not the financing. Like Kerry, they're trying to come up with a "process" reason that avoids the inconveniently messy issue of truth. But their process reason--an attack on "independent" criticism per se--seems particularly dangerous.
Indeed. But that "inconveniently messy issue of truth" is getting harder to avoid.
