With public opinion polls showing that if the presidential election
were held today, Sen. John Kerry would defeat President George Bush,
Republicans have launched a Big Lie campaign to distort the presumptive
Democratic nominee’s record on military spending. Obviously, they
believe that if you tell the same lie over and over, people will
eventually believe it. That would be bad enough. But to make
matters worse, some of the country’s best journalists are allowing
these lies to go unchallenged. Research by Fairness and Accuracy
in Reporting (FAIR), a New York-based media monitoring organization,
reports that Kerry is being depicted as one who is repeatedly voting
against military funding when that’s not the case. For example,
the report notes that Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian
Coalition and now a Bush-Cheney campaign strategist, appeared on CNN
(2/3/04) and described Kerry’s record in the Senate as “voting to
dismantle 27 weapons systems, including the MX missile, the Pershing
missile, the B-1, the B-2 stealth bomber, the F-16 fighter jet, cutting
another 18 programs, slashing intelligence spending by $2.5 billion,
and voting to freeze defense spending for seven years.” Blitzer
reacted by turning to Ann Lewis of the Democratic National Committee
and saying, “I think it’s fair to say, Ann, that there’s been some
opposition research done.” NBC anchor Tom Brokaw swallowed the
line when he said on MSNBC [3/2/04], “…the vice president just today
was talking about [Kerry’s] votes against the CIA budget, for example,
intelligence budgets and also weapons systems. Isn’t he going to be
very vulnerable come the fall when national security is such a big
issue in this country?” The usually reliable Judy Woodruff was
transformed into a parrot in an interview with Rep. Norm Dicks of
Washington state [2/25/04]. She said, “The Republicans list something
like 13 different weapon systems that they say the record shows Senator
Kerry voting against. The Patriot missile, the B-1 bomber, the Trident
missile and on and on and on.” In his response, Dicks did what
Woodruff, Brokaw and Blitzer had failed to do: He admitted that Kerry
was being attacked for a single vote on the Pentagon’s 1991
appropriations bill. No member of the media trio pointed out that 16
senators voted against that bill, including five Republicans, or that
10 of the 13 purported votes against military spending were part of the
1991 defense appropriations bill. Woodruff was so caught off
guard by Dicks’ response that she said, “Are you saying that all these
weapon systems were part of one defense appropriations bill in 1991?” That’s exactly what he was saying. Vice
President Cheney told Fox News’ Brit Hume: “What we’re concerned about,
what I am concerned about, is [Kerry’s] record in the United States
Senate, where he clearly has over the years adopted a series of
positions that indicated a desire to cut the defense budget, to cut the
intelligence budget, to eliminate many major weapons programs.” Hume failed to note that Cheney was criticizing Kerry for a position he had taken around that same period. In
fact, Fred Kaplan of Slate, the online site, noted that Cheney served
as the elder George Bush’s secretary of defense. He quotes Cheney as
telling Congress during that period: “You’ve squabbled and sometimes
bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on
weapons that don’t fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets
and new requirements.” He was particularly critical of members of
Congress who engage in pork barrel politics by pressuring the Defense
Department to move forward on the development of the M-1 tank and the
F-14 and F-16 fighters and other weapons that “we have enough of.” Although
military spending represents only 20 percent of the federal budget, it
eats up approximately half of all federal discretionary spending. With
so much being spent on the military, growing federal deficits fueled by
tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy, Bush is particularly
vulnerable on domestic issues. A recent USA Today/CNN poll shows Kerry
leading Bush 52 percent to 44 percent, largely because the public
believes Kerry will do a better job of handling such issues as the
economy, health care, education and Social Security. Bush’s overall
rating in the USA Today poll was 49 percent, matching his lowest rating
in late January. Republicans plan to spend $133 million over the
next few months to “redefine” Senator Kerry. If this is typical of the
way they plan to do that, they are not trying to “redefine” Kerry, they
are trying to mis-define him.
Next Column:
A Right to Remain Silent
Back To Columns |