Fresh example of journalistic spin in the Washington Post:
Republicans Attack Kerry on 'Regime Change'
Reuters
Thursday, April 3, 2003; 7:02 PM
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican leaders attacked Democratic presidential contender John Kerry on Thursday for saying "regime change" was needed in not just Iraq but also the White House, drawing a sharp rebuttal from the Massachusetts senator.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Republican leader Tom DeLay and Republican Party Chairman Marc Racicot said Kerry's remarks in the crucial presidential primary state of New Hampshire on Wednesday undercut the troops and President Bush's role as commander in chief.
At a campaign stop in Peterborough, Kerry had said relations with our allies had become so damaged in the run-up to the war in Iraq that only a new president could repair them.
"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States," said Kerry, a four-term Senate veteran.
Republicans quickly pounced on Thursday, with Hastert and DeLay accusing Kerry of putting politics ahead of support for the troops. Hastert said the comments were "not what we need at this time" and DeLay called his statement "desperate and inappropriate.
"America before New Hampshire," DeLay said.
Racicot said Kerry "crossed a grave line" by suggesting replacement of the commander in chief at a time of war.
"This use of self-serving rhetoric designed to further Senator Kerry's political ambitions at a time when the lives of America's sons and daughters are at stake reflects a complete lack of judgment," Racicot said.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs said Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, intended no disrespect toward the commander in chief at a time of war.
"But the point of this campaign is, obviously, to change the administration of this government," he said. "Unlike many of his Republican critics, Senator Kerry has worn the uniform, served his country, seen combat, so he'd just as soon skip their lectures about supporting our troops."
Neither Hastert nor DeLay served in the military. Racicot served in the U.S. Army.
"John Kerry's service to the country is admirable. His remarks about the commander in chief are shameful," responded DeLay's spokesman, Stuart Roy.
Kerry backed a congressional resolution giving Bush the authority to use force against Iraq but has frequently criticized Bush's failure to generate more support for the war effort among U.S. allies.
======================================
So, explain to me how military service is pertinent to this story? The reporter devotes 4 paragraphs to the fact that Kerry served in the U.S. military while Hastert and DeLay did not. The take-away? If you served in the military it's quite alright to refer to the Bush administration as a regime. Question: If Kerry didn't serve, it wouldn't be okay????
AI
