SCLM strikes again

Check out the cover of the current issue of U.S. News & World Report:

War hero John Kerry is depicted in a suit and tie.

AWOL coward George Bush, who explicitly refused overseas duty and spent time playing all-day pool volleyball games with "ambitious secretaries" is depicted in military dress uniform.

•  Hopefully...

  Hopefully, the cover is just to give "balance" to the text inside.  It's hard to see how any comparison of the two could reflect favorably on Bush.

  by Preston on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:42:56 AM PDT

  •  It is bad, but...

    ...I believe it to be a picture of Kerry before the Foreign Relations Committee. Which was - in my opinion - the proudest part of his Vietnam experience. I admire Kerry because he managed to get beyond the war action he took part in, reflected himself and than moved on to fight the war lovers.

    Seeing him doesn't change this, since I know there is a hero inside. His record will prevail.

    by jandsm on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:55:16 AM PDT

  •  Don't bet money on that.

    This is U.S. News and World Report we're talking about, not The Nation.

    Most USN&WR stories read like they were written by Charles Krauthammer.  ::barf::

    by republicans are idiots on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:00:41 AM PDT

  •  The article

    Well, the article isn't too negative on Kerry (though it does claim that he lost the Mass congressional race because he was viewed as "a carpetbagger and an opportunist"), but it's also fairly positive on Bush, who is described as a "natural leader" despite an accounting of his aimless party animal existence. But what do you expect from USNWR? At least nobody really reads them...
    

    by theodelinda on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:02:34 AM PDT

    •  Thanks

      Thanks for providing the link..

      by dc on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:19:53 AM PDT

  •  email US News

    I saw the cover and went to their site and fired off a ferocious email calling them on their bias.  I demanded a statement and some acknowlegement of the "lapse in judgement."

    I think it would be good if they got a lot more.

    by debcoop on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 09:33:45 AM PDT

    •  I agree.

      Can you give us the link so that we can all mail?

      by stephdray on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 11:30:53 AM PDT

•  Let's not jump to conclusions. ;-)

  It's entirely possible that the full-body photo of our commander-in-chief will reveal the pizza stains and margarita-flavored vomitus that was a by-product of his "military service"...

  Sorry, I'm feeling particularly cynical this morning...

  by sixthdoctor on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:43:25 AM PDT

•  The Only Appropriate Attire For Bush

  would be stripes or bright orange.

  Then or now.

  by mattman on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:45:22 AM PDT

  •  White canvas straitjackets....

    are also Bush-appropriate from Memorial Day through Labor Day.

    by Don Quixote on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 11:21:15 AM PDT

•  Subtle

  Also notice the red-Kerry-hothead and blue-Bush-cool coloration.

  by out grrl on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:45:59 AM PDT

  •  More like

    Looks more like "Pinko Commie" vs. "Patriotic Blue" to me.

    by s0ck on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:58:46 AM PDT

•  WTF?

  The next time anyone mentions "the liberal media" I will pull this out.  What an outrage.  

  All this anti-Kerry rhetoric is turning the Dean supporter into a strong Kerry man.  I am pissed off!!!!
  

  by Better Days on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:46:13 AM PDT

  •  US News

    For decades US News has been known as the most conservative of the three major newsweeklies (Newsweek and Time leaning left a bit, US News leaning right).

    I remember my 9th grade government teacher telling me this back in the 80's, so it can't be much of a secret.

    by jd in nyc on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:54:16 AM PDT

    •  Never paid attention

      I only ever read them in doctor's offices.

      by abbyv on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:02:09 AM PDT

      •  What's worse...

        ...is that sometimes it's the only thing worth reading in a doctor's or dentist's office.  I have to be very, very bored to read, say, "People".  At least my doctor usually has an issue or two of the JAMA around.
        

        by Ernest Tomlinson on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:53:23 AM PDT

    •  Time and Newsweek leaning left? LOL

      One can only say they "lean left" RELATIVE to U.S. News.

      To me, Time and Newsweek have always been fairly centrist-to-conservative.  The fact that they aren't as right wing as U.S. News makes them appear liberal.  But don't kid yourself.  The Nation is truly liberal.  

      The fact is, none of the three major newsweeklies are truly left-leaning. And if you believe they are, then it makes me wonder how limited your understanding of the spectrum of political opinion is and how informed you are as to the types of stories Newsweek and Time consistently suppress by not giving them any coverage at all.

      by PhillipG on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:08:18 AM PDT

      •  yawn

        I meant "left" in the context of American politics. I take the "center" to be defined in terms of the American electorate, not your standards of what is "truly" left or right.

        I probably shouldn't have said anything about Time, since I haven't paid attention to it in years, but Newsweek in my experience is a bit left of center. It's left of all the major cable news networks for example. And yes, obviously that isn't too difficult now that even CNN is aping Fox.

        by jd in nyc on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:13:25 AM PDT

•  Absolutely

  on purpose. If they were going to do something like this, why not show Kerry in full battle garb? Of which I'm sure they could have found some pictures. "They" have a video of him carrying a rifle, why not cull a picture from that? But NOOOOOO!! That would highlight the differences just a bit to much, now wouldn't it.

  by SteveLCo on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:46:17 AM PDT

  •  I guess we should be happy...

    ...that they didn't "find" an obviously Photoshopped photo of a red-eyed Kerry in a marijuana haze with a peace symbol attached to his helmet.

    Or is that next month's cover?

    by sixthdoctor on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:49:06 AM PDT

  •  1971

    In 1971 we know that Kerry wasn't wearing full battle garb; he was wearing suits like the one in the photo.

    The problem is that with Bush, we don't know that he was wearing his military uniform in 1972.  About the only thing we know he was wearing in 1972 was a smirk.  So USN&WR cops out and picks 1971.  Nice way to draw the contrast, avoid the issue that is uncomfortable for Bush--whether he showed up for ANG duty in AL in 1972--and still reinforce the perception that Bush served while Kerry was a protester.  

    by DHinMI on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:52:56 AM PDT

    •  I guess

      this was my point. USN&WR, could have picked another period of time, couldn't they? They did this on purpose.

      by SteveLCo on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:01:59 AM PDT

    •  Too specific

      I haven't read the piece yet, but the fact is, by picking a specific year (1971) they have chosen to highlight the two men in different stages -- Kerry in post-war civilian mode and Bush in military PR photo that doesn't necessarily represent what he was actually doing...

      Kerry suffers further because back in 1971 ties and jackets were thick and sloppy looking and so was your hair unless you were still in the service sporting a "high and tight".

      In the interest of fairness they should have had the cover represent the "Vietnam Era" and shown both in uniform. Or did they narrow the scope of the story to one specific year to deliberately to represent them differently?

      Technically accurate? Perhaps. A fair portrayal? Not really.

      by Mr Furious on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 10:04:00 PM PDT

•  I thought US Snooze...

  ...was always the more conservative of the "Big 3".

  Besides, don't pics of GeeDub in military uniform just keep the "where the hell was he?" issue alive?

  by sendtoscott on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:47:42 AM PDT

  •  ddd

    To your first question, the answer is "Yes."

    I don't think the photo really affects the issue of Bush's (non)service one way or the other. The only benefit it provides for Bush is with people who pay attention to the cover and don't read the article (assuming the article is honest and shows Kerry to have had the far more distinguished military past).

    by jd in nyc on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:57:20 AM PDT

•  I'm tired of this

  
  I won't re-post it here, but see the Diary Entry I just posted entitled, "Kerry Should Question Their Patriotism."  I'm curious what people think of this potential new like of attack Kerry could take.  I think it's about time we really played hardball with these guys.

  by CTDem2 on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:47:59 AM PDT

  •  Kerry Should Question Their Patriotism

    
    ..On second thought, let me save people the trouble:

    I'd like to make a suggestion: Kerry should take this a step further, and question the administration's patriotism.  How?  By legitimately suggesting their attacks on him are direct attacks on people serving in the military today.  

    For example:

    This is an administration that says they support our soldiers.  I want to ask the American People this.  Think of a soldier today in Iraq who volunteered to go fight for his country.  He left his family, the comfort of his own home, to go to a war zone.  He took enemy fire.  He was injured multiple times while fighting alongside fellow soldiers.  

    Would it be alright for Dick Cheney, who chose not to serve, to attack the character of this soldier in Iraq because it served his purposes?  Would it be alright for Rush Limbaugh, who never served a day in his life, to question whether this soldier deserved this medal or that for the injuries he sustained?  Would it be alright for the President of the United States, who can't even prove he fulfilled his duties here after avoiding serving abroad, to send his surrogates to question this soldier's patriotism?

    Make no mistake.  This is the question before us today.  I did not make this an issue, they did.  Is it alright for this administration to attack our armed forces, those who volunteered to go to Iraq, if they think it'll help them with some political goal?

    I say it is not alright.  And if they choose to attack my military record, my time serving alongside fellow soldiers under enemy fire, I will fight back.  Because no one in Iraq today should have to face this kind of attack now, or thirty years from now.  Just like no one in Vietnam deserved to be spit at when they came back home, because it served someone's political purposes.  This one's clear-cut for me, and I'm not taking it.
    

    by CTDem2 on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:57:23 AM PDT

    •  Somebody else

      Not Kerry. Max Cleland maybe. Or Clark.

      But somebody needs to come out with a real "How dare you, sir?" against this whole line of smears.

      by Bill Rehm on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:03:00 AM PDT

      •  EXACTLY

        Cleland and/or Clark should be all over this!

        WHERE ARE THE SURROGATES?

        WHO ARE THE SURROGATES?

        by Geheimbundler on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 10:56:59 AM PDT

    •  YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT

        Imagine the ghost of President Kennedy channeling Kerry...Jawhn...Sun Tzu observed War is a Moral contest, they're fought in the temples before the first shot is ever fired. This is where we turn it around. Right here. Right Now. Stick it to the sonfabitches.

       Or better yet, somebody email Bob Shrum with this post.

      by yellow dog on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:29:14 AM PDT

  •  Seems like a bit of a cheap shot

    But they're doing it to us.

    Probably best done only as a counterattack and a direct response to their specific propaganda, like when someone asks Kerry about the medals:

    "You know, Bob, I've been asked that a lot lately. It seems that everywhere I go, I hear talk about what's wrong with our military veterans, mostly from people who did not serve, who think war is just great as long as they themselves get to stay in their easy chairs and criticize our troops for not kicking enough ass.  

    "People are still arguing about Viet Nam, about what really happened there, and about what was the right thing to do.  George Bush says one thing and I say another.  Which of us are you going to trust and believe? The one who went there and saw what was happening with his own two eyes? Or the one who stayed in the USA, who never saw combat, and who now claims the right to judge those who did?  Which one of us is the real patriot? Every American must answer that question in November.

    by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:11:30 AM PDT

  •  Its like that scene in Rocky

     at the end of the hellish training period, when Burgess Meredith gets in Stallone's face and yells "Well, what are we waitin' for?" Kerry needs that kind of fire lit in his belly.

    by yellow dog on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:33:18 AM PDT

•  This demands an immediate response

  And the right response is a parody of that cover.

  Show Kerry in uniform and Bush with a drink.  Or maybe Bush with a big question mark.  Or a Kerry superimposed on a map of the Mekong Delta and Bush superimposed on a golf course.

  If I recall from the week before the Iowa caucuses, the whole reason Democratic regulars chose Kerry over Dean, as well as over Edwards, is that they believed his Vietnam service and foreign policy experience in the Senate would negate or neutralized Bush's perceived advantages. Well, the only way to find out if that is true is to pound the facts into the publics mind.  This is when Kerry needs to define himself as the combat veteran who led with courage under fire.  The man who fought in a war to serve his country and when in the course of that service he saw things that were wrong he took steps to correct them.  Commanding a swift boat and confronting a complacent and ignorant Congress both took courage, intelligence and leadership.  

  And oh, by the way, what exactly was Bush doing while the rest of the country was caught up in the chaos of Vietnam?

  by James Earl on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:50:00 AM PDT

  •  Year by Year

    Every year Kerry would have some constants--Naval Reserves from 72-78, Asst DA for several years in the late 70's-early 80's; Lt. Gov; U.S. Senator, etc.  There would also be several highlights; founded Vietnam Vets Against the War; traveled to Vietnam to investigate MIA/POW sighting; helped lead the effort to normalize relations with Vietnam; presided over investigations into BCCI, etc.

    Until 1994, just about every year Bush's record would be:

    Drunk
    Drunk
    Drunk, lost money in oil business
    Drunk, lost money in oil business
    Drunk, lost money in oil business
    Lost money in oil business
    Lost money in oil business
    Lost money in oil business
    Convinced taxpayers to fund sports stadium
    Traded Sammy Sosa
    Elected to weakest governorship in America
    Mocked repentant criminal before putting her to death
    

    by DHinMI on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:05:56 AM PDT

    •  Sosa

      haha, this made me laugh out loud.

      I think the one we need to emphasize here is "Traded Sammy Sosa."  If the whole country realizes he did that, they'll finally see what kind of cluelessness we're dealing with here.  Right?

      by right on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:14:15 AM PDT

  •  This is the photo you want, surely?

    

    by Del C on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:10:02 AM PDT

    •  oh yeah!

      i remember this one from a newsweek profile waaaayyy back, like before shrub even stole the presidency.

      at the time i was like, how did they get a shot of him blowing bubbles in class? did people follow him around even then, vying to capture that best idiotic look?

      by scottesposito on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:20:52 AM PDT

    •  Doesn't even have a pencil or note pad.

      Note the guy next to him has some kind of paper in front of him. Most people bother to take notes or be ready to, in class.

      by Joan in Seattle on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:32:04 AM PDT

      •  Kerry Blowing Bubbles ,Bush Doing Blow

        Works for me.

        by mattman on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:49:51 AM PDT

      •  Doesn't even have a pencil or note pad

        
        Having attended the same august institution as GWB (but I actually paid attention during the lessons), what is in front of the other person is likely a name card--everyone has one--there's a little slot in front of each seat into which you insert it.  George evidently lost his...

        by KopeKid on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 05:16:33 PM PDT

•  What!?

  I got this piece of garbage as a free subscription when I re-upped at Salon.com. Why would they give this POS away? It has been very right wing friendly for every issue I have received. I pulled this issue out of my mailbox yesterday and was stunned they would show Bush all clean-cut and shiny, while Kerry was in a dated out fit with a dated haircut. Well, okay I was not stunned, surprised. I am a bit pissed off. The media tries to make Kerry out to be the peace loving hippie. However I think we all know Bush did more drugs that most piece loving hippies.

  To be fair, both need visits to a salon to wax the mono-brows.

  by gttim on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:50:19 AM PDT

  •  I too got this rag

    when I signed up for Salon. It is even a bigger piece of shit than I remembered, I cancelled immediately.

    Zuckermann and Wolfowitz are evil twins.

    by scribeboy on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:55:11 AM PDT

    •  Rag

      Me too. I accidently got this through Salon. What a crappy mag. I throw it away as soon as I get it. It's evil propaganda for the uninformed nascar masses.

      by ljb on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:07:24 AM PDT

  •  me too

    and the article is ridiculous as well. It talks about how Bush was a well-liked party boy and a "natural leader," while Kerry was a serious anti-war activist who hung out with Jane Fonda. Kerry smoked pot, Bush played drinking games.

    Too bad they didn't do a real comparison, because there is no comparison.
    

    by lapis on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:59:45 AM PDT

  •  heh heh heh

    You said "piece loving". Heh heh.

    by Joan in Seattle on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:33:28 AM PDT

    •  Piece Loving!

      I am sorry, that was Clinton. ; )

      by gttim on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 09:16:34 AM PDT

  •  Head scratcher

    I started receiving USNWR also after re-upping with Salon, and I've been meaning to cancel it.  I'm embarrassed that my mail carrier knows I receive it.

    Why would Salon have any relationship with this magazine?

    by Spideysense on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:39:11 AM PDT

  •  Me six (or whatever)

    And because it comes for free, I can't help but read it every week and get annoyed.

    During the primary season, one of their crack reporters inserted this bit of editorializing into his piece on unusually high turnout by independents voting in the Democratic primaries (not the exact quote, but as closely as I can remember): "High turnout among independents could mean one of two things: either voters are angry with Bush, or they are actually attracted to the Democratic candidates' message."

    I wrote a polite and very brief letter to the editor noting that, in fact, it was within the realm of possibility that independent voters were both angry with Bush and attracted to the Democratic message.

    I got a cute cartoon postcard letting me know that due to the high volume of letters they receive, they wouldn't be responding to mine...

    by Georgernon on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:55:04 AM PDT

•  Yes!! Keep this comparison front and center!!!

  Sure, they shouldnt have put Kerry in a suit and tie.  But you would have to be on Mars not to know that Bush was AWOL and Kerry was getting medals.  The more they put a spotlight on this the happier we should be.

  by sck5 on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:51:29 AM PDT

  •  Be aware, Martian absentee ballots....

    could be the deciding factor in several swing states.

    by Don Quixote on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 11:36:47 AM PDT

•  Boy, if that doesn't say it all...

  Too bad they couldn't find a picture of Kerry with long hair and beads.

  by TKinVT on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:54:25 AM PDT

•  what do you expect from this magazine?

  it's the one texas highschools used to pick after they dropped newsweek or time for being too liberal....

  by gracchus on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:54:46 AM PDT

  •  Newsweek liberal?

    Wow.  About 4 years ago I remember an Morning Edition report discussion how Texas was choosing new high school history text books.  It was quite revealing.

    by wells on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:58:14 AM PDT

•  Liberal Media? I don't think so....

  Visual communication is key in today's non reading society. People will remember the photo and not remember the article, should they ever open up the rag to read it. Visuals are more powerful and insidious to impart notions and tap into the powerful subconscious. If people doubt this, they need to ask themselve why else would a certain magazine "blacken" up OJ when he made the cover?

  The magazine should be called to task for this newest subversion.

  by jillian on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:55:36 AM PDT

•  I don't get the Rove

  strategy here.  His comments, and their previous criticisms questioning a purple heart have resulted in Bush's and military record on another magazine cover talking about his past.  Kerry saved his crew, Bush saved "ambitious secretaries" of their boredom.

  Unless they really are banking that no one cares about Bush's service, it does get Kerry away from talking about energy policy, etc.  But lets face it, the anti-taxers, the rightwing evengelicals, and the kill your government to aviod any redistribution of resources don't care about Bush's record.  I think this is about the middle and trying to keep Kerry on the defensive about himself so less sharp criticism of Bush's agenda hits the front page.  A Veep would help, but Kerry needs to swing back with more than Chicken Hawk.  But I agree, its not time.  The 3 Boston Globe reporters who just put out a book on Kerry just refered to him as the "Seabuscit of American Politics".  He doesn't get going until he sees his opponent a bit ahead.

  by wells on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:55:52 AM PDT

  •  Seabiscuit

    Well, I hope they're right. If Bush gets re-elected, this pacifist may be ready to take up arms. Never realized how true are the words, "The revolution will not be televised." Barely printed either. Go bloggers! Be fruitful and multiply!

    by KumarP on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:11:09 AM PDT

    •  Prediction

      History will repeat itself, and Seabiscuit Kerry will win going away in upcoming match race with War Admiral Bush.

      by Don Quixote on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 11:44:12 AM PDT

      •  Good one. (n/t)

        by Leslie in CA on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 03:58:12 PM PDT

  •  So ironic....

    You know someone posted this comparison-at DFA- during the primaries but in reference to Howard Dean.  Kerry does seem to be the more fitting comparison to Seabisquit, tough.  The analogy has stuck with me and I truly believe it may be the analogy of this race.  For anyone who wants to be inspired, if you haven't seen the movie, it is great and I hate animal movies.  I am sure the book is superb as well.

    Go Seabisquit!!!

    And yes the cover of that rag of a magazine is outrageous as is everything the right and these people in Bushco say or do!!!!

    by CharmRWC on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 01:49:34 PM PDT

•  Before y'all get even more worked up...

  ...note the title on the cover.  It deals with 1971, specifically.  In 1971 Kerry would have been in a suit and tie, telling U.S. senators about his experiences in Vietnam.  It's undisputed that Bush, on the other hand, was in the Texas ANG in 1971.  His alleged AWOL year began in '72.

  So, in this case, the cover makes sense.  Does that mean that Bush wasn't a disgrace to the uniform and, moreover, continues to be a disgrace to this country?  Hardly.  It's just appropriate in that context.

  Oh, it's also interesting to note that '71 was the year Bush's family funded Bush's girl's supposed illegal abortion.  Funny, that.

  by EphemeralNotion on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:56:10 AM PDT

  •  on the other hand...

    Why would they focus on '71 unless they wanted to put Bush in the best possible light? He isn't missing from duty yet, and Kerry has finished his heroics in Vietnam. So, our anger can persist at the biased selection of date.

    by jd in nyc on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:03:38 AM PDT

•  I'll Take It.

  I completely agree that the pictures on the cover are ridiculous, but ANY reasonably accurate discussion about where John Kerry and George Bush were in 1971 (or 1965, 1975, 1985 or for that matter), is a good story for us.
  John Kerry was privileged young man who chose to serve his country, became a distinguished war hero, an eloquent spokesman against a war, and someone who cared passionately about his country.  George W. Bush was an arrogant rich kid who ducked military service to play pool volleyball with ambitious secretaries, live a party lifestyle, and waited for his daddy's political friends to buy him a few companies.  He claims to not even discussed the Vietnam War while in college, and he was more clearly more interested in himself than his country.
  Of course, I know that US News will not tell the story exactly like I did above, but even Fox News couldn't compare the two in 1971 in a way that makes Bush look better than Kerry.  Even with the unfair photo, I'll take the story.
  

  by sdindc on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:58:17 AM PDT

•  US news is ...

  ...owned by Mort Zuckerman, a virulent neocon Likudnik.

  What can you  expect?

  by RationalMan on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:59:15 AM PDT

  •  Indeed --

    I've been reading US News and World Report as a free symptom of my subscription to Salon for the past several months, and I have to say that I'm surprised at the conservative tilt of the magazine.

    I recall in my high school years (1990-1993), we used to use USN&WR as the centrist mag, with Time as the voice of the Right, and Newsweek as the voice of the Left. Now both Time and Newsweek have shifted to the center, and USN&WR is on the right. National review levels, actually...

    I will say that the article itself, which I read on the way to work today while on the bus, was very even-handed, despite the awful picture.

    But to give you some perspective, here's the opening graf from Zuckerman's editorial (on the last page, much like Newsweek's "Last Word"):

    In light of the much-misrepresented Sharon-Bush meeting, here's a little quiz to put the event in a perspective that eluded the media.

    Um, Zucky? You are the Media.

    by kcavness on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:03:32 AM PDT

•  US Views and World Distort....

  a picture is worth a 1000 words.

  by Keith Brekhus on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:00:23 AM PDT

•  But Kerry IS such a piece of shit as a candidate.

  Here's why I say this:

  1.  Only an IDIOT would have instructed his own party surrogates to stop attacking Bush's record of being AWOL.
  2.  Only and IDIOT would not have mounted a HUGE counter-offensive against the chickenhawks by now on this issue of service to country and patriotism.
  3.  Only and IDIOT, against the wishes of large numbers of anti-war Democrats, would have voted for the Iraq War, and thus essentially maneuvered himself into a position in which he cannot credibly or effectively attack Bush on one of the biggest failures and fiascos of his Presidency.

  Give me that fucking Dean scream any day of the week.  "Mr. Electable" is turning out to be the  pathetic candidate I predicted he would be.  

  by PhillipG on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:01:46 AM PDT

  •  Can I get an AMEN?!

    Hallelujah, brother! You've said it all. "Electability" my ass.

    As my mom likes to say, some good things that might come from Kerry & the DNC/DLC fucking up this race [should have been a 'gimme' by now], is that the Pugs will almost assuredly have to face full investigations for a multitude of crimes. AND impeachments for both shrub and Smirky.

    by kynandog on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:17:22 AM PDT

    •  Don't Hold Your Breath

      Who's gonna push investigations/impeachments?  

      The pathetic Dems in Congress?  Not in a million years.

      The Republicans?  LOL.

      The media?  LOL.

      The only good think that will come of the DNC/DLC fucking up this race will be that hopefully, the Democrats will wake up to the fact that their own party is hopelessly lost, and they need to start paying greater attention to events.  Of course, this will only occur after four more years of the pain of our nation's move to out-and-out fascism hitting them right between the eyes.

      by PhillipG on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:34:38 AM PDT

  •  I know, I know

    I wasn't going to post this, but my opinion is that Bush was a coward for not going, but Kerry was stupid for going. Unfortunately we're stuck with him. As one ex-Nader voter put it at the March for Women's Lives, "Kerry sucks less." I very much want Kerry to win, and although I can't work for his campaign, I may do some 527 work.

    by abbyv on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:20:30 AM PDT

    •  Ya Know......

      I was cool toward Kerry bordering on cold but the more they do this crap the stronger I feel about him.

      For the better.

      by mattman on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:58:21 AM PDT

  •  That's funny

    Seems to me Kerry is doing a very good job as a candidate.  And I'm a Dean supporter.

    by Blue the Wild Dog on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:32:57 AM PDT

    •  What alternate reality do you inhabit?

      by PhillipG on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:36:01 AM PDT

      •  Nice

        I inhabit the one where

        • Bush spends 50 million and gains one or two lousy points
        • Bush is trapped in an Iraqi quagmire
        • Bush is polling below 50% ... no incumbent since '48 has been re-elected with numbers as bad as Bush
        • 57 - 60% of the electorate thinks the country is headed in the wrong direction
        • Indictments are pending in the Plame case

        and where Kerry is perfectly playing the race.

        You, on the other hand, seem to inhabit the planet where it's OK to rant and insult at will on blogs.

        by Blue the Wild Dog on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:40:27 AM PDT

        •  I notice that everything you posted has

          to do with Bush's failings and actions, and had nothing to do with what Kerry is doing . . . unless you mean that he's just sitting back and letting it all happen.

          If you think this passivity is a perfect response, then you and I disagree. The fact is, the GOP will get the light off its own failings by going after Kerry.  They have a huge budget with which to do it too.  And just sits back and lets it happen, those two or three points could be enough to cost Kerry the election.

          by PhillipG on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:52:25 AM PDT

          •  Kerry

            He has at least 50 million to burn before the convention.  I don't think he'll play his waiting game much longer.

            by Blue the Wild Dog on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 09:00:46 AM PDT

          •  I Noticed That Almost Everything YOU Posted...

            ...gets troll rated:

            15. Weather I've convinced anyone, it is clear to me [1.00 / 10] Replies: 1
            16. Many of you drinking the corp. media Kool-Aide [1.12 / 8] Replies: 2
            17. If the pollster doesn't mention the effect the [1.33 / 3] Replies: 1
            18. Iowa wasn't the whole race. [2.00 / 4] Replies: 2
            19. A lot of people are in denial about the media [1.16 / 6] Replies: 1
            20. I will read the article. But if it doesn't mentio [1.00 / 6] Replies: 1
            21. No, I didn't write it. But you might try reading [2.50 / 4] Replies: 0
            22. Let me see, is that the same Kucinich that [2.00 / 4] Replies: 2
            23. Aren't you missing your daily dose of FOX right [1.12 / 8] Replies: 0
            24. Another ignorant post. [1.14 / 7] Replies: 0
            25. Atlantic has become a right wing joke [1.00 / 5] Replies: 1
            26. I have gotten over it. It is just painful [1.33 / 3] Replies: 1
            27. Shouldn't you be watching O'Reilly about now? [1.07 / 13] Replies: 1
            28. Written like a true, NPR-listening, Dem [1.00 / 11] Replies: 2
            29. You missed the whole fucking point. [1.00 / 9] Replies: 1
            30. Try reading this article: You might have [1.00 / 4] Replies: 0

            With titles like "another ignorant post," I just can't figure out why you generate such a hostile reaction?  Gee, could it be your tone???

            by DHinMI on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 09:11:15 AM PDT

            •  Please attack his arguments

              And not his ratings.  I'd much rather hear why you think Kerry is running a good campaign, than read summaries of someone else's ratings (which are a click away for all of us).  

              Thank you.

              by Subterranean on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 12:03:17 PM PDT

  •  aeou

    you of course being the highly qualified political commentator you are. Im sure you have a much greater understanding of the situation than the experts Kerry has working for him. No offense buddy, but rather than listening to a stale tirade about how glorious Dean was back in the good 'ol days, I'm putting my faith in Kerry and his experts. You look at things so 'black and white'. You clearly dont see that there could/are more subtle, yet important things going on. Bush has wasted 60 million, and cause barely a dent in Kerry's pole ratings. This doesnt just happen. It means there is a coordinated response to Bush's ad blitz that prevented Kerry from being annhilianted in the polls. If you dont see a sound byte of Kerry raving some anti-bush sentiment every day you began to insults him. Have faith, and most of all be patient. As they say patience is a virtue.

    by klugerEsel5 on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 11:18:00 AM PDT

  •  Enough with the Iraq Vote!

    Oh you and your huge army of anti-war democrats who needed to be heeded?  Give me a break!  You were, and incidentally, still are, a minority.  Attack him on his strategy, attack him on his positions being wrong (including on the Iraq War), but lets not distort the issue as if he were swimming against a giant mandate to vote against Iraq.

    by stephdray on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 11:36:33 AM PDT

    •  Actually we're all a minority

      In case you haven't been keeping up on current events, all liberal democrats are a minority in America.  

      That doesn't mean we're wrong.

      by Subterranean on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 12:06:36 PM PDT

      •  I never said

        I was a liberal democrat.  I am a democrat.  I am liberal in the John Kennedy sense of the word, but not whatever the radical right or left would wish me to be.

        by stephdray on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 01:42:05 PM PDT

•  Payback for supporting Sharon ...

  Fair Trade?

  Here's the editorial on this week's US News by Mort Zuckerman, Owner and Publisher.

  With George W. Bush's support, Ariel Sharon's historic peace plan has a real chance of success

  Editorial
  By Mortimer B. Zuckerman * Editor-in-Chief
  A wall--and a way forward

  In light of the much-misreported Sharon- Bush meeting, here's a little quiz to put the event in a perspective that eluded the media. Q: Which Palestinian leader demanded the following immediate concessions as a condition for further talks:

  (i) Israel must withdraw all 7,500 settlers from Gaza and leave the housing and infrastructure there intact.

  (ii) Israel must remove settlers from four communities on the West Bank.

  (iii) Israel must remove the military installations and checkpoints around these communities so there is an area of contiguous self-government and freedom of movement for Palestinians.

  A: The Palestinians have not had to demand these concessions. They were made unilaterally by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon without any quid pro quo. Why? Simply because Israel has finally concluded that it cannot expect to live in peace with a Palestinian state led by Yasser Arafat. A protective wall, virtually everyone in Israel believes, is the only way left to protect innocents from anarchic terrorism. Every day, 40 to 50 murderous assaults are threatened against Israeli citizens and foiled only by the vigilance of Israeli security forces, with no help from the Palestinians, whose leaders have betrayed every promise on security. The nature of the beast was manifest at Passover, when a terrorist was intercepted with explosives meant to be laced with HIV-infected blood intended to enter the wounds of his victims.

  Horror chamber. President Bush described Sharon's actions as courageous, historic, and deserving of America's support, and that is a fair appreciation. Sharon, the architect of the settler movement, is the first Israeli prime minister, and a member of Likud at that, to propose dismantling settlements unilaterally. He has demonstrated his willingness to eliminate all illegal outposts by a set date, stop construction of new settlements, and agree to a building line on construction within existing settlements that will be monitored by the United States. He has also agreed to review all roadblocks in the West Bank and give Palestinians all tax revenues now withheld (correctly) on the grounds that they have been used to finance terrorism.

  More :http://www.usnews.com/usnews/home.htm

  by RationalMan on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:07:44 AM PDT

  •  That's Is Sick

    nt

    by mattman on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 09:01:50 AM PDT

•  USN&WR Disgusts Me

  What a coincidence! I was getting this rag for free, as a result of having to cash in some air miles. I chose it as a news source, never having it read it on a regular basis before. After seeing Christ or Christians covers three friggin' times within a 2 month span, I started getting a clue as to their news direction. I rarely read it, since it rarely provided material I wanted to keep following. I just cancelled last week. When surveyed as to the reason why, I informed them I was fed up with getting a right wing spun version of news I read on the web last week.

  And when I loaded dKos just now, I was prompted to accept a cookie! for usnews.com.  WTF?!?!

  I'm not in the least surprised they would show Kerry/Hippie/Left/Red vs. Bush/Soldier/Right/Blue. They're just doing their part of the media contingent for the RNC's dirty tricks.

  by kynandog on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:08:34 AM PDT

•  And then there's the NYT

  First of all, on thread: outrage and frustration.  Again.  Talk about creating terrorists.  I want to blow that magazine off the face of the earth (John Ashcroft minions, take note: I'm not going to do it-- a feeling, not a threat)

  Just that, one gets so sick and tired of the manipulation; one's sense of humor wears thin.
  the gross,obvious quality of propaganda is nauseating in a so=called mass media operation.

  OTOH, in the NYT this a.m. the coverage of the same false issue is equally infuriating, if subtler.  They put Cheney and the Busheviks up at the top of the article, Kerry and the D's rejoinder at the bottom.  This is exactly what they did, systematically, in their coverage of Gore/Bush in 2000.  So if you only read half the article, you only got GWB's pov. At the time I wondered if this was a wierd style-sheet decision (taking the candidates alphabetically,for instance, in the name of "fairness")  But now, who cares? I call on kosmopolitans to point this out to them every time they do it-- and object.  At least they can alternate 'leads'

  It may work.  Yesterday I wrote to the Wapo Ombudsman about the ratio of pix of anti-abortion activists vs. marchers on their web site gallery (they were giving the fundies almost equal image space, despite the difference in numbers-- 1 million vs. 1 thousand-- and a few hours later, when I checked, the online photo gallery had changed and was in proportion to the numbers)  So, every so often, somebody listens.

  As boring as letter-writing, emailing is, we have to let them know we are not brain-dead suckers out here.  No kidding.

  by Tulip on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:14:11 AM PDT

  •  Even weirder NY Times goings-on

    The Times posts the following day's op-eds (and probably other content, but that's neither here nor there) late in the evening on any given day.  Since I eagerly await Paul Krugman's commentaries, I will often head over to the Times website late on Monday or Thursday evenings.  Last night, I went there and found links to both Krugman and Brooks from the home page.

    This morning Krugman's link was gone, but Brooks's remained.  I found this odd, especially since I would be willing to bet good money that more people look forward to reading Krugman.  So I decided to write the Times Public Editor, Daniel Okrent, for an explanation.  Here's the response from his assistant:
    
    I just went to this page: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html and had no problem accessing Mr. Krugman's column.

    If there was a glitch it must have been fixed.

    Sincerely,
    Arthur Bovino
    Office of the Public Editor
    The New York Times

    Unfortunately for Mr. Bovino, I asked about the HOME PAGE, not the opinion page.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and guess that he just didn't read my e-mail very carefully.  But most interestingly, both links--Brooks AND Krugman--are again available from the home page.  Fancy that!

    I don't see myself as a conspiracy theorist, but this is damned odd.

    by Chicago Jason on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:39:01 AM PDT

    •  good for you

      it's important to respond. (a lesson I've learned very recently, because, frankly, it's boring and time-consuming)  But the stakes are high and wtf, it's easy enough.

      by Tulip on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:56:16 AM PDT

•  Kerry needs to ask Mort Zuckerman

  owner and publisher of US Ruse and World Distort and Michael Baronne, chief political columnist, two pencil necked chicken hawks who didn't have the balls to ship out to Nam but now are smearing Kerry, what the hell they were doing from 1965-1972.

    DO NOT underestimate the damage this will do with battleground state blue collar types. This is insidious, right down to Kerry's longish hair and pallid skin. His photo even seems bathed in a reddish light, coinicidence? Red commmie Hanoi Jane lovin Ho Chi Minh useful idiot. Meanwhile, Sniffy looks nothing like the dissipated frat daddy snorting cocaine off strippers breasts that he was, but rather like the sort of clean cut wholesome fellow who every dad would want his daughter to marry and his son to be with in a foxhole. You may not buy it, but I'm scared shitless plenty of people in PA,WV, MI OH, MO etc will.

    Zuckerman and Baronne know exactly what they are doing, and Kerry better act now or he is in grave danger. This is War! Fight Fire with Fire. It is no longer a question of Kerry saying to them don't question my patriotism. He must begin to question their patriotism in the most direct and forceful language possible. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Zuckerman, Baronne-CALL THEM ALL OUT AS COWARDS WHO CLAIMED VIETNAM WAS A CAUSE UPON WHICH THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE FREE WORLD WAS RIDING, YET THEY BELIEVED THEY WERE ENTITLED TO MAKE OTHERS DO THE FIGHTING AND DYING. AND THEY ARE DOING IT AGAIN.

  by yellow dog on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:17:04 AM PDT

•  this cover is misleading

  The text clearly says "The Way They Were". So how were they 30 years ago?

  For Kerry they should have a picture of him in fatigues gunning a boat up some river, gun in hand, dodging a hail of bullets.

  For Bush...well, they can just take a still from any of his 13 (count 'em!) press conferences...he hasn't changed too much in 30 years. Sure he got born-again and dropped the bottle, but you know what they say: "once a bubble-blowing son of a millioanire, always a bubble-blowing son of a millionaire."

  by scottesposito on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:28:05 AM PDT

•  HaHaHaHa...

  Gow, who had been president of the elder Bush's Zapata oil company, noticed that the younger Bush shared some of his father's qualities, like a knack for remembering names.

  (from the article) emphasis mine.

  by dc on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:32:47 AM PDT

•  Holy Shit

  After reading the article (or at least what's posted of it online), I have to say that this is one seriously disgusting Bush fluff piece. I'd cite examples, but it's unnecessary.. just read it.

  by dc on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:38:32 AM PDT

•  W's response

  President and candidate George W. Bush's water volleyball records, released on Thursday after critics reviewed John Kerry's records and medals, show he was a highly skilled setter, and was credited with at least 20 kills.

  The records, posted on all U.S. government Web sites, include effusive evaluations of Bush's serves, plus raves from numerous ambitious secretaries of his tanning and drinking abilities.

  Bush, who served occasionally in the Air National Guard, "frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning pickup lines," according to a January 1969 evaluation by an unidentified woman.

  The report noted Bush "exhibited all of the traits desired of a rich C+ student with oats needing sowing" and was "unofficially credited with downing 15 shooters in one evening." [...]
  

  by bs750 on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:38:33 AM PDT

•  Letters to Editor

  I'm assuming most folks (me included) will be writing one.

  Please share them here... I'd love to read them.

  by DeanorBust on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 08:49:31 AM PDT

  •  My Letter to the Editor

    Dear Editor:

    If a picture is worth a thousand words, the cover photo for this article shouts, "We are a proud part of the Republican smear machine," at least a hundred times.  

    The choice to portray Senator Kerry, an undisputed war hero, in a suit and tie, in juxtaposition with a uniformed George Bush could not have been accidental.  It is a sad contribution to the continuing effort to downplay or tarnish the sterling service record of Senator Kerry while bolstering the murkier service record of the incumbent.

    In the end, the level of public discourse in our country suffers along with the reputation of your publication.

    Sincerely,
    Stephanie Dray

    by stephdray on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 11:52:56 AM PDT

•  Link to cover story follows

  Didn't see this posted.

  http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040503/home.htm

  by B Rubble on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 09:19:53 AM PDT

•  Jim Bath

  On page 3, there is a quote from a Jim Bath.
  Is this the same Jim Bath that allegedly was disciplined along with Bush (name crossed out in the flying suspension)?

  by B Rubble on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 09:30:05 AM PDT

•  Also,

  Bush is smiling, Kerry is not.  Kerry is looking off to the side--avoidance, evasiveness.  Bush is looking right at you--honesty, confidence.  Gee, aren't they subtle.

  I'm also getting the Distort with my Salon subscription.  Oh well, it'll come in handy if I run out of toilet paper.

  by Leslie in CA on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 09:44:57 AM PDT

  •   "Quilted" US News and World Report....

    currently being test marketed in response to unprecedented demand.

    by Don Quixote on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 12:01:48 PM PDT

•  Josh Marshall

  has more on Bush's NG records being cleaned up before release.

  by Leslie in CA on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 10:00:57 AM PDT

•  Larger image?

  Anyone find a larger jpg of the cover than the one posted on the site? I think it's just begging for a little 'modification'...

  by johnny vagabond on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 10:20:00 AM PDT

•  Cover

  While the cover may perhaps show bias towards Bush, the article itself, in my opinion, portrayed Kerry much better. It compared the intelligent, focused, mature Kerry to a somewhat lost Bush, who didnt do much else other than play sports and party.

  by klugerEsel5 on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 11:13:17 AM PDT

•  Portrait photo vs. news photo

  My co-worker just pointed out another thing (as we both stew in disgust) that the picture of Bush is a portrait photograph (the kind that makes you look as good as possible from a professional photographer and gets sent to the parents for display on the mantle) while the one of Kerry is snap shot for the news.

  I'm so goddamn mad right now-- but I'm stuck at work with no outlet.

  by lanshark on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 11:22:48 AM PDT

•  The whole article needs to be factchecked

  I just got copy this morning and in a real quick scan I noticed they talk about how Kerry had a great impersonation of Father Guido Sarducci from Saturday Night Live.

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't SNL start up in '75 or '76? How could people be remembering Kerry doing impressions from 4 or 5 years in the future?

  by Roastbeef on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 11:23:47 AM PDT

  •  Yes, but

    Don Novello could have been doing the character earlier. Most of the original SNL cast came from various improv troupes in the US and Canada.

    by hamletta on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 03:19:38 PM PDT

•  They'll be tossing back...

  an extra beaker or two of Victory Gin at the Minitrue watering holes tonight!

  Double-plus good job, Minitrue.

  by Otis Noman on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 11:26:10 AM PDT

  •  Huh. Who knew the old windbag

    had it in him? I'd seen "ubi bene, ibi patria" as an epigram, but never an attribution to M. Tullius.

    by musing85 on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:18 AM PDT

•  Why is Bush shown in uniform?

  Does anybody know how many days during 1971 George Bush would have been wearing a uniform?

  I'm confused about the National Guard.  Would he have should up everyday in uniform to perform military duties or was it more of a part-time job?

  Thanks

  Robert Barry
  

  by Cocophone on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 11:30:23 AM PDT

  •  Yes, one day for sure

    Does anybody know how many days during 1971 George Bush would have been wearing a uniform?

    October 31st.

    by Spideysense on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 12:48:22 PM PDT

•  "dangerous" formation flying

  As another USN&WR subscriber via Salon, I thought this particular section was the most appalling:

  "The Delta Dagger could reach speeds of 650 miles per hour.  Bush's unit sometimes flew in formation, wing tips just a few feet apart.  The duty was dangerous.  The Texas Guard suffered a handful of pilot fatalities in the 1970s."

  I wonder if Bush and his fellow Guardsmen received any counseling to help them deal with their "dangerous" formation flying.  Does George ever suffer flashbacks?

  by JBLIII on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 12:50:49 PM PDT

  •  Yep!

    W is a Real Man alrght!

    Honestly.  It amazes me how much effort the Right puts into making Thier Man look like John Wayne.  

    But wait...John Wayne was pretty much all sizzle and no steak himself...

    by WWGray on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 01:09:09 PM PDT

  •  Hmm...

    Bush's unit sometimes flew in formation, wing tips just a few feet apart.

    Bush's unit might have flown in formation, but did Bush?

    by NTodd on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 01:51:58 PM PDT

•  WHAT A COVER

  THE RIGHT WING, CONSERVATIVE, UNBALANCED, LAP DOG MEDIA  STRIKE AGAIN.
  THEY PROJECT A COWARD IN UNIFORM AND A HERO IN CIVVIES, KERRY SHOULD BE IN DRESS WHITES AND BUSH SHOULD BE IN A DIAPER, SUCKING HIS THUMB, AND ASKING HIS FATHER HOW TO SAVE HIS ASS FOR ANOTHER ROUND OF BEER, NOW THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE AND FAIR.
  ABB&B!!!

  by PC on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 03:29:53 PM PDT

•  SC?

  Remind me what the 'S' and the 'C' stand for again.

  by blank on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 05:04:15 PM PDT

  •  SC stands for...

    "so-called"

    by JBLIII on Tue Apr 27, 2004 at 07:44:26 PM PDT

•  The USNWR editor responds!

  From Romenesko's letters:

  From BRIAN DUFFY, editor, U.S. News & World Report: Thanks for posting the letter from Peter Lee about the current U.S. News cover and for giving me an opportunity to respond. A number of readers have raised questions about the cover, and I plan on writing a note in next week's issue to address them, but perhaps it would also be helpful to address Mr. Lee's questions here, as well.
  
  The magazine's cover story, by writers Ken Walsh and Dan Gilgoff, addresses a critical year in the lives of John Kerry and George W. Bush. The year is 1971, a time in which Mr. Kerry had completed his service in Vietnam and when Mr. Bush was in the midst of his service with the Texas Air National Guard. The story speaks for itself about the state of mind of the two men and their respective ambitions and aspirations.
  
  The question Mr. Lee raises, however, has to do with the images of the two men we displayed on the magazine's cover. Despite extensive research by the magazine's Photography Department, we were able to find only a few images of either man from that period that we thought were appropriate for a cover. That being the case, we sought to portray both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush in the most respectful, and similar, postures possible. In. Mr. Kerry's case, we chose an image of him in a suit and tie. In Mr. Bush's case, we chose an image of him in his dress uniform. Both images reflected accurately the way the two men looked at that time.
  
  Mr. Lee states that the juxtaposition of the photographs of Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry would be a "grotesquely unfair piece of editorializing...if the actual truth of their respective services didn't make it ludicrous." But Mr. Kerry was not in the Navy in 1971. He was making media appearances on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Mr. Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard. It was one chapter in both ther lives that our story focused on. We have written many stories about Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, and [Brian Duffy promises to send the rest of the letter.]

  by Lis Riba on Wed Apr 28, 2004 at 01:53:37 PM PDT