..about those tax returns!!??? During the Kerry swiftboating (which was a scurrilous attack on a war hero, not legitimate questions about financial issues that don't match up with SEC filing,) the media was on Bush's side, and repeated their skepticism and calls for proof that Kerry was indeed wounded as he was reported by the DoD to be. They did not say... "oh, Kerry said that it happened that way, so that's enough for us. Why won't Bush's surrogates leave him alone?"
No, they interviewed the slimeballs that attacked a war hero, they looked the other way when they put purple bandaids on their face at the Convention. They took the word of the republicans on that attack. And what if Obama's campaign last time decided to go after McCain's war experiences?? What if Obama's surrogates spent millions with books and a film discrediting McCain's injuries? Would Milbank stick up for Obama's campaign? Or would he have attacked them for questioning a war hero? they would have freaked out if that was done to McCain. Frankly, if you recall how they treated Bush's lame Nat'l Guard experience, and how they destroyed Cronkite for questioning it, we have our answer.
The bias by Milbank is clear. His republican board of directors have killed the story. That's what editorial boards do (and most editorial boards are NO longer populated by journalists, but by the suits upstairs.) The directive must be to kill this story, and paint it like a chick fight.. where EVERYONE is wrong. They love their false equivalency.. as long as it benefits the richest republican candidate. It's like being wailed on by your big brother, and your parents say "I don't care who started it, you are both going to bed without supper." The MSM media, for the most part (and Milbank in particular) are like bad parents.
And if he had even an OUNCE of curiosity and spine, he would ask "WHERE ARE THE TAX RETURNS?????"
= new reply since forum marked as read
