In recent weeks, several media accounts have begun to focus on the Bush campaign’s unprecedented rhetoric, which effectively argues that John Kerry is helping terrorists by criticizing the president. In the never-ending drive to strive for an unnecessary balance, the Washington Post — on the front page, no less — accuses Kerry today of following in Bush’s footsteps. It’s unpersuasive, to say the least.
With voters expressing anxiety about Iraq, nuclear attacks and the threat of terrorism in the first presidential election since Sept. 11, 2001, John F. Kerry and his supporters are adopting President Bush’s strategy of playing on the public’s security fears and sometimes using incendiary charges to stoke them.
[…]
Virtually every day, Kerry has warned that if Bush is reelected, the situation in Iraq will worsen and continue to divert attention from nuclear threats and terrorism.
I hate to break it to the Post (actually, I don’t), but this isn’t an “incendiary charge.”
When Dick Cheney says “we’ll get hit again” if Kerry wins, that’s incendiary. When Bush says Kerry’s criticisms of the war “emboldens” our enemies, that’s incendiary. When GOP officials, acting on the Bush campaign’s behalf, insist that al Queda wants Kerry to win, that’s incendiary.
When Kerry says Bush’s debacle in Iraq is likely to get worse with a president that has no plan and has no idea that conditions are falling apart, that isn’t incendiary; it’s accurate.
In an interesting reversal for the Post, readers might notice (as Slate’s Eric Umansky did) that the paper’s op-ed page actually debunks one of the charges on its front page. While Jim VandeHei and Howard Kurtz accuse Kerry of using overly-provocative language on A1, the paper says the opposite on A26.
Mr. Kerry is arguing that the nation is less safe because Mr. Bush waged war in Iraq and paid too little attention to al Qaeda; that’s a legitimate case to present to voters.
If the Post thinks it’s a legitimate charge, why is the Post also arguing that it’s so incendiary?