After ignoring the questions raised about Kerry's credibility on his Vietnam service for weeks, the New York Times came up with this front-page top-of-the-fold hitpiece, attacking the messengers but not getting to the bottom of the story.
Although I think the real issue is not "What did you do in the war, Daddy?" but that we are in a war and side, whatever its deficiencies, has some understanding and commitment to defending the country, and the other lacks that capacity with its yammering about how we need to involve the United Nations and the French. Kerry has tried to cover over these deficiencies by pointing to his Vietnam record.
It's to his credit that he went at all, but the questions about his service and subsequent repudiation of it are real, and important because of the effort to create a military facade. And it's increasingly evident that either Kerry lied repeatedly, at least about Christmas in Cambodia, or has so rich a fantasy life that he's a sick puppy.
There's jury instruction that says if a witness is false in one thing, you're entitled to think in false in all things. That's the point.
This is an issue that the blogosphere and talk radio have pushed, and the pro-Kerry mainstream media ignored and are now trying to kill. Problem is, as the failure of the LA Times's hit on Arnold last year exemplifies, the credibility of these media is in free fall.