If A Shoe Drops on CNN, will we hear the sound?

CNN's Aaron Brown program on September 8 was one for the time capsule. What will future viewers, if any, think of it, think of them, think of us? A heartbreaking breakdown of the 1,000 American soldiers who were killed or died in Iraq, a so-called controversy on whether the University of Utah has the right to ban guns on campus, campaign reporting than manages to obfuscate the issues in the guise of clarifying the strategy and dynamic; a couple of authoritative studies that conclude that Iraq is deteriorating, that the situation there is worse now than it was before the American invasion, and that the most likely outcome is civil war.

Oh, and the reports that George Bush, the resolute leader of men to their deaths, consistently shirked his dubiously won National Guard duties, and by rights should have been shipped to Vietnam for his failures to keep his word and do the bothersome minimum his political influence bought him.

So catastrophic is this reporting that CNN couldn't face the implications of what it was presenting. So instead of covering the revelations arising from documents obtained by the Boston Globe and CBS News, and the thorough reporting both of these experienced and professional news organizations did on the subject of George W. Bush's dishonorable non-service, Brown and Co. reported first and foremost on White House reaction. "The White House said" began and ended each fragment of the story, and the questions to reporters was, what about what the White House says about this. Is this how they covered the non-story of the allegations made against Kerry's Vietnam record, not by responsible and thorough reporters, but by political enemies? Not exactly.

And Jeff Greenfield doubts that this clear evidence that should shame Bush from office, that is so morally corrupt in a man who sends others to fight and die to satisfy his delusions, is likely to change many minds. Why won't it? Because only those who want to believe it will believe it. Where is the objective judgment that all will concede tells the truth? he asks.

Are they talking about the same two stories? In one, the official record and the overwhelming evidence produced by journalists is that John Kerry earned his medals, acted heroically under fire in Vietnam, and has essentially told the truth about his experiences. In the other, the official record and the evidence painstakingly accumulated and evaluated by journalists shows that G. W. Bush failed to complete the drills he was obligated to perform in the Texas National Guard, failed to complete the drills he was obligated to perform when he transferred to the Alabama national guard unit, and failed even to serve at all with the Boston national guard as he promised to do. He obtained his national guard appointment due to political influence, and apparently got his honorable discharge despite his failures to meet his obligations, also because of political influence.

He even specifically "misspoke" or lied when "the White House" said he had stopped flying his fighter jet because his National Guard unit stopped using that plane. As weak and wimpy as this excuse is, the records show it is false anyway. The plane in question remained in use. G.W. just never bothered to show up again.

This is the man more than half of American voters polled believe is a strong leader, the best to lead the nation in Iraq and the war on terror?

Right. And Nixon was our greatest defender of the Constitution, and our greatest Civil Rights leader was Bull Connor.

Are we really going to permit GW Bush to be president for another four insanely awful years, just because John Kerry can't stand still when he talks? GW has gone beyond depending on telling the Big Lie in order to remain in power. He has become the Big Lie.