What does it say about the Old Media that they are wholly uninterested in gravely serious and highly relevant charges against John Kerry yet investigate to death relatively minor and largely irrelevant claims against President Bush?
They have uncovered every rock for years and could never find anything but disputed, ambiguous innuendo against President Bush about an issue that pales in comparison to the charges against John Kerry and for which there is much more credible proof.
Even if we assume as true all the Democrats' allegations about the president's guard service -- he used his family connections to avoid Vietnam and to shirk certain duties and orders -- they shouldn't really amount to that much to liberals. I've never met a liberal who disapproved of anyone doing his best to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam War, which liberals uniformly believed was immoral.
We also know that President Bush, by his own admission, was a little more carefree when he was younger, but that around age 40 he had a religious conversion. Since then, by all accounts, he's been a changed person in many respects and has built an impressive resume, including his little stint as president and commander in chief.
In short, all of these stories about President Bush, even if true -- which I seriously doubt -- are mostly irrelevant to the question of his fitness to continue as commander in chief because we've already witnessed his performance and character in that very job the last four years.
The allegations against John Kerry are infinitely more serious. We know -- despite the dissembling of the media on this issue as well -- that he, too, tried to avoid the war, only "volunteering" when he was about to be drafted. But he also is said to have embellished and lied about his service to enhance his resume and to get an early out, perjured himself in Senate testimony, suborned similar perjury from others, and slandered his fellow soldiers, which served as fodder for the enemy to torture POWs. He hung out with murder-contemplating anarchists, negotiated with the North Vietnamese enemy and lobbied vigorously for a course of action that would lead to a bloodbath in Vietnam.
And the claims against the two men are not only qualitatively different in substance, but there is also no comparison in the level of proof between the two cases.