"That Was Yesterday"

Apparently the Times disagrees with what it said yesterday, and thus in another unsigned editorial it declares,

It was sad that Mr. Kerry's commendable war record was clouded by the more outrageous of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's attacks, and it was somewhat surprising that Mr. Bush's National Guard service again became a big topic of debate.

Well, I guess they didn't technically contradict yesterday's claim that it was Kerry's fault that the outrageous Swift Boat Liar ads (that "keep on coming") and discussion of Bush's record (yes, yesterday that was Kerry's fault as well) clouded the issues. But they did suggest that other forces played a role.

Let's think for a moment.... Why is it "news" whenever new details Bush's poor service in the national guard emerge? Could it be because Bush has steadfastly refused to come clean about that record? Bush could have closed the book on this a long time ago, but instead, for political gain, chooses to misrepresent his service and his use and abuse of family political connections to get in and out of the Guard. Perhaps there's even an element of newsworthiness to that story? Or in the continuing saga of, "When we disclosed all of Bush's records, we somehow missed these key documents."

(As to the part of the editorial that compares past New York Times experience to present CBS pain from basing a story on "inadequately vetted documents from a highly questionable source", the analogy that comes to mind is not of Jayson Blair but of Judith Miller's atrociously bad prewar coverage on Iraq. For which the Times has paid no discernible price.)