Speaking of the charges raised by the Swift Boat Vets, the editors at the Los Angeles Dog Trainer sanctimoniously proclaim: These Charges Are False …

Very impressive. Only: which charges are they talking about, anyway? The ones about John Kerry claiming he was in Cambodia in Christmas 1968? The claim that John Kerry initially sought a deferment to avoid the Vietnam war? The claim that he joined the Naval Reserves, rather than the Navy, at a time when men his age who believed they would be drafted anyway often chose the Naval Reserves as a safer route? The claim that, when Kerry initially volunteered for Swift boat service, it was considered relatively safe? The claim that John Kerry knew that three Purple Hearts would get him an expedited ticket home? The claim that his wounds were all relatively minor? The claim that he managed to use those minor wounds to shave about 8 months off the expected length of his tour of duty?

Which claims are we talking about here? I’m confused. And the Dog Trainer editors don’t say.

The closest they come to any specifics is in this paragraph:

No informed person can seriously believe that Kerry fabricated evidence to win his military medals in Vietnam. His main accuser has been exposed as having said the opposite at the time, 35 years ago. Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation. His accusers have no evidence except their own dubious word.

Who is their “main accuser”? How, exactly, was he “exposed”? He has a hell of a lot of accusers, you know. And what, exactly, are the relative numbers represented by the phrase “almost all”?

I’m just flummoxed.

Then the editors move forward to make fun of Bob Dole in this companion editorial, titled … and These Are Silly. See, it follows up on the title of the first editorial. Get it?

Unable to contest the accuracy of Bob Dole’s observations regarding the minor nature of Kerry’s wounds, the editors resort to a cheap mocking of Dole as a crazy old coot:

Not good enough! You call those wounds? Why lemme tell you, young fella….

I swear I am not making this up.

The first editorial ends with this smug pronouncement:

Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false. Or at least, there is no good evidence that they are true.

Hmm. Not limited by anything except the desire to pursue the truth, I can say it outright: these editorials are poorly researched and utterly vacuous. At least, there is no good evidence that there is any substance to them whatsoever.

P.S. From the tenor of the editorial, you might think that the editors are philosophically opposed to the making of baseless charges. You’d be wrong. Indeed, one such charge opens the editorial: that President Bush is behind the Swift Boat Vets’ ads:

The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Of course, the editors don’t have a scrap of evidence that Bush is behind the ads. Sounds like a charge that is false. At least, there is no good evidence that it’s true.