"Anne implies that this posture is morally equivalent to refusing to judge the relative merits of genocide over those that fought against genocideThat's just silly."
No, Ann is using an extreme example to make a point, that O'Reilly is simply a pragmatist and does not deal with principles.
Kerry is running for the most important office in the World.
His lack of character in lying about his Vietnam record is a crucial issue in his ability to lead the country.
O'Reilly would have you believe that the facts cannot be learned, but they could if Kerry would sign a form 180
As voters we are going to have weigh the evidence and vote on what evidence is given to us (like jurors)
To say as O'Reilly does, we cannot never REALLY know is simply attempting to avoid doing the research necessary to know.
We elected one President (Clinton) because when conflicting stories came out, the American people held up their hands and said, 'who can tell who is telling the truth'
It is O'Reilly's responsibilty as a journalist to DIG out the facts and present them to the American public so we can know the truth.
This is a good point and one could make the argument that O'rilley is shirking his journalistic responsibility. But not every issue is as clear cut as the support or oppositition to genocide. I also understand that Anne is engaging in hyperbole to make her argument. I just think the hyperbole detracts, rather than bolsters, the argument.