Seattle News Bites! seattlenewsbites@hotmail.com April 26, 2001

This morning, we thought we'd do something a bit different: a website comparison of the Times and the PI.

Looking at just their home pages, here's the scoop:

PI's top stories

• Kemp lost touch with lessons of Regrade Park
• Reservations remain after Amazon report
• FAA bans 737's use of pumps if fuel low
• Bush sets off a new furor with China
• VoiceStream deal OK'd by FCC
• Bush goes to bat for GOP funds
• Optional time-of-day power rates approved for Puget Sound Energy
• Bainbridge abuzz as stock regulators rein in Znetix
• Mill Creek Country Club sold

Looking at these two papers side-by-side is rather interesting because the TIMES actually begins with some MAJOR stories first!

Kerry admits killing Vietnamese civilians

Bush agrees to bargain on tax cut

Kemp lost touch with lessons of Regrade Park

Reservations remain after Amazon report

I mean, come on!

Kerrey, who was awarded the Bronze Star as a result of this incident, had received the Congressional Medal of Honor for being wounded in an unrelated incident, and is considered by many to be a hero, had just

publicly admitted to mistakenly killing civilians in what, even he calls, an atrocity,

knowing about it all this time,

and remaining silent about it to everyone, including his own family!

And what about the implications and controversy surrounding this whole incident.

Kerrey says his unit acted in self-defense after being fired upon, and that when the shooting was over, they only found women, children, and older men.

But two others, a former squad member and an eyewitness, both claim the civilians were intentionally lined-up and then shot to death at point-blank-range.

They further allege that the killings were done on the orders of Kerrey because the squad believed they wouldn't get out of the village any other way.

And what about Kerrey's silence all this time? Never coming forward until 30 years later despite knowing full well his unit had killed civilians!

And how about Newsweek Magazine's decision not to run its 1997 story about this incident on the basis they didn't have enough proof.Should they have run it anyway and let the readers decide? Who knows?