QandO
Questions and Observations| « Selective data | Main | Kerry on Imus » |
|
February 13, 2004 Corrections.... On today's NYTimes correction page.... An article yesterday about a 1998 complaint by a retired Texas National Guard officer, Bill Burkett, that aides to Gov. George W. Bush improperly screened Mr. Bush's Guard files misstated the surname of an author whose new book reports the accusation. He is James Moore, not Morris.Well, that's not the only correction they'll be making to that story. Apparently, the aides cited deny the story... But a key witness to some of the events described by Burkett has told the Globe that the central elements of his story are false.The other aides denied the story, as well. The books author responds..."I think we're into a classic he-said, she-said". No, we're in a classic case of "he said....he didn't say". Every cited aide denies the story, and some point out they were never even there. The author "concedes he never interviewed some of the key players who could have verified Burkett's charges". The AWOL story just gets weaker and weaker, doesn't it? Link via Captains Quarters, who writes... Listening to Hugh Hewitt's show yesterday, Peter Beinhart of The New Republic vehemently accused Hugh of irresponsible journalism by mentioning the Drudge Report story about Kerry's alleged infidelity without having done any responsible verification of the sources, in effect making Kerry publicly prove his innocence without having any evidence of his guilt. However, TNR and every other media outlet has done the exact same thing to George Bush despite the normal presumption of innocence and the extraordinary presumption of satisfactory and complete service that an Honorary Discharge presents. Instead, for at least the file-shredding accusations, every media outlet in the country relied on a single source that its investigator never felt the need to verify with the people he accused of participating in the cover-up! |
The point of the AWOL story was never to prove that Bush was AWOL. It was to highlight that he avoided Vietnam while John Kerry did not. That comparison - Valiant Principled Kerry vs. Cowardly Hypocritical Bush was always the motivation behind the story.
The media always knew Bush was honorably discharged and the media always knew the Guard was a part-time duty. But when people think of military service during Vietnam, they think of active continuous service. The fact that Bush got any time off from service, despite the fact that every Guard member is part-time, is meant to show he had it easy vs. John Kerry and all those who did deploy to Vietnam.
The evidence is this week, that is where the stories have turned. Last night on Hardball with Chris Matthews, "Do you think President Bush avoided going to Vietnam by joining the National Guard?" Last night on CNN, "The Civil War defined Presidential elections for 100 years. Perhaps it is not surprising that even 35 years later, the question is 'What did you do in the war'?"
This accusation of cowardice has always been the point of the story, and this is what the President needs to directly address. I don't know how, but perhaps a little anger would help.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight - nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety - is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions and blood of better men than himself."
- John Stuart Mill -
Posted by: Scott Harris at February 13, 2004 10:17 AM
Now, if people would only go around to Vietnam Guardsmen -- and the families of the ones who died -- to tell them Kerry thinks they're all cowards...
Posted by: Adrianne Truett at February 13, 2004 10:20 AM
Oh, the story is getting even better. Two National Guardsmen have come forward and they remember seeing Bush during the dates in question. But even THAT isn't enough for the left on this one.
Check out the comments at CalPundit: they're accusing the Guardsmen of accepting bribes to concoct these stories.
I swear, these people are in serious need of strong psychotropic drug therapy.
Posted by: Steverino at February 13, 2004 06:44 PM