Bill Hobbs has very thoroughly documented, in non-partisan fashion, the "Bush was AWOL" and "Bush tried to get out of service in Vietnam" stories, and shows that they cannot be taken seriously.
If they start giving out an award for online journalism, Hobbs needs to be the first recipient. He's not only a professional reporter, but he also used the internet--especially the peer-review power of the blogosphere--as the fulcrum for his lever.
Simply start with his current posting, and read all the rest he links to on his blog. Anyone not satisfied after that needs to explain why Hobbs is lying, or to seek help from mental health professionals.
In a similar vein, I have, on several sites, found various photographs of President Clinton dressed in military garb as he visits various military facilities. Also photos of President Grant sitting surrounded by his First Family and in military garb in the White House. I also found several pictures of prominent Democratic members of the House and Senate wearing various forms of military garb on their visits to various American military facilities. I was planning to post them today but, alas, I have lost most of those links. Has any kind soul out there found any of these? If so I'd love to hear about it.
One I don't need is the one that Donald Sensing found, which would be the photo of Democratic Senator Pat Leahy in the same kind of flight suit as George Bush, available right on Leahy's own web site. It woulda been nice if I could have married that to the others I found. But the point is made.
By the way, Christopher Lansdown has a very nice essay on why landing on the aircraft carrier was both classy and appropriate, and why people having conniptions over this need to drop it. The political instincts of the President's critics on this matter have gone haywire, and they're just making themselves look foolish.
Good article by Hobbs. And yes, he does present it in a non-partisan fashion.
By the way, I personally don't care much about whether the Bush family pulled strings to get W into the National Guard. I could easily believe it either way you want. Bottom line: Who cares?
Fact is, Bush didn't go to Vietnam. And you know what? It don't make me no never mind.
But on the other thing, where Hobbs implies that the "Bush went AWOL" stories are unserious...well, I beg to differ.
Hobbs loses me because he doesn't address what I think is the one central uncomfortable fact of the story.
Here's how Walter Robinson states it in his original report in the Boston Globe, October 31, 2000:
"From May to November 1972, Bush was in Alabama working in a US Senate campaign, and was required to attend drills at an Air National Guard unit in Montgomery. [emphasis added]
"But there is no evidence in his record that he did so. [emphasis added]
OK. Stop right there. Hobbs rightfully points out (and I'm paraphrasing) "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Military record-keeping being shoddy and all.
Hmmm. I don't come from a military background, so maybe he's right. But given the cultural sterotype of military forms being filled out in triplicate, that somehow sounds odd.
But never mind. Here's the part that I can't get past:
"And William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded the Alabama unit back then, said in an interview...last week that Bush never appeared for duty there. [emphasis added]"
The General in charge says he never appeared for duty. He doesn't say "I don't remember him" as did the Colonel; the General, the man in charge flatly states that Bush never showed up.
Now, Hobbs jump-cuts to the end of the story and appropriately points out that Bush got an honorable discharge.
But that presents another uncomfortable notion -- that in the Texas/Alabama National Guard of the early 70's you can "never appear" and still be honorably discharged.
Whatever.
Fact is, after all this time I don't much care.
Here's what bugs me about this story:
1) No one in the media really wants to get to the bottom of this. They didn't then and they don't now.
When the story appeared in 2000 it was in and out of the news in record time. The only two stories about it contradicted each other. And no one cared much about reconciling the conflicting details.
You could at least have said that it was a 25 year old story about a troubled young man who had since straightened out his life. And you'd have a pretty good case.
But that kind of thoughtful response had never stopped the news media before.
In the end, this story belies the myth of a "liberal media."
The other thing that bothers me is this:
2) Bush opponents and proponents are using this story to justify their pre-conceived notions of the guy in question.
Both sides have long ago made up their minds about Bush and will twist themselves into pretzels to avoid changing their minds whatever the facts are.
If you love the guy you blow off this story. If you hate the guy you use it to nurse a grudge about him.
Bottom line: Why not get to the bottom of the story and find the truth?
What passes for journalism these days is pretty pathetic.
Er, you didn't read all of Hobbs' material, or you'd know that Hobbs directly addresses two of the issues you say he doesn't.
As for the notion that failure to follow up on one story belies the notion that the media leans left: no one ever said the media was avowedly Marxist, or that everything always cuts one way. Bias means you lean, that's all.
Some people will believe whatever they want. Evidence matters to me.
As for not following up on the story disproving the media has a liberal bias, there are two main points:
(1) Given that this looks like a non-story, they may have decided that this wasn't going anywhere, and getting things substantially wrong looks dangerous. Who wants to be seen as attacking the president with unsubstantiated facts?
(2) The media has more forces in it than a liberal bias. For example, greed. And a desire for fame. Greed generally manifests itself in a need for ratings, and who is going to care about being AWOL when the military doesn't seem to have cared? It doesn't have any sex in it.
Dean:
I'm tired of the whole thing, frankly.
I read the Hobbs stuff before. He, and everyone else, is just going back again to the original material from October/November in the Times and the Globe, which I also read. They're re-parsing the original content (and, in the case of Sully, rather selectively).
The original piece in the Globe was pretty exhaustive and was not written by a partisan. If anything he was even more hostile to Gore later with his infamous "doggy-pill" story.
And the piece in the Times was contradictory to the Globe and, well, kind of sketchy. Perhaps, in hindsight, you could say it was indicative of the low journalistic standards to which the Times has so infamously sunk of late.
In the end, you missed my point entirely.
Well actually you missed it and proved it at the same time: Pro-Bushies will stuff 10 pounds of facts into a five pound bag to conform to their picture of Bush. The Colonel says Bush never showed up? He's got a "bad memory."
Same for the Anti-Bush crowd. Bush never showed up? Shows what money can do for you when your ass is on the line.
How tiresome. The vast majority of both sides made up their minds about Bush a long time ago, and no amount of fact-checking is going to change their minds.
What happened to the truth?
Chris:
1) Given that this looks like a non-story, they may have decided that this wasn't going anywhere, and getting things substantially wrong looks dangerous. Who wants to be seen as attacking the president with unsubstantiated facts?
The press decided this was a non-story? going nowhere? For sure. I think that's a pretty good explanation of what happened.
BTW, you're confusing the flap back in 2000 (when Bush was a candidate) with the warmed-over revisionism of today, when Bush is POTUS.
Don't forget my main point: I really don't care one way or the other if Bush was in Alabama or not; I just want people to stop stuffing 10 pounds of facts into a five pound bag.
And that goes double for the press.
No, Hobbs has done original investigatve work, and went beyond any previously published pieces. You still haven't read all of his material, or, you wouldn't be saying any of this.
There are 10 pounds of fact here. I'm finding this a genuinely bizarre conversation as a result.
I read it. AND I'm sticking to my original point. Go back and re-read THAT, pal.
No, I'll save you the trouble -- here's my point in 15 words:
"No one cared then about the facts and they don't care now. More's the pity."
Yes, well, unfortunately, I do care about the facts, as do journalists like Hobbs, which is why your repeated false-to-fact assertions are so bizarre.
Hobbs has done intensive work beyond the NYT and Globe stories, and has cited numerous sources beyond those two. He has demonstrated, definitively, that lost paperwork is normal. He has demonstrated why the general's memory should be considered faulty. He has shown that there is an utter lack of evidence to believe anything except that Bush was never AWOL. All based on hard facts and investigation.
You haven't read it all, because you keep saying things that are directly false about Hobbs' work.
Methinks the only one who doesn't care about the facts is the person saying that no one else does.
There is no rational basis any longer for any belief that Bush was ever AWOL. As the facts, and nothing but the facts, compellingly demonstrate.
Those were some pretty exact figures there, but I'm still not voting for him! *chuckle*
However, as someone who served five years of active duty in the 'Corps, my hat is off to him for his honorable service. I don't hold it against him that he didn't want to go to 'Nam. I served in a non-combat MOS myself. His service, though, has little to do with his current dealings, which make me quite reluctant to trust him. Therefore, no trust, no vote.
This sounds strangely similar to what Republicans attempted to do to Clinton. Does anybody believe this, or is it just cynical me?
I would like to know what you all think of this.
http://www.counterpunch.org/tripp05082003.html