Bush was no "badass" pilot-He backed away after screwing up-Interestingly, he couldn't land a plane

[grasswire]

10. excellent summary from 2004 by David Niewert

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/02/awol-next-question-please.html

The name of the Table Talk citizen journalist who got the FOIA documents in 2000 is Marty Heldt. A true patriot. An Iowa farmer.

Another part missing from the Texas Monthly story is the "torn document" that Bush offered as proof of his story.

From Niewert:

It's also tempting to chastize the press for its behavior. Why, we're all wondering, wasn't this story properly explored in 2000? Because every reporter in the country (even Walter Robinson, it must be noted) was too busy flogging the "Gore is a liar, Bush is a straight shooter" script we were all handed.

I have to mention that I tried my damnedest to bring this story to the attention of my editors and colleagues at MSNBC.com while I was there the summer of 2000, and later (after I'd left the newsroom) that fall, as well. The interest, sadly, just wasn't there.

Bob Somerby pointed out yesterday (and explores even further today, by way of pointing out the flaws in Josh Marshall's otherwise superb summary of the matter) that even the latest examinations of the matter are falling rather short.

As Somerby observes, the problem with Romano's story is that it omits any discussion of the supposed "exculpatory" evidence offered by Team Bush in 2000 that supposedly demonstrated that Bush had put in duty in November 1972 -- namely, the torn document that doesn't even have Bush's name on it.

Somerby put it this way:

But note the problem with Romano's account. Clearly, the Post has decided to ignore the torn document. But Romano doesn't even mention the document's existence -- and she doesn't say why the Post has decided to disregard it. Has the Post decided the doc is a fake? If so, that means that the Bush campaign has been peddling a fraud for the past four years. Or has the Post decided that the document is too ambiguous to be trusted? In that case, shouldn't the Post at least tell readers that the famous torn document exists?

In today's post, he carries the point to the next logical step:

Meanwhile, let's pause to note an obvious point: If the "torn document" turns out to be fake, this story becomes much more serious. Indeed, if the "torn document" turns out to be bogus, this story becomes quite an A-bomb. This may be why papers are tiptoe-ing hard ...

... Can we offer one final thought about the way this tale has been covered? Let's go back to that puzzling "torn document." Clearly, the Post has refused to credit the doc; today, the Times seems to back away in its vagueness. But if the famous torn document is judged invalid, an awkward fact is thereby created -- it means that the Bush campaign, for the past four years, has been peddling a military document that is phony. Our guess would be that none of these papers wants to step into that ugly mire. Our guess? Both these papers are hiding behind desks, hoping this story expires.

It's especially worth observing that this torn document was not provided to the Post in 1999 in response to its FOIA requests for Bush's military records -- but it was given to the Boston Globe in 2000, as well as to Iowa citizen farmer/public hero Marty Heldt, whose dogged legwork in the case has been largely responsible for keeping the story alive all these years. (Here is the complete set of documents compiled by Marty: The Military Records of George W. Bush.)

Indeed, Marty -- who posted much of the material at Salon's Table Talk forum beginning in 1999, which is where I first encountered the information -- had this to say today in TT:

The papers don't want to face the fact that the documents Bush uses to defend his Guard record are the documents his campaign had placed into the record.

How can that be ignored by journalists?

I keep going back to what we have here with Lloyd because I find it truly remarkable that this old acquaintance of Bush is first the currator and then the discoverer of the very documents that Bush uses to defend his record.

It's time that somebody calls it what it is, a coverup.

Eventually, they may get around to that. It depends on how long the Bush folks insist on trying to ignore the press' questions -- particularly the most germane one raised so far, namely: "Why doesn't Bush release his military records like every other presidential candidate?"