CBS hits triple, then thrown out at home

[tomfodw]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

For the most part, this is an actually decent article, with a few
hard-hitting moments, such as:

"Thirty-one years later, supporters of now-President Bush have been
critical of opponent John Kerry's Vietnam record. Now it's the
president's turn to answer tough questions about his own service."

But then, the article finishes with a huge thud:

"But like their Republican counterparts, Texans for Truth has a
credibility problem. While the chief accuser, former Alabama Guard
pilot Bob Mintz, says in the ad it would have been impossible for Mr.
Bush to have gone unnoticed, in an interview earlier this year with
CBS News, Mintz admitted he's not a smoking gun.

"'I cannot say he was not there,' Mintz said. 'Absolutely positively
was not there. I cannot say that. I cannot say he didn't do his
duty.'"

This is not in the tiniest bit remotely similar to the Shit Boat
Vermin's filthy lies. They KNOW they are lying, they speak without
any even minuscule doubts, they have been shown by every available
record to be knowingly full of shit and motivated by malice. Does
anyone - even CBS - think Mintz is a liar? That Mintz not only has it
in for Bush but has had it in for Bush for 35 years? That he's doing
this to spike sales of a book?

It's too bad the article ruins itself with this mealy-mouthed finish, because other than that it was actually one of the very rare examples this year of a report that did not merely serve as a megaphone for Bush administration bullshit but actually subjected that bullshit to a sharp analysis (forgive the mixing of metaphors) and announced that it was bullshit. But then it had to revert to type at the very end with a typical "he said/she said" sort of weak, unnecessary attempt at a meaningless "balance." Totally vitiated the impact of the preceding 90% of the article. Ick.


It is true that since Bush has an honorable discharge, the burden of
proof that he did not deserve it falls to his accusers. And the mere
accumulation of apparent evidence does not by itself prove that he
did not fulfill his military obligations. (Any more than sheer bulk
validates Bob Dole's and George H. W. Bush's logical solecism, that
all these men criticizing Kerry must prove he did something wrong.)
But that's in terms of a legal burden. There's plenty of evidence
that Bush shirked his duty and somehow got it covered up. And the man
is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Surely he must meet a higher
burden than simply, "Well, I'm proud of my service" (which I'm sure
he truly is; he probably thinks he was Audie Murphy).

No one has a right to high political office (the US Supreme Court
notwithstanding). No matter what Bush may think or his shifty
enablers may attempt to get away with, serious questions about his
service remain unanswered, and every little addition of detail merely
makes those questions loom larger. It's long past time for Bush to be
placed seriously on the defensive about HIS lapses 30 years ago. He's
never had to face the consequences; now, finally, may his chickens
please come home to roost.

[gratuitous]

1. Awk! Honorable discharge! Awk!

Except that Stupidhead's discharge status isn't what's being questioned; it's whether he disobeyed a direct order, or fulfilled his commitment. It's whether the taxpayers squandered their investment in training an irresponsible son of privilege, who weaseled out of his contractual commitment, and whose connections made enforcing the rules on him more trouble than it was worth.

Was George W. Bush pencil-whipped out of the service because his daddy is wealthy and well-connected? How did others fare in 1972 who blew off the last couple of years of their National Guard contracts?

[tomfodw]

3. I understand..

...except every time Bush's service record is questioned, his mouthpieces trot out the same old syllogism: He has an honorable discharge, he would have not have gotten an honorable discharge if he had not fulfilled his obligation, therefore he fulfilled his obligation.

The points you make are valid and so far never truly answered by Bush, but merely asserting them does not prove them. Even the Kilian memos are not proof, because their author is no longer alive to authenticate them or to answer questions about their origin. (Although those memos are certainly persuasive and, if true, damning.)

In logic, the person who questions an accepted position has the burden of proving his claim. I think Bush's honorable discharge is a crock, you think it's a crock, but what we think - by itself - doesn't mean a thing. We have to prove he didn't deserve it. I think we're finally about to do just that.

[grannylib]

2. "The Chickens are Coming Home to Roost" - now there's a catchy

phrase, and very apt, considering that the WH/Administration is a big ol' chicken coop full of chickenshits like W, 5-Deferments-Cheney-the-Dick,, 7-Deferments-Asscroft...Powell is the only exception, to my knowledge.
And of course there's Chimp supporter, Texas Tom DeLay, Mr. "They-Didn't-Have-Room-for-Me-Because-All-the-Minorities-Took-the-Good-Spots."
What a bunch of hypocrites.

[gauguin57]

4. Make it ...

... Now the CHICKENHAWKS are coming home to roost!