[Changleen]

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0914-12.htm

Media Should Probe Bigger Questions About Bush's Record

WASHINGTON - September 14 - In the past week, a handful of stories have cast doubt on whether George W. Bush fulfilled his National Guard obligations 30 years ago. Reports by the Associated Press (9/7/04), Boston Globe (9/8/04) and U.S. News & World Report (9/20/04) have all raised new questions about Bush's military service. Though each of these stories has been accompanied by significant official documentation, developments in the investigations by AP, U.S. News and the Boston Globe have been largely sidetracked by the fixation on questions about the authenticity of documents aired on CBS on September 8.

Weighing the credibility of evidence is an essential function of journalism. Experts have weighed in on both sides on the authenticity of CBS's so-called Killian memos (New York Times, 9/14/04; Washington Post, 9/14/04); efforts to establish the origin of those documents should continue. However, news outlets that focus on this tangent of the National Guard story to the exclusion of the unchallenged new evidence that has recently emerged are neglecting another essential journalistic task: holding powerful people and politicians accountable.

In the wake of the stories scrutinizing Bush's stateside service during the Vietnam era, it's hard to imagine a better situation for the White House than to have the press corps ignore a range of evidence raising questions about Bush's fulfillment of his obligations while obsessing singularly on one set of documents from one story.

A review of some of the information uncovered in recent news reports:

--The September 7 Associated Press story, based on new records the White House had long maintained didn't exist, debunked a Bush assertion that he'd skipped his flight physical because the jet he was trained on was becoming obsolete. According to AP, Bush's unit continued to fly the same jets for two years after the missed physical.

--The September 8 Boston Globe expose concluded that Bush failed in his military obligations by missing months of duty in Alabama and in Boston.

As the Globe revealed, Bush had signed contracts on two separate occasions swearing to meet minimum Guard requirements on penalty of being called up to active duty. According to the military experts consulted by the Globe, Bush's Guard attendance was so bad "his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973 or 1974."

--U.S News & World Report (9/20/04) reviewed National Guard regulations and reported that the White House has been using "an inappropriate-- and less stringent-- Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty." The magazine noted that Bush committed to attend at least "44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year" when he signed up for the Guard, but that Bush's own records "show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period." The magazine explains that even by using the White House's preferred methodology for measuring Bush's service, he still fell short of those minimum requirements.

--An NBC Nightly News segment (9/9/04) played a clip of Bush being interviewed in 1988, acknowledging that favoritism sometimes played a part in getting into the National Guard. While he had said that he didn't think that happened in his case, he did voice his approval of the practice: "If you want to go in the National Guard, I guess sometimes people made calls. I don't see anything wrong with it." (He continued with a remark that could be taken as an insult to the men and women who did face combat during the war: "They probably should have called the National Guard up in those days. Maybe we'd have done better in Vietnam.")

Even CBS's September 8 broadcasts, the subject of so much scrutiny, included important information beyond what is contained in the disputed memos. On the CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes II that night, CBS featured Ben Barnes, the former speaker of the Texas legislature, describing how he used his political influence to help a young George W. Bush bypass a waiting list and secure a coveted position in the Guard. In addition, the CBS stories also featured an interview with Robert Strong, a former colleague of Bush's commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the purported author of the disputed documents. Strong described the pressure Bush's commander was working under: "He was trying to deal with a volatile political situation, dealing with the son of an ambassador and a former congressman.... And I just saw him in an impossible situation. I felt very, very sorry because he was between a rock and a hard place."

Instead of asking the White House tough questions about the well-documented information contained in these reports, media have focused almost exclusively on the claims and counter-claims made about the Killian memos-- as if the discrepancies over Bush's service record stand or fall based on this one set of disputed documents. It's the equivalent of covering the sideshow and ignoring the center ring.

This article raises a good point about the lack of focus on the actuall story at hand, and is all well and good, if the media wants to run stories about stuff that happened 30 years ago, then they should at least do it properly.

However, I would content that this is all still crap. When are we going to see the media actually focus on the issues of this election, now. What about Bush vs. Kerry on the environment? What about Foreign policy? You're just not seeing it and to me that is the worst problem with your 'Democratic Elections.'

 

[BurlyShirley]

Chang, I think its you that's actually missing the point. See, if the media focused on "real issues" as you suggested, than this race would be long over. John Kerry is falling apart as is and these types of mudslinging are all our liberal media can do to make this a race at all. You're correct that it doesnt matter, but in the interest of getting their candidate a shot, the media is doing what it can to prolong anything that shows bush in a negative light. Since there is nothing of worth to actually prove in a probe though, you get what we're seeing now.

 

[Changleen]

Unfortunatley you are right that John Kerry is running a pretty piss-poor excuse for a campain. I totally disagee that your media is liberal biased, though. If they were, then maybe they could hel JFK out a little - I mean there is quite a lot of ammo out there which could be quite easily used against Bush.

What about, for example, Bush's record on the environment? It's horrible - Environmental lobby groups are awash with articles titled thing like: 'The Bush environmental Record: Putting the Polluters First'.

Bush has for example:

Rolled back clean air standards. Example: It has failed to enforce, and proposed to weaken, the current law's requirement that electric power utilities reduce their emissions, including emissions of particularly toxic mercury.

Failed to take any steps, domestically or internationally, to begin the process of curbing our greenhouse gas emissions that are the cause of our changing climate. This failure of responsibility and leadership will be paid for by our children and subsequent generations.

Slowed clean up of toxic waste sites while making taxpayers, not the polluters, foot the bill.

Broken its campaign promise to fund the increased maintenance and upgrading of national parks.

Cut back protections for endangered species.

I could go on and on - Why aren't these issues being investigated? Does nobody actually care? Please enlighten me - As a mountain biker don't you think these sorts of issues are a little important?

 

[Skookum]

but in the interest of getting their candidate a shot, the media is doing what it can to prolong anything that shows bush in a positive light.

http://www.foxnews.com/

Beyond that though you can believe what you want about Bush, he's got the right people working for his campaign. Stand inactive while the smear campaign ensues just like he did with McCain, then when he reacts they look sappy. Just like chess you always want your opponent to react to you... Kind of like how we're losing the battle in Iraq.... oops did i say that?

 

[Changleen]

but in the interest of getting their candidate a shot, the media is doing what it can to prolong anything that shows bush in a negative light. Since there is nothing of worth to actually prove in a probe though, you get what we're seeing now.

As the article above is trying to point out - There IS better stuff out there, and the press is getting wrapped up in a 'side issue' whilst ignoring the good stuff.