Remember the flack about CBS not verifying the handwriting on certain military memos related to our President avoiding military service? Remember the apologies? Remember the resignations?
Good. That’s what you’re supposed to remember …
… because doing so makes you far more likely to forget about this.
Remember the flack about CBS not verifying the handwriting on certain military memos related to our President avoiding military service? Remember the apologies? Remember the resignations?
Good. That’s what you’re supposed to remember …
… because doing so makes you far more likely to forget about this.
I'm a husband, mystic, writer, media producer, creative director, tinkerer, blogger, reader, gadget lover, and pizza fiend.
I am no supporter of Bush, and also not a Republican, but I gotta speak up here. Saying that Bush never did this or that because the documentation can’t be found is pretty reckless and just makes one look prejudiced and unreliable as a source of information (at least, it should do that).
Ask anyone who’s been in the military and they will tell you: you can’t just go anywhere you please, whenever you please. You don’t move from one unit to another without orders. They tell you where to be, when to be there, and what clothes to be wearing while you are there. The day you fail to show to your assigned duty, it is marked and noted by more than one or two folks. If you go missing from a command where you’ve been stationed for some time, it does not escape ANYONE’S attention.
Consider this: I failed to report for duty for a week in 1990. Regulations say that if an enlistee fails to report for work he must attend Captain’s Mast and possibly face Court Martial for desertion or derilection of duty. Yet no records exist that show that I was ever punished.
Why? Because I had had my wisdom teeth removed that week. I wasn’t expected to work because I was on medication. But one wouldn’t know that unless they consulted my medical record–which MAY or MAY NOT even mention it. Records back then were partly on very basic computers and partly on very error-prone/incomplete paper documents. Chances are that this required no more than a small medical slip from the Dentist, which would be seen only by my CPO.
Let’s say that someone else finds physical proof that I had my wisdom teeth removed in 1990, but that it was months after I was discharged and could therefore not possibly excuse missing work. That would seem irrefutable, but the fact is that I had one side removed while on active duty and one side removed after I left the Navy.
And that’s just one situation off the top of my head. How about the fact that I left training in 1986 but did not report to my workshop until 1987? There’s a thing called TAD (temporary assigned duty) which may or may not have any paperwork in my record–because it was spent standing watch, washing airplanes, and grinding corrosion. Yet if I’d not shown up for even a single day, believe me, it could not have easily been swept under the carpet by anyone.
This is no different from the attacks on Kerry’s service record. There is always more to the story than we will ever know, and there is no such thing as an unbiased news source in the first place. And bottom line, though the accuracy of military records is questionable (not to mention that they tell as incomplete a story as the Bible does of any character within), if you go missing, they know about it.
Rahnefan wrote: Saying that Bush never did this or that because the documentation can’t be found is pretty reckless…
Mark notes: You’ve mastered what’s called the “Straw Man” technique — distorting the argument under consideration (thus, creating a “straw man”), attacking your own distortion (thus, going after the “straw man” you created), and then dismissing the original argument because you’ve dismantled your own distortion of it.
Here, you’ve reduced real and important questions about the President’s service record — what is documented, what isn’t, and what information he may have intentionally distorted at the time — to this: “Oh, well, military records aren’t always accurate. Mine aren’t. So, this is a non-issue.”
That’s a handy way to ignore the real issue: legitimate questions about the information Mr. Bush did supply, and the overwhelming amount of documentation that appears to be (rather conveniently) missing from his records.
– Critics have repeatedly asked Mr. Bush to cite one person — just one! — he served with during his military service. NOT ONE PERSON has stepped forward with tales of serving beside our Commander-in-Chief. Why?
– Information Mr. Bush supplied on his transfer request was to reflect a “permanent address.” He supplied a temporary post office box in the city where he was campaigning. This information isn’t missing — it’s just wrong (and deceptive).
– Mr. Bush had no clue as to which Air Force specialty code described his work as a pilot, and repeatedly wrote down the wrong ones. Would you expect an active pilot to know his own specialty?
– When Mr. Bush attempted a transfer to a unit in Alabama, the unit’s commander noted in the record that such a transfer was “unsuitable” — but Bush continued to push for it. Why?
-Mr. Bush was, ostensibly, a pilot. Documentation exists to show he was formally grounded for not reporting to take mandatory physicals. Mr. Bush, a “former pilot,” now says he can’t remember wheher or not he was ever grounded!
And so on, and so on, and so on.
Rahnefan wrote: This is no different from the attacks on Kerry’s service record.
Mark notes: I beg to differ.
When Kerry was attacked, he responded with full disclosure of his military record. Unfounded attacks, including many that had been proven baseless years ago, were widely and uncritically broadcast by the media.
When Mr. Bush’s record is attacked, we are greeted with secrecy, partial disclosure, an overwhelming number of missing documents, and a partial medical record. When his record is questioned, Mr. Bush “can’t recall” whether he experienced the worst punishment that can be levied against a pilot. When a major network prepared to broadcast complete details of Mr. Bush’s failure to serve, one feature of their story was seized upon and discredited … and then successfully used as a means of suppressing coverage of other, well-documented issues contained within that story.
If these two situations still look parallel to you, I’d say your perspective leaves something to be desired.
I mastered a technique? Um…thanks? ; ) Except I wasn’t trying to ignore the issue – handily or not – and certainly not distort anything.
The difference here is that you seem to have a certain amount of faith in the news. I don’t. Whether it’s about W or whoever, if it makes the news, then it’s already been distorted, and if it’s election year or coming from whichever party is not in office, it’s come to be expected.
Mark wrote:Here, you’ve reduced real and important questions about the President’s service record — what is documented, what isn’t, and what information he may have intentionally distorted at the time — to this: “Oh, well, military records aren’t always accurate. Mine aren’t. So, this is a non-issue.”
No, I have reduced one of many typical partisan attacks to “we don’t know, possibly no one does, and attacks like this are just too easy.” I would add to that that it comes from both sides, only whichever side wins an election seems to quiet down a little afterward.
It just reeks of bias, man. You don’t see it? Same old stuff. I agree with you that if his service record was deliberately fudged, then it is serious and should have consequences. But it’s my hunch that secrecy, partial disclosure, missing documents, etc. are bipartisan commodities; one party is better at maintaining the image of integrity but is it really there?
Whichever party is not in office creates a new conspiracy every day. Based on some element of truth? Usually. One side is in the business of making the other look bad, and if you believe it, then it really doesn’t look parallel. But I reject the notion that one is much better than the other, by the time they get in the big leagues. Maybe I should have more faith in people, I don’t know, but these kinds of things only seem to diminish everyone’s credibility. I’ve thought that through three Presidents now. If that makes my perspective less than desirable, fine.
Ranefan wrote: You seem to have a certain amount of faith in the news.
Mark notes: Oh, goodness, no. In America, the vast majority of news sources are controlled by corporate interests. Journalism, especially investigative journalism, has pretty much ceased to exist. In its place, we are treated to puppet shows and shouting matches.
Ranefan wrote: It just reeks of bias, man. You don’t see it?
Mark replies: Of course I do! However, when 90% of the news we encounter is biased in favor of the current administration, content biased against that administration provides a welcome contrast.
Ranefan wrote: It’s my hunch that secrecy, partial disclosure, missing documents, etc. are bipartisan commodities.
Mark replies: On this, we agree.
Ranefan wrote: If [Bush’s] service record was deliberately fudged, then it is serious and should have consequences.
Mark replies: On this, we also agree. But how do we bring those consequences about, especially in the current suppressive climate? How do we get to the truth of the matter when real questions about a leader’s record are dismissed as nothing more than partisian ploys?
Beats me.