CBS's memo becomes a free pass for Bush

Thanks to your rush to kick off a new season of 60 Minutes II on Sept. 8 with big ratings, your bungling of what the pro-war blogosphere has dubbed "Memogate," your hesitation to admit the error of your ways and your blinkered eye on the bottom line, you carpet-bombed the U.S. presidential race with bluster and blather about proportional spacing, nuking what little remains of serious political discourse in the U.S. and making the Kerry-Edwards campaign collateral damage.

Meanwhile, the Bush-Cheney Jedi Mind Tricksters — what consortiumnews.com called them yesterday — laugh again, as the media underplay an ever-burgeoning budget deficit, a damaging internal intelligence report warning of an Iraqi civil war, Britain's impending withdrawal of troops from the "coalition," another lie by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the state and size of Iraqi security forces and just about any story that might damage George W. Bush's run for re-election.

Does nothing stick to this guy, who has yet to come clean about his alkie, Vietnam-evading past? After all, the basics of the CBS story were true, reported five years ago by Greg Palast and other real don't-just-play-one-on-TV reporters.

It's easy to imagine what Don Hewitt, the octogenarian executive producer who launched 60 Minutes in 1968 and who helmed it until CBS pushed him out last June, must think of all this. In 1998, when the network announced that it would extend his profitable franchise to a second night, he complained to me that, if it "had a Lucille Ball or a Jerry Seinfeld," it wouldn't be seeking to plug the schedule with a low-cost spinoff.

Concerned that the under-resourced second hour would "tarnish" the reputation of the original, he said, "News divisions, which used to be charged with finding news, are now charged with filling time."

As for all-news channels, filling time is all they do. Which is why, for the past six weeks or so, TV news has focused so much on side issues such as whether Democratic nominee John Kerry bled red-white-and-blue enough during and after his service in Vietnam, or if superscripted letters existed on typewriters in the 1970s.

The joke is, CBS's biggest critics — including bloggers, who now claim victory for killing the MSM (that's mainstream media, to you reading this column on paper) — still complain that the "legacy'' old media are "liberal media," an evil cabal hell-bent on bringing Bush down.

So how come then, if the Democrats have such a huge media advantage, Americans haven't heard much about, say, Bush's big April flip-flop on attacking Fallujah or his flip-flop last month on winning the war on terror as they have about Kerry's supposed flip-flop on voting for attacking Iraq?

FACT: U.S. Marine Lt.-Gen. James T. Conway, the outgoing commander in western Iraq, told reporters on Sept. 12 that he protested what seemed to be a political decision to attack Fallujah last spring. But he followed orders, sending the troops in. Three disastrous days later, with hundreds dead, another decision, apparently originating in the White House, was made to pull out. Conroy opposed that too but to no avail.

How much did you heard about that in this "liberal media" fuss over IBM Selectrics?

FACT: Last month, Bush told NBC that the war on terror could not be won. Then he clarified himself, by saying this was an unconventional, different war. And then his spokesperson Scott McClellan clarified the clarification, explaining that, while the U.S. couldn't "win," it could "prevail" against terror.

How much have you heard about that in this "liberal media" focus on copies from Kinko's?

FACT: In 2002, Kerry voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam but only, as he said then, "To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies."

Ask yourself if you've heard that elucidated in this "liberal media" crush to crucify CBS anchor Dan Rather who, a week after 9/11, got behind Bush on David Letterman's show, saying, "Wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where."

Now, of course, conservative pundits and their acolytes in the cybersphere are calling for Rather's head, because he has destroyed his credibility.

Frankly, he did that long ago, even before he told BBC two years ago that fear of political reprisal "keeps (American) journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions," adding "I do not except myself from this criticism."

So thanks, Dan. You've fixed it so that even fewer journalists will stick their necks out now.

As for credibility, consider that journalists (eg. the New York Times' Judith Miller) parroted the lies of now-disgraced Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi, who sold them on victory parades with flowers and sweets. The White House — and its cyber-dupes — engineered that con job. But are they apologizing for that? Nah.

So thanks CBS. Thanks for being "liberal" and all your good investigative work. Now please don't do us any more favours. Additional articles by Antonia Zerbisias

from The Hill - Byron York

Bush’s National Guard years Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard? That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in? News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did: The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training. That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years. Not two years of weekends. Two years. After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation. According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis). Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that? That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee). Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. “In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.” So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement. Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently. In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year. Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service. During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot. A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.” A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.” Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush’s service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry’s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. And, as it is with Kerry, it’s reasonable to look at a candidate’s entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it’s important or not in November. The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons. And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s. In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.” Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush. That’s fine. We should know as much as we can. And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.

Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.