“Full Measure” debuts Oct. 4 nationwide
Posted on 08/04/2015 5:42:20 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
One might think that any story about a current presidential candidate’s alleged exaggeration or dishonesty of battle-like experience would warrant at least a mention of perhaps the oddest and most blatant case of all: that of Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ frontrunner. While running for office in 2008, Clinton incorrectly and repeatedly claimed she faced “sniper fire” on a trip to Bosnia in 1996. She stuck by the false story even after we aired CBS News video showing that no such thing had happened.
However, the Post did not deem the Clinton case relevant to its dissection of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham’s military service.
Read the Washington Post article
As to the first question, it appears the facts of the Washington Post story are correct.
As to the second question, one could take issue with some of the Post’s characterizations of the facts. The same facts could have been presented to the opposite effect, depending on the author’s chosen take.
Six examples follow:
1. The Post article’s thesis statement was: “…a detailed examination of Graham’s military record — much of it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act — shows that the Air Force afforded him special treatment as a lawmaker, granting him the privileges of rank with few expectations in return.”
The implication seems to be that something ominous and perhaps untoward happened.
Instead, one could have written: “…a detailed examination of Graham’s military record shows that Graham was well-regarded by superiors who gave him glowing evaluations, ranked him in the ‘top 1 percent of his peer group,’ said that Graham’s ‘mastery of criminal law evidence is proven in trial after trial,’ and once stated that Graham’s cross-examination of a murder suspect as ‘made Perry Mason look like a beginner’.”
2. The Post article stated: “In the Republican presidential contest, Graham is trading on his reputation as a foreign-policy expert.”
The implication appears to be that Graham may be improperly exploiting his foreign policy expertise for political gain.
Instead, one could have written: “In the presidential contest, Graham has the most extensive resume among Democrats and Republicans when it comes to foreign policy experience, military service as an officer and attorney, and assignments in hostile territory while a sitting member of Congress.”
3. The Post article stated: “In 2003, the Air Force assigned Graham to a new job: as a judge on its Court of Criminal Appeals. His workload would be unexpectedly light.”
The implication seems to be that Graham was assigned a sham job, with no real duties, as some sort of favor or privilege. However, that does not appear to be the case.
Instead, one could have written: “In 2003, the Air Force assigned Graham to a new job: as a judge on its Court of Criminal Appeals. But an airman convicted of drug use successfully challenged Graham’s unique status as both a judge and a sitting member of the Congress, forcing Graham off the Court. Graham pushed for, and received, a new assignment.”
4. The Post article stated: “Next, Graham was reassigned as a senior instructor at the Judge Advocate General’s School in Alabama. His personnel file states that his duties for the next three years were to provide ‘basic and advanced instruction in military legal practice to attorneys and paralegals.’ But there is no evidence that he ever did.”
The implication appears to be that Graham shirked his duty and misled when he listed the job title on his biography. However, it turns out Graham had opted, voluntarily, for a much riskier assignment that would take him to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Therefore, one could have written: “Next, Graham was assigned a stateside job as a senior instructor at the Judge Advocate General’s School in Alabama. But he forewent the teaching position to push for a more dangerous assignment in the Mideast: helping a task force oversee policy on detention of military prisoners.”
5. The Post article stated: “Graham buttonholed senior commanders and persuaded the Pentagon to grant him waivers to its policy” of prohibiting legislator-reservists from war zone assignments.
The use of the term “buttonhole” connotes a confrontational and possibly improper approach Graham used to garner an improper favor of some sort.
Instead, one could have written: “Normally, policy prohibits legislator-reservists from serving in ‘imminent danger areas,’ but Graham felt the contribution he could make in the riskier overseas assignment was so valuable, he successfully used his power of persuasion to convince the Pentagon to allow it.”
6. The Post article stated: “The Air Force agreed to let him deploy for unusually brief tours — between two days and two weeks — when it suited his schedule. He would travel to Iraq or Afghanistan with a congressional delegation, then stay to perform his military service.”
The implication seems to be that Graham shirked his duty, was granted inappropriate favors, and acted at his own convenience rather than in the interest of the military or the public.
Instead, one could have written: “Sen. Graham successfully balanced his demanding senate schedule and his military tours by deploying for up to two weeks at a time, often during congressional breaks and vacations. He frequently saved time and taxpayer dollars by traveling to Iraq or Afghanistan with a congressional delegation, then staying on to perform his military service.”
“Full Measure” debuts Oct. 4 nationwide
There’s nothing wrong with examining a public official’s service record or searching for mischief among his service files. The mistake can come if the investigation doesn’t deliver on the starting theory and the reporter fails to either drop the story or change the premise to reflect the actual revelations.
In this instance, the Post obtained Graham’s records through a Freedom of Information Act request and, instead of unearthing a scandal, found glowing evaluations. The matter from his files that they portrayed as the most damaging—that Graham held a stateside teaching title but did not teach—was not quite the blemish that the Post implied. A careful reading reveals that the reason Graham did not teach is because he opted for a more dangerous assignment: overseas duty in Iraq and Afghanistan working on detainee policy in the wake of the Abu Gharib detainee scandal. Instead of a case of a politician allegedly avoiding danger and taking the easy way out, this appears to be the reverse: Graham voluntarily putting himself closer to harm’s way as part of his military service.
So, while the Post’s facts appear to be accurate, for what many would view as unfair characterization of the facts, the article receives One Little Devil (ratings scale below). Admittedly, this is a matter of how you see it; readers can make up their own minds.
Linda served honorably, even though he was a REMF...and worse, a JAG.
Well to be fair, it was only recently that openly gay men could serve.
Normally a good reporter, Atkinson is showing both her and the Post, ignorance of the. Military.
Bottom line, Graham served minimally as a REMF, got undeserved promotions, and will be collecting a fat pension of $2700/mo.
I would like to know how he even qualified for 20 “Good years” of 50 points when his presence was so minimal.
I suppose they could have written this, but it would have been laughable:
“Instead, one could have written: “Normally, policy prohibits legislator-reservists from serving in ‘imminent danger areas,’ but Graham felt the contribution he could make in the riskier overseas assignment was so valuable, he successfully used his power of persuasion to convince the Pentagon to allow it.””
Not a fan of Graham, but this was definitely a hatchet job by the MSM. I’d expect nothing less from them.
Ping to Sharyl’s List Upchuck :)
Yep ... it was “don’t ask/don’t tell” when he was in the military.
I think he was (and is) a “jag off”.
No branch of the Republicans, whether staunch conservatives or the most worldly of the Establishment, shall ever be accorded even the least amount of sober respect from the mainstream leftist media. Oh, for tactical purposes, one or another of the Republicans would be given a little build-up in the primaries, but at crunch time, the Republican, regardless of stripe, will ALWAYS be branded as extremist, racist, sexist, homophobic, flat-earther, and reactionary at best. And when this is not enough, sometimes the MSM tells us how they REALLY feel, that the Republican was found in bed with either a dead girl or live boy. Doesn’t even have to be remotely the truth.
The playbook description never changes.
bkmk
Exactly...maybe Graham will learn an important lesson, but I doubt it.
Lindsey Graham is a feckless, duplicitous, treacherous, double dealing, backstabbing corksucker and I would never defend him for anything even if he were right.
He stated in last night’s Presidential Forum that persons with ample resources should refuse Social Security.
He mentioned he would receive a Senate Pension and a Military Pension.
Twice he said he could give up “some” of his Social Security.
He has no wife or children. Why does he require any Social Security?
Big question for me is why waste time reporting on Graham who doesn’t stand a chance? I think this piece was written as a diversion from real news, like Planned Parenthood donations to political candidates/parties and the senators who supported them.
Sharyl
Attkisson
Ping!
Want on or off this ping list? Just drop me a FReep mail.
Amazon link to Sharyl's latest book.
Good news! Sharyl will be hosting a 30 minute Sunday morning talk show on the Sinclair network this fall. Info.
Hitler’s poetry was quite good and his ideas for urban planning were first rate.
A candidate’s documented record jacket is irrelevant. What is relevant is his character and views. Graham’s character is one of grubbing for money and seeking special favors for press exposure; nothing of real or substantial merit, just opportunistic grubbing. Anything wrong with that? Not really, but not worth conferring one’s vote for someone that lacks ‘command presence’.
As to his views, he’s an old-school southern democrat that has taken up the fashion and necessity of putting an ‘R’ on his sleeve because it provides access to more grubbing opportunities.
In sum, he’s a phony, a ‘goody two shoes’ who will smile and offer a handshake to you if he thinks you’re a benefit to him for the moment. Anything wrong with that? Not really except it does not deserve an endorsement to be CINC.
Has he ever done a thing of any merit outside of a government job or position? Has he ever made an inspirational speech that was to be remembered? Did he ever build or run a private business? Does he have the face and presence of a person that would as President make the American people proud of their country? Good lord NO to all of the above!
In Hollywood, he would be lucky to make the ‘C’ list. He’s a real nobody.
So why is he running for President? Simply because it’s a quasi-legal way for politicians to collect bribes and pay themselves and satiate their bloated egos.
Sorry Sharyl, but this one is a no-go, barely a speck in the news day. Exposing the Washington Post’s duplicity and bias is commendable (although its bias and deceit are well-known to conservatives) but the subject of Lindsey Graham should not be the example from which the exposé should focus because not many outside a small cabal of former South Carolina democrats turned republican care about this nobody (he polls near 0%). A much better object of focus would have been Ted Cruz.
Really? Every JAG in the Air Force is a line officer first. And he volunteered to go to Iraq when there was a need for seasoned trial attorneys, asked (I speak from personal knowledge) for no special treatment, performed his duty fully and admirably, then left. On more than one occasion. He didn’t go outside the wire because that was outside the scope of his duties. I’m proud of my 29 years and 7 months (so far) of active and reserve Air Force JAG duty, and your statement shows a toxic bigotry toward people who do the jobs they were assigned and do them well.
Colonel, USAFR
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.