September 08, 2004

Old Media Strikes Back
Posted by Dale Franks

John McIntyre of RealClearPolitics, notes with interest that today seems to be "W Was AWOL Day" in Old Media today. He's not impressed.

I love it when post-hippie 1970 liberals indignantly throw around words like "evaded service in Vietnam." Of course for eight years while Bill Clinton was Commander in Chief this was a non-issue, but suddenly they are enraged that somebody might have "evaded service in Vietnam" by serving in the National Guard. Now liberals will say the issue is not that Bush served in the National Guard, but rather how he got into the National Guard. But Kristof's own words accuse the President very directly of "evading service in Vietnam."

The hypocrisy here is so stunning and the gall of baby boomer, anti-war lefties getting all self-righteous about "evading service" is a joke. The fact the Left has decided to go back to the trough on this issue just shows how few attractive avenues of attack they have left against the President. This is a sign of weakness, not strength.

Yeah, it's funny how, 30 years ago, people who fled to Canada to avoid the draft were heroes to people like Kristoff. They were sticking to the establishment, man. And, they were certainly keen to excuse Bill Clinton for not going into the service. Now, all the sudden, it's deeply, deeply important that Mr. Bush didn't go to Vietnam.

One wonders how they'd feel about a soldier who refused to serve in Iraq today. Hero of conscience, or evader of duty?

There's a lot more to McIntyre's post, so read the whole thing.

TrackBack

Comments

I don't give a rat's ass that Bush didn't go to Vietnam. I do give a rat's ass that he may have lied about what he *did* do at that time. Let's look into it, then decide based on what we find out. There is no statute of limitations on lying by leaders or their replacements-in-waiting. Just as Leo and Barone said...it's a character issue.

BTW, "hypocrisy" is no longer a word that I have any respect for. Being proven hypocrites has not altered the behavior of combatants on either side, politicians and supporters. Simply put, there is no downside to being proven a hypocrite. So let's drop the false outrage on that score.

Posted by: Nash at September 8, 2004 12:47 PM

There is no statute of limitations on lying by leaders or their replacements-in-waiting...it's a character issue.
Fair enough. The truth will out. However, this ANG issue has been hashed out so much in the media already that it is effectively a dead horse. The electorate already knows that there are holes in GWB's record and I am sure it has already factored into the polling numbers. That the media are rehashing this story in such masturbatory apoplexy only gives further evidence that they are in the tank with JFK.

Yes, THAT liberal media.

Posted by: D at September 8, 2004 12:56 PM

What's the point here?

If there is hypocrisy, it is on both sides. The flip side of your point is that if evading the draft was so important to the GOP during the Clinton years, why now has it ceased to become so important? It's obvious Bush joined the NG to avoid going to Vietnam. He has said as much. Remember, he did not want to go to Canada or shoot his eardrum out.

The issue that is most pertinent is whether having avoided to going to Vietnam he lied about what he did. That issue was pretty much a dead one until the whole Swift Boat Vet thing arose. But now that Bush (thru his surrogates) has chosen to open the issue back up, his record again becomes fair game.

And now we learn that those statements that all the documents about his service record had been disclosed WERE NOT TRUE.

Lets say both Kerry and Bush lied about their records, for purposes of argument. Which would you rather have? One who exaggerated the extent of his combat experience? Or one who lied about even showing up for guard duty? The question answers itself, doesn't it?

Sign of weakness my ass.

Posted by: mkultra at September 8, 2004 01:21 PM

There is a huge difference between burning your draft card and joining the National Guard as a fighter pilot. You would do yourself some credit to remind yourself of such differences before you start spouting off.
There is "avoiding duty" and "choosing the more comfortable among choices of duties". What President Bush did regarding service during Viet Nam was no different than what John Kerry did, initially. Except that President Bush didn't use a loophole to leave early and then slander his colleagues to boost his political career.

Posted by: Nathan at September 8, 2004 01:48 PM

The issue that is most pertinent is whether having avoided to going to Vietnam he lied about what he did.

I agree. Not sure who you were responding to, but that's what I said before.

That issue was pretty much a dead one until the whole Swift Boat Vet thing arose.

Through the undeniable brilliance of my response to your next comment, I will demonstrate that this is a true, but smoke-and-mirrors, statement.

But now that Bush (thru his surrogates) has chosen to open the issue back up, his record again becomes fair game.

This has, throughout the "Is it more reprehensible to trash Bush or Kerry" debate, been a canard. It is simply disingenuous to continue to cry that we wouldn't point out that your zipper was down if you hadn't pointed out that our socks didn't match. Good gosh, my co-conspirators, this is politics! Get a backbone, you Dems and you Reps! You shouldn't expect your opponent to wait for permission from you to trash you and you shouldn't ask them pretty please to do likewise. Buck up! Politics is a contact sport--so quit looking for an excuse to call your behavior a quid pro quo. Dems, do you really think that Swift Boats would never have entered the vernacular if Kerry had just been a polite little fellow and run on something other than his "war" record? Reps, do you truly think that the spring ANG fling was going to be last of it, but the Dems are just manufacturing fake outrage in order to bring it up again? Come on, brethren--grow spines. Be nasty unto each other. It's called "politics."

Posted by: Nash at September 8, 2004 02:08 PM

mkultra: He "said as much"? When?

And why would he sign up for a six year guard stint, flying a plane that was serving in Vietnam, with a unit serving in Vietnam, to avoid going to Vietnam?

Do you have anything here other than "I hate Bush"?

"Lied about showing up for Guard duty"? Show me. And "they can't find the records, therefore he lied" isn't going to cut it.

Posted by: Sigivald at September 8, 2004 06:33 PM

mkultra
your use of the passive 'were disclosed' is misleading when used to attack Bush.
Bush signed the authorization to have all his records released long ago.
If you read the statement by the Feds this week, these latest records are of a kind normally destroyed; the Feds assumed they had been destroyed and did not search for them; in response to a lawsuit they did a more thorough search and found some records were not destroyed.
Bush was not custodian of the records, he did not direct the first search that missed them or the second search that found them.

Posted by: Chris B at September 8, 2004 06:46 PM