A-Dubya-O-L Impacts At Last
by Dave "Doctor" Gonzo
Monday, Oct. 30, 2000 -- NEW YORK (AmpolNS) -- It sure as heck took long enough.
This morning's edition of the Boston Globe ran a lengthy and relatively thorough follow-up on questions surrounding Bush's Texas Air National Guard service. You can read the entire article at http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/305/nation/Questions_remain_on_Bush_s_service_as_Guard_pilot+.shtml
Naturally, the article doesn't use such inflammatory but accurate terms as "AWOL" or "deserter." But there is no mistaking the message of a article that, at the top, quotes Bush as saying that the Air Guard job taught him "[t]he responsibility to show up and do your job,'' and then explains that "Democrats are crying foul, saying that Bush has overstated his own record."
Overstated? Try lied -- by omission, by coverup, by any means necessary!
The story points out a few specific discrepancies concerning both Bush's "official" biography and claims made by his campaign. When compared to the paper trail uncovered by enterprising journalists using the Freedom of Information Act, the claims simply do not stand.
And the Bush campaign's response to questions raised by the Globe comes across as both shrill and hilarious. Responding to criticism of Bush's early departure from the Guard by former Veterans Affairs secretary Jesse Brown, who was severely wounded while serving in Vietnam, Bush spokesperson Dan Bartlett could only say, ''Jesse Brown served honorably, but you mean to tell me he has no problem with Bill Clinton's avoidance of military service?"
Someone should remind Bartlett that his middle-aged frat boy boss is running against Al Gore, not Bill Clinton.
There are, however, two omissions from the Globe story that deserve mention.
First, there has been a standing feud between Marty Heldt, the enterprising journalist at TomPaine.com who has done the most thorough research into the matter, and Peter Keating, who attempted to undermine Heldt's story in a georgemag.com web "exclusive" -- which backfired when it was discovered not only that he was basing his findings on documents which appear doctored when compared with those obtained by Heldt, but what can only politely be called "fuzzy math" in calculating Bush's service time.
Second, TomPaine.com had mentioned the involvement of a Bush buddy in the paper trail:
Early on, the Bush camp -- which was apparently concerned about the missing years -- worked with a retired Guard personnel officer named Albert Lloyd, Jr., who has been identified as a friend of Bush's, to make sense of the candidate's records. The Globe reported that Lloyd found the documents in the archives.
(The earlier Globe article can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/One_year_gap_in_Bush_s_Guard_duty%2B.shtml)
Now, it strikes The Doc as downright ridiculous that this time around the press is not questioning the involvement of a Bush-friendly Guard vet in vetting Bush's record -- or raising the possibility that certain documents might well have been sanitized, altered, "misfiled" or just plain "disappeared" à la 1984's Ministry of Truth.
Well, at least people who have been screaming for the media to pay at least some attention to this story have the small satisfaction that it has appeared in the press again.
The big question: will it merit mention on the networks' evening newscasts or the cable news outlets' nighttime pundit fests?
The Doc says don't count on it.