All about life, liberty and the pursuit of hopeiness.
| NY Mag. | 0 | |
| Wash Wire | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| WaPo | Calif. insurer’s rate increases draw attention of federal government |
0 |
| Red State | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spinsational:
"We were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
-Obama, explaining recent Democrat losses, 1/20/10
Velvet Lair- The sexiness of winning the battle of good versus evil January 26, 2010
- Ever wonder why? January 12, 2010
- The decision to bench Peyton Manning: Right or wrong? December 28, 2009
- Is my dad turning into a metrosexual? November 24, 2009
- My “Things To Do For Christmas” list November 23, 2009
Revealed: How CBS knew Bush volunteered to go to ‘nam – but didn’t report it
Words absolutely fail me, especially in light of the fact that they tried to use a fake memo to prove that he didn’t complete his service in TANG!
RSS feed for comments on this post.
10 Responses to “Revealed: How CBS knew Bush volunteered to go to ‘nam – but didn’t report it”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Why in the heck didn’t Bush defend himself with this info? I have come to realise that everything I believed that came from the MSM is completely untrue.
I know this is not the place, I apologize, but the headline about Bill Richardson is highly misleading. No one has said he is not guilty; only that the Feds are dropping the case and no charges will be filed. I have to say, as a NM resident, it is pretty clear here they he has been up to his neck in inappropropriate money handling. AND…no one bows out of a coveted appointment to Secretary of Commerce unless there is dirty linen that might see the light of day!
Well that’s the big question, isn’t it? Why DIDN’T Bush defend himself? People have been all over this matter for years, and Goldberg just now finds a “source” who tells him to look at the page? What’s on the page? Goldberg doesn’t quote directly, does he? Look, I’d like to believe that Bush simply thought it was beneath his dignity to get in the gutter, but who knows?
I suppose now we’ll hear about what a monster Bush is for volunteering to fight in Vietnam. Why not? The far left has never been consistent on the matter. “Kerry’s a war hero for denouncing himself and everyone that fought there. McCain’s insane for volunteering and not denouncing his service.”
Frankly, the whole “let’s criticize Bush for not serving in Vietnam” tirade never made sense to me before this. I mean, the people criticizing him for not being there were largely people that denounced the war as a crime against humanity. You don’t have to be Mr. Spock to find the logic hole in that one.
Regardless, good for Bush for volunteering. Say what you will about the war, but it certainly shows Bush has courage for being willing to be in such a situation. (For the record, I give Kerry credit for volunteering too, but he deserves criticism for his flip-flopping on his service and the lies about war crimes he supposedly witnessed.)
I think that’s pretty much it.
I always loved the trope that Bush was a coward for volunteering to fly F102’s, an aircraft that had a 4 times higher crash rate than the F16, which itself earned the unenvious moniker “lawn dart.” I was growing up in the panhandle of Florida on an Air Defense Command base during the 60’s, and I know full well how many of those Century series fighters they put into the Gulf of Mexico. No one who climbed into the cockpit of fighter plane will ever earn the label of coward from me.
Why didn’t Bush defend himself? Seems to me that he didn’t dignify such things with a response…ever. I could be mistaken (although it would be a rarity) so feel free to document it, if so…
Seeing that duelling is illegal, I don’t think there’s a possible satisfactory manner in which to defend oneself from this kind of filth.
Besides, the “news” that Bush had volunteered for Vietnam is not a scoop – it was out there during the whole Rathergate debacle. In much the same manner, all of the evidence that the Duke lacrosse players had been railroaded by a corrupt and politically ambitious prosecutor was out there, and conveniently buried by the MSM.
Face it, the MSM and their bedmates control the story. You won’t hear or see what they don’t want you to, unless you look beyond their managed channels of information. How many times have we heard the “Stoopid Bush tried to serve the troops a plastic turkey!” story, however many times it’s shown to be false? Remember the oft-told tale of his out of touch father, amazed the first time he saw a laser grocery scanner? Also a fabricated story.
I have to give Bush 43 big credit for grace and poise. Had I been in his shoes I’d be serving time right now, because there’s no way I wouldn’t have responded violently to the filthy smears our vile chattering class throws around so handily. I’d call them whores, but that insults hard working prostitutes, who at least provide service in exchange for cash.
Okay, maybe I am a little naive, but isn’t this grounds for slander? I mean to manufacture a story with the clear intent of smearing anyone’s reputation??? Of course, we wonder why Bush didn’t defend himself, but maybe he felt that making another lawyer rich was not his cup of tea. But, I am sure he must have thought about it on a very personal level. It has to hurt to have your career military or otherwise shredded for ratings and polls.
Another point: Vengeance is mine! saith the Lord.
Kate: In order to win a slander or libel suit a plaintiff who’s a public figure must show the defendant acted with malice and reckless disregard for the truth. [New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)]
Steve: In the Duke Lacrosse case, the NY Times, at least, finally got it right when then-sportswriter Selena Roberts (she moved on to Sports Illustrated) was replaced on the story (and I’m sorry I’ve forgotten the reporter’s name) by a general news reporter who had some background in reporting on crimes. But that was after ST had it right.
“…but that insults hard working prostitutes, who at least provide service in exchange for cash.”
“Servicing” on a farm is what a bull does to a cow. Seems to me that’s what the MSM does to its followers, too. Remember Chris’ “tingly” leg.