The link above is to a piece in The American Prospect by Paul Waldman which takes up the matter of Bush's Air National Guard record in the wake of Michael Moore's remark about W being a deserter and of the media condeming Wesley Clark for not distancing himself from it. Waldman points out the discrepancy in treatment the media accorded Clinton's efforts to avoid the Viet Nam war and Bush's efforts to avoid ANG service by a ratio of 10:1.
In a related vein is this piece by Joe Conason which appeared in the New York Observer and here in Working for Change. Conason takes Peter Jennings to task for his less than ept handling of the Moore remark.
A Flight of Fancy?
These are his concluding paragraphs.
So Mr. Bush's claim that he "continued flying with my unit for the next several years" is an unabashed falsehood. Yet the spotty coverage of his military record in the mainstream press -- aside from the Globe investigation and similar efforts in the Dallas Morning News and the Los Angeles Times -- elided that lie. Compare his soft treatment with the media scourging of Bill Clinton, who was held accountable during the 1992 campaign for every word he uttered about his draft record.What the Jennings episode validates is not Mr. Bush's strange military career, but the Bush method of press management. Treat journalists like vassals, with nicknames, cheek-pinching and -- whenever they forget their place momentarily -- sneering disdain. It works brilliantly.
And for a bit of comic relief the link below takes you to a cartoon with a slightly different slant on the matter.
So what's the Deal?
Keeping the story alive with KGO-TV/ABC News in San Francisco is a retired Army nurse whose brother died in Viet Nam. Chickenhawk in Chief
While on the east coast James Ridgeway has this to say in Village Voice. Missing Inaction And Eric Alterman poses the question in Newsday It Doen't Hurt to Ask He has one of the best summaries of what's at issue here:
Dare we call the president of the United States a "deserter?" Well, technically, no, of course. If he eventually got the papers, he's retroactively innocent of that charge. But what would have happened if, say, during late 1972, some by-the-books Alabama MP had happened upon Bush in a bar and was unaware that this son of a congressman would eventually be able to work out a deal with the higher-ups. He would be in Alabama without permission while his unit was training in Texas. Might that have been enough to throw Bush into the brig?
It's hardly an outrageous question, but even raising it seems to place one beyond the pale. And I doubt Tim Russert or Peter Jennings could have answered it more articulately than Gen. Clark had either one been willing to examine the issue with the seriousness it so clearly deserves.
Maybe the story has legs this time around?