Just as a little refresher course, I wanted to check back and see if I could easily and quickly locate reliable information about George W. Bush's military service. Tonight during the debates, Peter Jennings seemed shocked SHOCKED I TELL YOU that anyone could believe such an outlandish and crazy theory put forward by Michael Moore.
Then, post-debate, the Fox propagandists were discussing how shocked SHOCKED they were that Clark didn't completely "distance himself" from such an ugly, disreputeable idea.
Guys, I have to say, this is beyond the pale. I simply put "George Bush AWOL" into Google and came up with any number of credible sources outlining exactly how Bush failed to report for service.
For my part, I couldn't remember if blowing off two years of a six-year hitch made him AWOL, or a deserter? Call me forgetful!
Somebody did all the leg work and has a site up, that my browser now can't find. But Google has a cached copy. God bless Google. Original and Google Cache.
Tom Paine did a very nice job.
The Straight Dope does a nice, concise job.
Reading through these sources, I remembered that the Boston Globe was the paper that broke the Bush AWOL story in the mainstream press. I recall reading the piece at the time. But now I don't have lexis and don't want to hurt my eyes looking at that rag's website.
In short--Bush's military service records are there in plain sight. CNN, Fox, MSNBC are too lazy, stupid or partisan to report it. HOW??
Of course, the incomperable The Daily Howler tells us (even though it's not his favorite story):
SPINNING BUSH AT WAR (PART 2)! The general said Bush wasn't there. The press quickly buried the story:
TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003
BURYING TURNIPSEED: Ironically, everyone knows who wrote the key piece about Bush and the National Guard. "The Boston Globe did a major, major, exhaustive study," George Stephanopoulos said on last Friday's Washington Journal--and Stephanopoulos noted that Walter Robinson had been the reporter in question (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/5/03). On last Thursday's Countdown, Chris Matthews knew who had done the piece too. "I think Robbie Robinson dug that story up," he said, referring to the piece as "great reporting." Meanwhile, in the question that led to Matthews' comment, host Keith Olbermann had IDed the Globe as the rag where the seminal piece first appeared. Weird, ain't it? Everyone knew where the story appeared--but no one seemed able to say what was in it! In this way, pundits continued a three-year tradition, hiding that Bush "missing year."
This is a start, anyway.
Anyone with any ideas how to get the info in a nice digestible, reliable package into the media's hands so that they don't have to actually break a sweat to report on this grotesquely obvious story. I'd be happy to help them type the damn thing.
And to answer my own question, I think Bush is a deserter.
