Watch how this study gets NO coverage by the mainstream media.

I just sent this story to a liberal friend of mine (who deludes himself into believing he's a center-right Reagan Democrat), and he immediately retorted that the bias "must have" been reversed during the Clinton administration. It's this sort of moral relativism pulled straight out of the arse that boils the blood. News flash: it's been slanted for decades. Which is why the liberals hate Fox News so much: they redefined where the center is in U.S. politics.

How can you cover politics and NOT take a negative view of Republicans? Look at the SCHIP veto, the war in Iraq, the sordid bathroom sex scandals. It's only natural that the media takes a negative tone towards a party that has undermined national security by botching the war on the terrorists. It's only natural that the media takes a negative tone towards a party that has screwed the middle class and enriched the corporate fatcats.

It would be outrageous to portray the Republican Party in a positive light. You should look at the percentage of stories with a positive tone and be grateful it isn't worse.

I think the two correlated trends are massively unrelated in causation. There is a lot more in the newspaper than the political pages. And trends in competetive media.

P.s. Did you delete a comment of mine from the TNR responds thread? The tone was temparate and I was making a point worth examining.

Thanks for the comedy, rbanville.

What specifically bothered you about the Craig "ordeal?" Was it because he's gay? Was it because he was trying to hire a prostitute? What was it?

How did "Republicans" botch the war on terror? Last I looked the entire nation (heh) was at war not just the Republicans.

And you hit your most dishonest with ther SCHIP veto. President Bush -wanted- to expand SCHIP but not as much as what Congress wanted. Families making 81,000 dollars a year get government coverage? C'mon lets get realistic.

It's a "man bites dog" moment!
http://strongasanoxandnearlyassmart.blogspot.com/2007/11/man-bites-dog-media-reports-media-bias.html

rbanville, the terrorists were waging war on us long before 9/11, which was the culmination of Clinton's dithering (and diddling of Monica). As far as sex scandals go, I would think the Democrats have an overwhelming edge, starting with Clinton and Monica. Over the years Democrats have also given us Gary Studds and Barney Frank, and the mayors of many of California's major cities, and the governor of New Jersey. The problem is, sex scandals are just Democrats being Democrats, and probably enhance their electibility.

Hey, rbanville... the war on terror, Iraq branch, is going so well that Iraqi casualties are at their lowest point in the entire war.

If that's what you called "botched," I'd hate to see your idea of "success." I imagine it involves brutal dictators like Saddam ordering his cohorts to shoot anyone that doesn't vote for him.

Good day, sir. I said, good day.

I wonder why Mr. Combs neglected to mention Teddy Kennedy and the drowning and Gary Hart and Monkey Business.

Democrats rule by fear and slander. They can't rule by facts since the have none. S-CHIP was a good program and has been funded for six years by President Bush and funding was increased by $5B for next year but the stupidity of Reid and Peeeeloshi popped up and wanted to increase it 7 fold to cover 'the rich' up to and including the 50 year olds that are too sorry to work. Of course most democrats aren't qualified to do any productive work. Educated at liberal colleges like UCB and walking the streets across America while pi**ing on the American flag and sniffing coke is not a qualification for productive work.

If that's what you called "botched," I'd hate to see your idea of "success." I imagine it involves brutal dictators like Saddam ordering his cohorts to shoot anyone that doesn't vote for him.

Hey, remember when they took Los Angeles out?

Oh, wait. I guess they didn't.

Nevermind.

yes, let's wait until LA is hit then do something.

Like surrender...which is the current Dem mantra for all international problems.

Pablo, I remember when they took nyc out.

As a practical matter, LA is already pre-taken out.

Pablo-
I remember when they hit New York.

I remember when they hit the Pentagon.

I remember when they hit the Cole.

I remember when they finally found a way to kill Marines-- by suicide bombing as they slept.

So, Pablo, do they have to kill your family in front of you before you'll admit there are bad people?

The sad thing is that rbanville probably believes that. That poster apparently has a view of the world that is based on news stories and sees the skewed attention in the media and so then jumps to the conclusion that the skewed attention must be "deserved". Because that person sees no Democrat scandals, that must mean there aren't any, right?

Since all scandal is Republican scandal, then Republicans must be bad, right? rbanville is spouting exactly the line that the media wants to create. They would want to create the notion that only Republicans do wrong. What a sick bunch. I am sure Bill Jefferson would agree.

Crosspatch, in this day and age, for anyone with internet access--which rbanville obviously has--not to understand the other side of the stories that the leftymedia proclaims is a sign of willful ignorance.

He doesn't know the other side because he refuses to read the other side. He found CY, he obviously knows how to use a search engine.

He has blinders on, and he put them on himself.

Interesting that you don't link to the actual study, which makes it clear that the imbalance disappears if you take two candidates out of the picture: Barack Obama and John McCain. To routinely attribute every study like this to the tired old "liberal media bias" canard leaves out a lot of important and interesting ways to look at what is actually going on in the world.

Okay, David, why don't you give us a link to the actual study yourself?

Generally it is considered incumbent upon those attempting to make a point to present the evidence supporting that point at the same time, why did you not do so?

In other words, walk the walk before you talk the talk.

If you take out the bias, there's no bias. If you ignore the bimbos, etc., Bill Clinton was a faithful husband.

In other words, walk the walk before you talk the talk.

Physician, heal thy friggin' self.

So, Pablo, do they have to kill your family in front of you before you'll admit there are bad people?

Not at all, foxfire, and I'm all for killing them over there instead of cleaning up after them here. That was a rejoinder to the "botched" claim and a reference to the fact that whatever we've done, it hasn't resulted in another attack on the States.

And, Pablo, we didn't have any hostages held 444 days, either.

Not lately, anyway.

This administration has been a catastrophe, so yes rbanville's right about that.

Also, the study you cited isn't the whole story. Look at the treatment that different pols get. Kerry was swiftboated, Gore was wrongly branded as a liar (he never said he invented the internet), Bill Clinton was raked over the coals about a nickel offense.

The media talks constantly about Hilary's laugh and appearance, Edwards' haircuts and so forth.

Look at Giuliani. His health care stump speech contains baldfaced lies, he's involved with the disgraced Kerik, he married his cousin, he's an adulterer several times over, he dresses up in women's clothing, he tried to stay in office after his term as mayor of NYC was over, he has no political experience other than being a mayor, and yet the media acts as if he's a regular guy.

All the frontrunner dems are pretty regular really, yet loonies like W and Giuliani are the ones who get the free ride in the media.

W was a drunk, bailed on his Guard commitment, used drugs, never accomplished anything really until he was middle aged and only then it was because of his name. The media treated him just fine until everyone grew too disgusted with him to ignore it any longer.

You guys feel persecuted no matter what.

Chuck, you really gotta quit getting your news from Democratic Underground.

The Texas ANG thing has been completely and totally debunked. Kerry still hasn't released all his military records, and perjury is not a nickel offense... just ask Scooter Libby.

You parrot all the usual lefty talking points, so I suspect that you're just another sock puppet. Go find somewhere else to troll. But don't try it on my blog, I ban trolls on sight.

Kerry was swiftboated...

Swifboated:

–noun
1. Confronted with An Inconvenient Truth.

Was Clinton properly branded as a liar, then?

$10 says Chuck is a one-time drive-by.

rbanville said: Look at the SCHIP veto

And we're going to fight to the end to stop the Left from trashing the economy and the best healthcare in the world.

rbanville said: the war in Iraq

Oops. On the wrong side of history yet again, Dems.

rbanville said: the sordid bathroom sex scandals.

yawn.

rbanville said: It's only natural that the media takes a negative tone towards a party that has undermined national security by botching the war on the terrorists.

Oops. On the wrong side of history yet again, Dems. That's like saying, "the way Reagan totally tanked the economy and botched the Cold War."

Under the principle that a lie repeated enough becomes the truth, the left is trying to make it seem like the "swiftboating" of Kerry was somehow wrong, even though the unmasking was based on a solid foundation of fact. Has the man released all of his military records yet, by the way? The question of whether he was dishonorably discharged was still on the table last time I paid attention.

Sure. It's at http://journalism.org/node/8187

It says: "Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). ... Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical."

The trouble with your analysis is that it overlooks far more important media biases than the simple left-right breakdown. What really turns on the media are fresh faces with a chance to set conventional politics on its ear. McCain offered that in 2000 and got great coverage. Now McCain is old news and is running a troubled campaign.

The only Republican this year with anywhere near Obama's freshness is Ron Paul. He won't get the coverage because he has no chance of winning.

The media may lean left, but they really aren't turned on by ideology. What turns them on is a good story, and Obama looks like the best story in the field.

"The Texas ANG thing has been completely and totally debunked."

No. In wartime W elected to join the Guard, whereas his service in Nam would be more useful. US taxpayers spent $1 million training him as a pilot, then he skipped a physical, which pilots just don't do. Then he got himself reassigned to mail duty in Alabama where no one acknowledges seeing him, then he left that early to go to Hahvahd Business School. What are you proud of exactly?

Meanwhile Kerry volunteered to pilot a PT boat, took enemy fire numerous times, pulled an injured comrade out of the water under fire, has shrapnel in his leg -- and you smear his service.

"Perjury is not a nickel offense... just ask Scooter Libby."

Lying about outing a CIA agent that's running an anti-WMD operation vs lying about an affair that no one should have asked you about in the first place? No comparison.

Start supporting your country, traitor.

Oh, and ccg: your blog doesn't get any comments. You just summarize CY anyway. No point reading you too.

Chuck, you're an idiot.

Many National Guard pilots served in Vietnam, as many are serving now in Iraq.

By the way, where did Mrs. Clinton serve? Where did Mr. Obama serve?

And I do not copy CY, I make it a point not to post on anything he has covered. I had this particular story covered prior to CY picking up on it, so if anything he is copying me, at least on this story.

In short, your statements have absolutely nothing to do with the world as it really is. Thus, you are an idiot.

Good day, sir. I said, good day.

Oops, I should have said, I don't post on anything CY has covered except the Beauchamp thing... that's my one exception. Other than that, what CY covers, I do my best not to.

"Many National Guard pilots served in Vietnam"

Sure, many of them served admirably. But what are you trying to prove? Of course Mr. Bush did not. He had cushiest assignment possible yet his service was anything but distinguished. By contrast Kerry is a decorated war hero. Nevertheless you think it's appropriate to attack Kerry and laud Bush. You're not worthy of the proud heritage of this nation.

"you are an idiot"

That's the best you've got, isn't it? Maybe if the facts were on your side you could debate instead.

Folks, stop the personal insults and debate the issues. Those that cannot will be banned.

Chuck, when you sign up, you go where the Armed Forces tell you.

The National Guard did not send Bush to Vietnam for their own reasons. Unless you think that they knew in 1968 that he would be running for President 20+ years later.

Young Mr. Bush had no choice of his assignment once he signed on the dotted line. If you knew anything at all about the Armed Forces, you would know that.

So, where did Mrs. Clinton serve? Where did Mr. Obama serve? They didn't even make it to the National Guard, did they?

"By contrast Kerry is a decorated war hero"

Like many many others he served with honor in vietnam a long time ago (to bad he had to embellish his stories with lies like 'christmas in cambodia' and some questionable purple hearts). Unfortunatly, since entering politics he has been nothing but a disaster for this country, betraying the military and supporting our enemies to a level that might be treason.

For that reason he is nothing more than un-American, un-patriotic, pro-terrorist scum.

True, Grrrrrr... military service is not always a guarantor of a successful Presidency, nor is the lack of one a guarantee that an administration will flop.

Two cases in point illustrate this: Ulysses S. Grant was one of the best generals in the Civil War. Yet his Presidency is widely considered to be one of the worst on record, including the Whiskey Ring.

FDR, on the other hand, had no military experience but his leadership was invaluable in winning WWII. Some can take issue with his domestic programs--Lord knows I do--but as a war president he is near the top of the heap.

There are many other examples, these are just two.

....taxpayers spent $1 million training him as a pilot, then he skipped a physical, which pilots just don't do.

That was rather solidly debunked.

I would suggest that you not complain about someone *volunteering* for service when so many (Clinton, for example?) ran away when called.

"when you sign up, you go where the Armed Forces tell you"

Everybody knows Bush Sr. got W his cushy assignment in the guard.

"That was rather solidly debunked."

No, that's common knowledge too. Bush never denied it. We don't know why he skipped though. He has a history of substance abuse, so there's one possibility.

And everyone knows that nearly 10,000 National Guard pilots served in Vietnam, Chuck, and a good number of them died. National Guard service was by no means a way to stay out of the war. The history is clear so you can quit trying to create your own facts.

And, since you are so gung-ho on military service, I ask again, where and when did Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama serve? You keep ignoring that question. Perhaps that's because you know darned good and well that when compared to the two frontrunners for the MoveOn Party nomination, Bush's service stands head and shoulders above theirs?

Good day, sir. I said, good day.

Everybody knows Bush Sr. got W his cushy assignment in the guard.

Once again completely incorrect. There was a shortage of pilots at the time, and connections didn't matter... not to mention the fact, "connections" couldn't get you to qualify as a pilot. I suggest you look up the history of the plane he flew, which had a reputation as a widowmaker.

Chuck, I'll make it real simple for you: either start citing reliable sources for your rather ignorant claims, or find somewhere else to comment.

CCG and CY: here's plain historical fact from Wikipedia:

-------------------------
147th Fighter Group

The most infamous champagne unit was the Texas Air National Guard 147th Fighter Group, at Ellington Air Base in Houston. During the Vietnam War many well-connected sons landed in this posting, sometimes with the help of politicians such as Ben Barnes.[4]

* Lloyd Bentsen Jr., son of Lloyd Bentsen
* George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush
* John Connally III, son of John Connally Jr.
* the son of John Tower
* James R. Bath
* seven members of the Dallas Cowboys

-------------------------

Do you assert that this roster is just a coincidence? Can you deny that this unit had the express purpose of keeping rich Texas boys out of the war?

Which leads us to the interesting question: Is wikipedia considered a reliable source?

In any case, I doubt that the unit "had the express purpose of keeping rich Texas boys out of the war." That it became something of a club for them is very plausible, that it was not first and foremost a military unit is not - if it really was a cushy job, then it would not have involved flying a rather dangerous fighter plane.
Incidently, I have heard that Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam, but was turned down due to a glut of pilots already over there. I don't have a source for that, though. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Incidently, Chuck, what page are you getting that information from? It doesn't come from the page on the 147th fighter Group/Wing (it goes by "wing," now)

A pretty good debunking of the stuff Chuck swallowed hook, line, and sinker, here.

A further debunking, which discusses the fact that pilots from the 147th were conducting combat missions in Vietnam when Bush joined, is here.

Grey Fox, I too have heard that Bush volunteered for 'Nam, but cannot so far find corroboration for it, so I have refrained from mentioning it.

Oh, and Wikipedia is as valid a primary source as Rense.com or the Weekly World News is. Trust Chuck to come up with that one... he probably edited the entry himself to put that comment in.

All: risking one's life to fly a rather dangerous jet? Motorcycles are rather dangerous. Mountain climbing is rather dangerous. Training in a jet is not comparable to combat.

Grey Fox:

Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_unit

Are you denying that those other scions were in Bush's unit? Is that what you are disputing? It's a plain matter of historical record.

CY: your first link is broken. Why do you suppose all those scions ended up in one guard unit? It was obviously set up to keep those boys out of combat. You're being willfully ignorant because reality isn't as you would wish.

CCG: I don't know if you followed it but a group of folks like you got together to create the antidote, the conservapedia. The result is a laughingstock. My point is, the problem is not with wikipedia, it's with the determination of a segment of the US to feel oppressed, endangered, and alienated at every turn.

Chuck,
Thank you for the link. I am not disputing who was where, though I might point out that a unit composed of wealthy young men is not necessarily a "champagne unit" - the first US fighter squandrons in France in 1918 were similarly composed. Fighter pilots have always been something of a social elite, I believe, except during wartime with a high attrition rate. That may not be true now (I don't know). In any case, a farmer's kid is/was not going to end up flying a jet, so the grouping of scions is less important than you might think.

What I don't particularly like is the reliance on Wikipedia, or, for that matter, on internet sources that is so common on blog commentaries. I looked at the article - it you happen to look at the sources? Only three of them actually deal with the subject at hand, and of those three one is a memoir and two are newpaper articles. Maybe adequate, but no more.

I don't happen to believe that G.W.B.'s time in service was the stuff of legends. Neither do I think it was dishonorable - I believe that over half of National Guardsmen even today do not stay in the military the allotted time, as the Army allows people to leave early so long as they don't want their benefits. While I was over at wikipedia I looked over the article on Bush's service, and noted that it states that Bush did express interest in going to Vietnam, but was told that he didn't have the necessary flying hours. As long as we are going to be looking at wikipedia...

Incidently, does the fact that Kerry joined the reserves as well make him a slacker? The main difference between him and Bush seems to be that he went over to Vietnam, whereas Bush couldn't...

Chuck -- and all you leftarded fools out there, this is directed at YOU:

What utterly galls me about the left is their persistence in wasting oxygen and neurons on what Bush did or did not do, EONS AGO - BEFORE he was in public office.

Seriously, just what exact orgasmic fantasy do you think you are fulfilling by revisiting facts of irrelevance to the serious politics and world today?

For gosh sakes you lefty fools, Bush has been your President now for almost eight years now. When pray tell will you want to start having serious discussions about his actions during the first or second years in office? Should we expect that before or after 2030? Just wondering.

Chuck, the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone makes it a true laughingstock of a source.

I could easily edit the article you sent to add your name to the list of those in that unit, you know. Would that make you as eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil as Booooooooooooooooooosh?

Either use reliable sources or give up, and quit trying to make wisecracks... you don't have the talent.

CCG, define 'laughingstock'. Wikipedia is the ninth most popular website on the internet. Watching you debase yourself makes me wince.

There are folks of all stripes who contribute to Wikipedia. No one claims it is perfect, but there are review and conflict procedures. Add my name to the article and prove me wrong.

If you don't believe the roster of Bush's Guard unit, Google for "Champagne Bush Dallas Cowboys Bentsen". What's in Wikipedia is historical fact and common knowledge. It was an exclusive club for boys who were too privileged to have to fight.

I've been sincere in this thread. What wisecrack have I made? You showed your mettle by calling me an idiot.

Incidentally on Bush's Guard application he checked off "Do not wish to serve overseas". So the answer is no, he did not volunteer to fight in Nam.

Popular doesn't mean reliable, Chuck. The National Enquirer and Weekly World News are (or in the case of WWN, were) popular. That doesn't make their stories reliable.

The simple fact is, you cannot back up your assertions except with highly questionable sources, therefore no one takes your assertions seriously. Get yourself some reliable sources and I, at least, will be happy to consider them.

But you won't, you will continue to argue that Wikipedia is reliable, despite its ease of editing.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

It's absurd for you to call the ninth most popular website a laughingstock. The vast majority of information in Wikipedia is uncontroversial. The problem is your view of reality, not Wikipedia.

Did you google for "Champagne Bush Dallas Cowboys Bentsen"? Pick one of the sources there. No one in the world seems to disagree with the roster of Bush's Guard unit except you.

Why don't YOU tell me which source you trust?

Besides, Chuck, as has been pointed out, your own beloved Wikipedia says that Bush volunteered for Vietnam service.

Hardly the actions of someone wanting a cushy post, is it?

And you still haven't answered where Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama served, Chuck. If military service is the be-all and end-all of politics, you should know that.

Otherwise, you're just sitting in a glass house tossing stones around.

Good day, sir. I said, good day.

I assume then that you cede the point that Bush's Champagne Unit consisted of rich boys who were not to see combat. You have not refuted that even slightly. I present historical fact, widely repeated by many venues. Your sole response is to attack the one source I mentioned, and now you ask me to name another source so you can attack that too. That's your one and only debate point. You should be ashamed at your lack of integrity.

Nowhere does Wikipedia say Bush volunteered to go the Vietnam, because in fact he did not. Your friend made that up, or he doesn't read well. Anyway why would you cite such a rag? I'm sure you're not a hypocrite, so what is your reason?

I assume also that you agree Wikipedia is not so easy to change as you asserted, because you have not lifted a finger to prove me wrong. You won't either.

Interview with Candidate Bush, Washington Post, 1999

Why did you do the Guard instead of active duty?

I was guaranteed a pilot slot. I found out – as I'm sure you've researched all this out – they were looking for pilots. I think there were five or six pilot slots available. I was the third slot in the Texas Guard. Had that not worked out no telling where I would have been. I would have ended up in the military somewhere.

You meant to join the Guard when you took the pilot's qualifying test?

Or the regular Air Force. I was just looking for options. I didn't have a strategy. I knew I was going in the military. I wasn't sure what branch I was going into. I took the test with an eye obviously on the Guard slot, but had that not worked out I wouldn't have gotten into pilot training. I remember going to Air Force recruiting station and getting the Air Force recruiting material to be a pilot. Then I went home and I learned there was a pilot slot available.

Were you avoiding the draft?

No, I was becoming a pilot.

You wanted to serve?

Yes I did.

But when you were asked do you want to go overseas, you said no.

I didn't know that. But I actually tried to go on a Palace Alert program.

That was later.

It was. After I became a pilot.

Palace Alert program was being phased out.

Not really, a couple of my buddies got to go. ...

... But they'd already graduated.

That's true. I couldn't go until actually I'd gotten my –

I was curious about the sequence. You got out of combat school on June 23, 1970. Palace Alert programs were all closed down overseas as of June 30. So could you have gone even if you signed up for it?

I guess not if that's the case, but I remember going to see [the supervisor] to try to get signed up for it. You just ask the commander to put you in. He said you can't go because you're too low on the totem pole. I'm not trying to make this thing any grander than it is. ...

Chuck, you're the one that has difficulty in researching and reading:

Air National Guard members could volunteer for active duty service with the Air Force in a program called Palace Alert, which deployed F-102 pilots to Europe and Southeast Asia, including Vietnam and Thailand. According to three pilots from Bush's squadron, Bush inquired about this program but was advised by the base commander that he did not have the necessary experience (500 hours) at the time and that the F-102 was outdated.

From your own beloved source, the beloved and popular Wikipedia.

Would you like your crow baked or fried?

Chuck engages in ad populum with:
It's absurd for you to call the ninth most popular website a laughingstock.

Then:
Your sole response is to attack the one source I mentioned, and now you ask me to name another source so you can attack that too.

IOW, Chuck doesn't have another source, or isn't motivated enough to find the (long debunked, alas) sources his predecessors have tried to fool people with.

C-C-G: You have another source for that besides Wikipedia, right? I know it is fun to find something from the "ninth most popular website" just to make Chuck squirm, but still...

(Wikipedia is somewhat useful, so long as the topic isn't political or has people with an axe to grind against something in that topic, and the time and motivation to edit things to match their feelings on that topic. Oh, that doesn't sound very useful at all.)

CY: "But when you were asked do you want to go overseas, you said no."

Bush: "I didn't know that."

Bush admits that he filled out the paperwork stating that he wished not to go overseas.

CCG: "Bush inquired about this program?" You are easily impressed. 'Inquired'? That's an insult to our combat veterans.

W didn't maintain fighter pilot readiness, further evidence that he was not pining for combat. He got himself transferred to mail detail. He missed part of his committment to help on a political campaign. No one acknowledges seeing him at the post in Alabama, so really he didn't even show up. Then he left early to attend Harvard.

Bush's service was far from impressive. He scored in the bottom 25% for fighter aptitude yet got a slot in a champagne unit through his father's influence, and made a hash out of what was a plum assignment. Most young men would relish getting paid to fly fighter jets, but completing even that was too much to ask of Bush.

Patrick: "Chuck doesn't have another source" Baloney, I submitted a google search that you can use to find a plethora of links. Choose one of many for yourself. Or do you deny that the search returns many links?

Chuck declared:
"Chuck doesn't have another source" Baloney, I submitted a google search that you can use to find a plethora of links. Choose one of many for yourself. Or do you deny that the search returns many links?

I deny that I'm required to do your homework for you.

More Chuck:
Bush admits that he filled out the paperwork stating that he wished not to go overseas.

Do you have a date on when he did this? How about a link to that document?

Chuck,
1) I am not "impressed" by the fact that Bush inquired about going to Vietnam. I brought it up because it contradicts the assumption you make that he was completely adverse to actually fighting. Frankly, it is difficult to see what else he might have done to get into the fighting at that point - he hadn't the experience to go at that point, and the program was closed before he could aquire it.

2) One thing no one has brought up yet was that G. W.'s father was a fighter pilot during WWII. While I can't speak for G.W., I suspect that growing up hearing stories about being a fighter pilot would be a strong inducement to try for a fighter pilot slot oneself. That ought to be factored in into any guess as to his motives.

3) If the wikipedia article on this controversy I refered to earlier is at all accurate, then the USAF records of the period are in such disorder that no conclusions can be safely drawn from the absence of any document. When the possibility exists that a document was eaten by mice, one's inability to find it doesn't mean all that much, right? While normally I dislike the dictum that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," (it should be PROOF of absence) this is one area where it actually applies.

4) Look, I have no problem believing that G.W.B. was probably a rather mediocre soldier. Even now he strikes me as someone who performs best under pressure, and it doesn't sound he was under much pressure to perform in the National Guard. What I have a problem with is the contention, without decent evidence, that his service was somehow dishonorable. OK?

Patrick:

"Do you have a date on when he did this? How about a link to that document?"

You're hardly paying attention. I'm quoting CY from his last post.

Required to do my homework for me? I actually ran the google query that is too demanding for you. If you can't be troubled to learn things for yourself, then just accept you ignorance and quit trying to make it other people's problem. You can't have it both ways.

Grey Fox,

Thanks for your civility and for taking the time to explain your position.

I mostly agree with you. Maybe dishonorable isn't the right word for Bush's service.

I do however disagree that his making an inquiry earns him any credit. He managed to transfer to mail detail, so presumably he could have transferred to infantry or something else if he had wanted to. Talk is cheap as they say.

Best,
Chuck

Chuck

I was in the Air Force over 21 years, 1962-1984. During that time I served with a lot of fighter pilots, quite a few of them National Guard (I was a Russian linguist, then a Budget Officer, not a flier). Their jobs were very dangerous, in wartime or peacetime. The stateside National Guard pilots flew intercept missions in all kinds of weather, including taking off into storms, zero visibility, and flying the Regular Air Force leftovers, like F-102's. In your zeal to denigrate President Bush's service, you denigrate the service of thousands of other guys who did the same dangerous, dirty work around the clock, in horrible weather. The fighter units I served in lost aircrew members to accidents every year, war or peace. Flying high-performance all-weather fighter aircraft is much more dangerous that serving as an Army journalist in Vietnam for a few months (Al Gore), and at least as dangerous as patrolling in Swift Boats against an enemy that had no ships, tanks, or shore-based artillery.
(The Navy only had 58 deaths aboard ships stationed in Vietnam from all causes during 1965-1972. If you weren't a Marine, Navy flier, or medical corpsman, you were very safe in the Navy.)
Also military service is significantly more dangerous than dodging the draft. Where were all you Democrats crying “chicken hawk” about President Bush’s TANG service when draft-dodger Bill Clinton, who used political connections and deceit to dodge the draft, was running against a true wounded warrior, Bob Dole?
I could have served in Vietnam, but the Air Force never sent me there, and believe me, I had absolutely no power over their decisions. Had I gone to Vietnam, it wouldn’t have been a big deal. I would have been as safe (maybe safer) on the large airbase (Tan Son Nhut) I would have served on as if I was serving stateside. Al Gore and I would have had something in common, serving in a totally safe environment in Vietnam, except I would have had to serve my full year assignment, not just a few months.
My oldest son, a Nevada Army National Guard Military Policeman, went into Iraq right behind the invasion force, and served in Iraq almost a year. He's still in the Guard, and still could go back to Iraq. A lot of Guard personnel have already.
Major Michael B. Combs, U S Air Force, Retired

Chuck wrote:
Required to do my homework for me? I actually ran the google query that is too demanding for you.

I'm not going to help you support your assertion. If backing up your claims is too demanding for you then don't make them and hand-wave with "just search google".

If you can't be troubled to learn things for yourself, then just accept you ignorance and quit trying to make it other people's problem.

Sorry you completely missed the point. Or are hoping throwing attacks at me will distract others.

You make the assertion, YOU back it up. This means something more than a poorly-formatted link to Wikipedia. Oh, and try to stick with your original claim that Bush "bailed on his Guard commitment" and stop grabbing at other things to divert attention. It will only add to the list of things you will have to prove.

Then you can go on to you providing a link to the "document" Bush signed saying he did not want to go overseas.

See what happens when you make a grandiose claim that you can't back up, Chuck?

To Grey Fox and Patrick, bravo! And to Michael B. Combs, both a bravo and thank you for your service to our nation, which I daresay Chuck cannot match. (Full disclosure: I cannot either, but in my case it is because of disability.)

Michael Combs: "In your zeal to denigrate President Bush's service, you denigrate the service of thousands of other guys who did the same dangerous, dirty work"

No. I specifically denigrate Bush for training to fly on the taxpayer's dollar and then failing to show up for a physical and getting grounded, thereby serving no one. Then he switched to mail detail in Alabama where no one ever saw him. Then he took time off for a political campaign. Then he left early to attend Harvard Business School.

Moreover I am sickened by the fact that Texas elites got exciting, relatively safe jobs whereas other boys had to fight and die.

My hat is off to all the boys and girls that served their country. Bush did not. He served himself. He has never sacrificed or risked anything.

Patrick, my assertion is that the roster of Bush's unit is true. If you don't believe it, fine, prove me wrong. I showed you the Wikipedia link, which you didn't like, then I showed you how to find a bunch of other links you can consider, but you regard that as homework and you won't do it. You are the picture of ignorance. What else is there to say?

"Then you can go on to you providing a link to the 'document' Bush signed saying he did not want to go overseas." What can't you understand about this? As I said, CY provided the link and the citation himself. Look higher up in this very thread yourself. Don't go off about how this is my job, if you're curious, read; if you wish to be ignorant, please keep it to yourself.

CCG: "See what happens when you make a grandiose claim that you can't back up, Chuck?"

Which one would that be, CCG? You haven't attempted to debate any of my assertions. You haven't even tried.

I guess I have a different definition of debate, Chuck... I would have, being a classically trained debater since high school. In a real debate, one answers queries from the other side, such as "where did Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama serve?" and are required to use reliable sources. Both of the above, you appear to be entirely unfamiliar with.

I guess I am not trained in the MoveOn definition of debate, which is to sling mud as fast as you can in the hope that some of it will stick... i.e. "General Betray Us."

Let me ask you another question which you will ignore, thus proving my point above:

Let us say, just for the sake of the argument, that all that you allege against Mr. Bush is the absolute Gospel truth.

So what?

What purpose does it serve now? Is he running for re-election so that you wish to persuade people not to vote for him? Are these 30+ year old peccadilloes impeachable offenses?

Or are you simply so consumed with hatred for one human being that you will take the time and effort which you have shown here thus far simply to blacken his name?

Inquiring minds want to know, Chuck, but I am certain that you'll ignore that question. Please, prove me wrong.

Good day, sir. I said, good day.

"required to use reliable sources"

Many sites on the internet name the members of Bush's champagne unit. You dismiss Wikipedia, you'll dismiss any other site I offer up. I encouraged you to look for yourself, but you offer no opinion. Yours and Patrick's game is to knock any source I give you. And what choice do you have, this is plain historical fact, easily attainable to anyone who wants to know. You don't.

In your zeal you knock my sources, you tried to attribute a citation by CY to me: "Q: But when you were asked do you want to go overseas, you said no. A (Bush): I didn't know that." Yes, this happened, as Yes, Bush is not denying the he specifically requested stateside service. And CY offerred it up, so whine to him about it.

You want to make hay of the fact that Bush might have inquired about a combat post. Maybe you should inquire about the PhD program in aerospace at MIT. How impressed do you think we'll be?

"Let us say, just for the sake of the argument, that all that you allege against Mr. Bush is the absolute Gospel truth. So what?"

There's nothing controversial about what I've asserted. It's plentifully documented and public information.

So what, is, you kicked off the debate with, "The Texas ANG thing has been completely and totally debunked." I've handed out one fact after another and you have not attempted to refute one. Instead you try to change the subject to other politicians and to smear whichever of the dozens of sources that present these same, consistent facts. That is why you won't debate, you cannot. There are no facts on your side and abundant, consistent facts on mine.

Thank you so much for ignoring my queries, Chuck, thereby proving me absolutely correct.

You have shown that you have no interest in a true debate, since you refuse to answer questions put to you.

Therefore, from this point on I will consider you nothing but a lefty troll.

Good day, sir. I said, good day.

Your questions to me are:

1) site a website for my claims, I sited wikipedia and gave you a google search with which you can take your pick from many. You ignore this, yet accuse me of not backing up my claims. Pick one and refute it or stand down.

2) you ask me to comment about the military service of Dem pols. This question is obviously rhetorical, and more significantly has nothing to do with the point of contention, which you framed as "The Texas ANG thing has been completely and totally debunked." You've not offerred a single piece of evidence to back this claim, yet you pretend the many sources I referenced indirectly do not exist. I've offered much to refute it. You do not engage my assertions in any way whatsoever.

3) you ask of what import is this. I am answering YOUR charge, as stated above, about the TANG. Again you have not even argued your case.

Which question have I left unanswered?

Chuck proclaimed:
Yours and Patrick's game is to knock any source I give you.

I know your game: make assertion after assertion, never backing it up and demand that your opponents do all the work or you claim victory. Then whine when they don't play by your rules and actually demand you back up YOUR claims first.

You know, so someone can go back into some blog archives from 2004 that provides information and links regarding the claims that Bush skipped out on his drill requirements.

You have provided exactly one link that provided nothing about your main claim: that Bush bailed on his Guard commitment. So you are commiting yet another fallacy: guilt by association. You claim he bailed on his commitment and provide as "proof" a Wiki article about "Champagne" units. Where's his attendance records?

No, "search google" is not a valid source. Also, the search string looks more like you seizing upon the claim about "Champagne" units rather than the claim about "bailing" on Guard commitments. You'd best stop whining about your opponents not providing anything when you yourself have provided practically none.

Ah well, I guess you accomplished one goal: you've managed to derail the comments in an article about media bias. I guess I'll stop helping you.

Patrick,

You presented no case at all, no arguments, only complaints about sources, even the source that CY quoted.

"You know, so someone can go back into some blog archives from 2004 that provides information and links regarding the claims that Bush skipped out on his drill requirements."

And you're a hypocrite as well. It's too much work for you to run a google query, but you suggest I wade through a year's worth of archives.

You don't deny the roster of Bush's champagne unit, or his loss of flight readiness, or him signing paperwork that he wished not to go overseas. Not only do you not rebut these, you don't even deny them.

It would be nice to know what claims are based on a lack of evidence. As I noted above, the records seem to be such a mess that saying that Bush failed to do something based on the fact that no record has been found of it is not conclusive. It is, for example, a little disturbing to see that no one remembers seeing him in Alabama - on the other hand, it is quite possible that Bush showed up, and did nothing to distinguish himself so that forty years later one could remember having met him at a certain place and time.

Chuck, I hate to be a pain, but you really do need to back up your assertions a little better. I do not have the time or energy to wade through the mounds of bullhockey that a Google search would inevitably turn up, in the possibility that a reliable source could be found. It is common debate protocol for those who make the assertions to provide the evidence. Also, the interview that CY posted is not quite the smoking gun you seem to think it is - It sounds like Bush's first priority was being a pilot, not avoiding combat. Even allowing for Bush's self-aggradizement in the interview, I find that both plausible and understandable.

The rest of you, please cool down a little. I agree that the burden of proof ought to be Chuck, but it would certainly help your case if you provided counter-evidence a bit better than you have so far. Further, it costs nothing to be civil.

Bush chose to fly dangerous jets, protecting American airspace, during the Vietnam War.

He could have gotten other civil service positions, deferments, teaching posts, etc. through his connections that were far less dangerous and would have kept him out of the battlefield.

He didnt.

Clinton chose to smoke pot and get laid.

Who is the more honorable man?

He shoots he scores!!!!

Chuck (as expected) misses the point again:
You presented no case at all, no arguments, only complaints about sources, even the source that CY quoted.

I am not presenting a case, I am challenging you to back up your own. You refuse to, which is typical for your kind. Then you try to claim victory by making demands of any who question you.

Thank you for proving you are a typical troll. I provided the link to show this has been discussed (to death) before. It's not a "year's worth" of archives, so you either didn't read it or are just grandstanding to impress the lurkers. That's fine, I expected you to react pretty much that way. Hopefully the lurkers will read it and decide on their own.

There. One last bit of attention for you. I am done watching you dance.

By arguing in ciricles and still refusing to support his point, I think Chuck has earned a troll rating.

Goodbye, Chuck.

So thats that, then. I am sorry it had to end that way.
Patrick, thanks for the link. That is exactly the type of information that should have been posted in the first place.
Chuck, if you can read this, do check out that link. It leads to a specific post, not to a whole year's archive, and gives eyewitness proof that Bush was in Alabama, among other things. My regard for the President has gone up a bit.

Thank you, CY. Next time you're in the northwest, look me up, I'll treat you to a steak.