A Little Bush Character Back-Check
A good summary/reminder here about the overall "character" of that little unevolved frat-boy who seems to have such a charming bunch of pals (some of whom, to my relief, have recently moved on to more remunerative yet probably even more disturbing and human-rights-abusing settings).
He's obviously far more of a compatriot of the dark losers in B movies than anything resembling a positive role-model. Of course we know that, and anyone watching him mince around eviscerating the standards of even lower-class civility ought to. But even the Hayden/Widmark/Mitchum clan, as actual people, were from what I can tell distinctly more accountable than this sorry little worm - though in some cases similarly flawed.
This also reaffirms the general venality of the editorial page program at the Washington Post. The named author for this piece - Charles Lane - is unfamiliar to me. But there is a significant history over the past few years at the least of totally disingenuous support for the venality of the Cheney-Bush intifatada by regulars on the Op-Ed page, as well as a few episodes of fascinating playground fisticuffs from purported "umbuds," normally thought of as advocates for reader's-rights, or at least neutral arbitrists.
Dan Rather's stature in my mind is frankly much higher now than it ever was when he was an anchor on CBS. The whole Texas Air National Guard (TANG) business, with (possibly) recreated/forged documents in full agreement with what all the other evidence that the bush cabal was not able to shred, is a fascinating exhibit in corporate-media manipulation by a cynical political apparatchik. And of course, CBS management here expands upon their familiar role as most incompetent of news-broadcasters by way of their conscious burying of critical information that media in our country are expected to be promulgating.
But this needs to be said and circulated repeatedly, as we are apparently a people of limited intelligence and even more limited attention-span. Pssst, America: your C-I-C is a habitual liar, never having followed through on his commitments. Liar. Criminal. AWOL.
What does that say for 41 and Barb? Of course they have their own war-crimes to atone for, but what must it be like as parents to know of (and, yes, complicit in) this stuff? They raised at least one character who belongs in a horror movie. OK, prison.
David Neiwert, more familiarly resident at Orcinus, does wonders in re-energizing this issue at FireDogLake. Do link through, I merely plucked first part of post which is excellent throughout.
The credibility of the Washington Post’s editorial page took another hit today with Charles Lane’s nasty hit piece attacking Dan Rather — suggesting he’s not in his right mind — for suing CBS in the aftermath of the “Rathergate” ratfucking. Especially the nut graf:
Moreover, Rather’s attorneys point out in their complaint (which Lane appears not to have read) that the private investigator hired by CBS in the aftermath of the debacle concluded that “the Killian documents were most likely authentic, and the underlying story was certainly accurate.”
As Eric Boehlert — whose contemporary reporting for Salon on the story was authoritative and convincing — wrote in his book Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush:
It’s important to remember that at the time of the CBS report, there were many reports that reached this same basic conclusion, including Boehlert’s, an accounting in the Boston Globe, and even a damning report in U.S. News and World Report. It’s likewise important to remember that, because of the manufactured and utterly phony “Rathergate” controversy, the White House never did answer the questions that CBS raised in the course of its reportage utterly separate from the documents:
The established record — contrary to Charles Lane’s fantasy — shows clearly that the answers to these questions are “yes,” “yes,” “yes,” and NO. Yet this has never been made clear to the public — and it’s actively obfuscated by mendacious nonsense like Lane’s.
The CBS report, and the way it fell apart, had all the earmarks of a classic ratfucking. Most of all, it allowed the White House to lie with impunity about Bush’s military records afterward, and to continue doing so to this day.
-clip-
He's obviously far more of a compatriot of the dark losers in B movies than anything resembling a positive role-model. Of course we know that, and anyone watching him mince around eviscerating the standards of even lower-class civility ought to. But even the Hayden/Widmark/Mitchum clan, as actual people, were from what I can tell distinctly more accountable than this sorry little worm - though in some cases similarly flawed.
This also reaffirms the general venality of the editorial page program at the Washington Post. The named author for this piece - Charles Lane - is unfamiliar to me. But there is a significant history over the past few years at the least of totally disingenuous support for the venality of the Cheney-Bush intifatada by regulars on the Op-Ed page, as well as a few episodes of fascinating playground fisticuffs from purported "umbuds," normally thought of as advocates for reader's-rights, or at least neutral arbitrists.
Dan Rather's stature in my mind is frankly much higher now than it ever was when he was an anchor on CBS. The whole Texas Air National Guard (TANG) business, with (possibly) recreated/forged documents in full agreement with what all the other evidence that the bush cabal was not able to shred, is a fascinating exhibit in corporate-media manipulation by a cynical political apparatchik. And of course, CBS management here expands upon their familiar role as most incompetent of news-broadcasters by way of their conscious burying of critical information that media in our country are expected to be promulgating.
But this needs to be said and circulated repeatedly, as we are apparently a people of limited intelligence and even more limited attention-span. Pssst, America: your C-I-C is a habitual liar, never having followed through on his commitments. Liar. Criminal. AWOL.
What does that say for 41 and Barb? Of course they have their own war-crimes to atone for, but what must it be like as parents to know of (and, yes, complicit in) this stuff? They raised at least one character who belongs in a horror movie. OK, prison.
David Neiwert, more familiarly resident at Orcinus, does wonders in re-energizing this issue at FireDogLake. Do link through, I merely plucked first part of post which is excellent throughout.
The credibility of the Washington Post’s editorial page took another hit today with Charles Lane’s nasty hit piece attacking Dan Rather — suggesting he’s not in his right mind — for suing CBS in the aftermath of the “Rathergate” ratfucking. Especially the nut graf:
Finally, no one in his right mind would keep insisting that those phony documents are real and that the Bush National Guard story is true.On both counts (as with nearly all those preceding), Lane is factually and profoundly wrong. There were plenty of reasons at the time to think that the so-called “proof” that the “Killian documents” were fraudulent was itself mostly fraudulent, or at best fatally flawed. And there are plenty of reasons to believe that they may well have been authentic — including the study by Utah State professor David Hailey [PDF of the study itself here], who concluded that he was “totally persuaded they were typed.”
Moreover, Rather’s attorneys point out in their complaint (which Lane appears not to have read) that the private investigator hired by CBS in the aftermath of the debacle concluded that “the Killian documents were most likely authentic, and the underlying story was certainly accurate.”
As Eric Boehlert — whose contemporary reporting for Salon on the story was authoritative and convincing — wrote in his book Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush:
Not one of the key facts, all established through Bush’s own military records, were altered by CBS’s botched National Guard report. But the MSM, having already displayed little initiative on the story, took the 2004 CBS controversy as confirmation that they had been right in 2000 to wave off the issue of Bush’s Guard duty; that there was nothing there. Spooked by the angry conservative mob assembled online and that had been taking aim at CBS and its anchor Dan Rather, the MSM in 2004 quickly sprinted away from questions about Bush’s service and focused its attention solely on CBS’s sins.The CBS fiasco essentially buried the hard factual reality based simply on the very authentic public records — namely, that George W. Bush failed to live up to his military commitments in a time of war, and that he and his minions continue to lie about it to this day.
It’s important to remember that at the time of the CBS report, there were many reports that reached this same basic conclusion, including Boehlert’s, an accounting in the Boston Globe, and even a damning report in U.S. News and World Report. It’s likewise important to remember that, because of the manufactured and utterly phony “Rathergate” controversy, the White House never did answer the questions that CBS raised in the course of its reportage utterly separate from the documents:
– Did a friend of the Bush family use his influence with the then-Texas House Speaker to get George W. Bush into the National Guard?
– Did Lt. Bush refuse an order to take a required physical?
– Was he suspended for “failing to perform up to standards”?
– And did he complete his commitment to the Guard?
The established record — contrary to Charles Lane’s fantasy — shows clearly that the answers to these questions are “yes,” “yes,” “yes,” and NO. Yet this has never been made clear to the public — and it’s actively obfuscated by mendacious nonsense like Lane’s.
The CBS report, and the way it fell apart, had all the earmarks of a classic ratfucking. Most of all, it allowed the White House to lie with impunity about Bush’s military records afterward, and to continue doing so to this day.
-clip-
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home