Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Razor
I first read about the new "information" regarding the President's service yesterday morning on MSNBC.com. If I'm not mistaken, this was all stirred up by a Boston Globe investigation. Why do I feel that this new research is less than unbiased, and coincidentally timed for shortly after the convention?
|
Three "separate" attacks, though I doubt the mainstream media would bother to explore any connections.
1. Nicholas Kristof runs a New York Times column claiming a newly discovered person of unimpeachable character who never saw Bush in Alabama. Leaving aside the logical problem of disproving a negative, it turns out that the person in question (i) had made this same claim in February, so not newly discovered, and (ii) was appearing in ads for a MoveOn funded anti-Bush group that coincidently come out at the same time as Kristof's op-ed.
2. The Boston Globe (owned by the NY Times) runs its story. I admit I haven't followed this one so I don't know the details.
3. Dan Rather finally gets his 60 Minutes 2 segment on the former Texas official who claims to have gotten Bush into the Guard when the official was Speaker of the Texas House. When he first peddled the story, during a fraud investigation by state officials under then-Gov. Bush, he was Lt. Governor when he got Bush in. Then it turned out Bush was already in the Guard for a year when this guy became Lt. Governor. Oh, and no Bush family member interceded on W's behalf; it was a family friend, conveniently dead. Oh, and CBS did throw a bone to objectivity by noting that the former official had contributed some money to Kerry in the past. It was about $500,000; he is a Kerry campaign co-chair in Texas; and he is a lobbyist who stands to gain power if Kerry wins (Sen. Daschle once described him as the "51st Democratic Senator").