Meek the Press

Meek the Press: Russert and Jennings AWOL on Bush Guard Service Facts

The headlines should read "Surprise! More chicanery from W's camp goes unchallenged by Meek the Press and the Softball Question League." But it won't. Military service and duty need specifically defined for Tim Russert and Peter Jennings, especially the latter who recently claimed that filmmaker Michael Moore was wrong about the Bush "deserter" assertion and that Wesley Clark ought to recant Moore's endorsement. Fox News, in what can’t be considered a fair and balanced moment, called Moore a propagandist without a hint of irony. Enough said.

On this past Sunday's Meet the Press, the masses were treated once again to media equivocation. From Russert to Reuters, the ad populum fallacy card played out muddling a clear cut issue-- presidential candidate military service. This time, it’s in a rare face to face with the infallible Bush, who has done fewer press conferences than any president in modern history. On the point of military service in Vietnam (germane to election 2004 or otherwise), frontrunner John Kerry factually served (regardless if he's the Democratic nominee), Bush did not, where "served" means did active duty, showed up (and, one might add importantly, saw combat-- isn't that what service we're talking about here?). This simple fact makes the AWOL issue irrelevant to the Time Magazine pollster posed question. (Although, the AWOL issue raises other questions of character.) However, the press seems to have trouble meeting the facts. Rather, the public gets deceptive polling use to tell it what to think, no concrete information necessary. Here's how Reuters' Adam Entous puts it, analysis implicit in what context is lacking,

"Analysts said the issue of military service could hurt Bush, especially if Kerry wins the Democratic presidential nomination. A new Time magazine poll says 60 percent think Kerry did his duty for the country during the Vietnam war. In contrast, 39 percent said Bush did his duty. Thirty-six percent think it is "definitely or probably true" that Bush went AWOL, absent without leave, when he should have been training."

What does this mean about the facts? Opinions unsupported by facts are logically meaningless, but in the electorate, they are dangerous things. Let's analyze the quote and insert the facts that most folks seem to be missing. Kerry served. Fact. He won medals and threw them over the White House fence in protest. Fact. Why 40% have trouble understanding this is amazing. The man served, clearly. Bush served, but in the Guard allegedly in two states and then later failed to report for duty and was dismissed early. Simple fact. What's the problem? Bush really didn't serve. He even said in the Russert interview that there may be no evidence, but that he did serve. Say what one will about the fallout, but much is certain. Bush even suggested there was no evidence to support his claim, that the papers may be missing. In fact he was right. There was no evidence, other than that which shows he did not serve (see link below *). To pretend otherwise is just dishonest. The press had little problem calling Clinton a liar over the "is" definition affair and the "I didn't have sexual relations" debacle. What's the trouble now? We don't need a double standard here, one will do just fine.

Remember Bush the candidate, "even the appearance of wrongdoing" will find no home in the White House post-Clinton (the evildoer). The public is somehow supposed to buy the notion that dignity was newly restored to the oval office (no longer called oral) in the phony 2000 election, the stonewalling of the 9-11 commission, the fraudulent WMD claims, Plamegate, Enron (remember Lay?), Leave No Child Behind (when leaving them behind), the Healthy Forest Initiative that cuts down trees, preserving wildlife in Alaska by opening it up for drilling, and...ad infinitum the non sequitor. Dignity restored? This is doublespeak at its finest. Now the press is AWOL, too.

Further, how is duty or service defined in the Time poll? It isn't. It's implied cleverly, or not so. It's a sad day, day after day, when our language is so distorted to Orwellian political ends. The meaning of key terms shifts from candidate to candidate (Kerry, Clark, Dean, Bush, even Clinton still). What we learn in the end is worse than nothing, it is purposeful obfuscation of an otherwise common sense affair. Further, public opinion is moot where mass media disseminated "factual" information is skewed, i.e., garbage in garbage out. Exposing nonsense from public officials as such is supposed to be the job of journalists like Russert and Jennings. However, since many journalists have deserted their posts on the Bush service record, as on other recent national issues, they are failing the public. The warrior president doesn’t like to be told he’s wearing no uniform on his way to the flight deck for another photo op. We as a nation don't have to like the truth, we just have to recognize it and act accordingly.

Watchdogging is now the job of NGO's like Retropoll and citizen activists who want their country back, taken away from the lying liars who earn Al Franken’s moniker anew each passing day. (Check RP out at http://www.retropoll.org, read about us in Project Censored 2004 or Zmag October 2003, and look for our next poll in April). Call your local news rooms (if there are any left) along with public officials and demand dignity be restored to our ailing political discourse and truth be returned to the airwaves. To accept less is democratic suicide.

[*To clear the air about Bush AWOL, see Walter Robinson's in depth look at the issue for the Boston Globe in 2000. Link below.]

http://web.archive.org/web/20000619121358/http:/http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/One_year_gap_in_Bush_s_Guard_duty+.shtml



Mickey S. Huff is Co-Director of Berkeley based Retropoll and an adjunct history professor. He can be reached at mickeyhuff [at] mac.com.