It is much too early in the 2000 presidential campaign to predict who
will next be anointed with the free world’s most powerful office of
public service — the presidency of the United States. And, with some
17 months left before I will cast my ballot for the nation’s next
president, I can’t honestly say who I will vote for — though I know
already who won’t get my vote (sorry Al — no how, no way).
However, after last Sunday’s hit piece in the Los Angeles Times
against GOP frontrunner and Texas Governor George W. Bush, I feel
compelled to defend him against what I view as a quintessential example
of just how frightened, hypocritical and biased the liberal media really
is.
The article openly questioned Mr. Bush’s military service record
during the Vietnam War, suggesting that because of who he was — the son
of former President George Bush, a Republican representative in
Washington from Texas at the time — he somehow received preferential
treatment to become a Texas Air Guard fighter pilot.
According to the Times and subsequent Associated Press and media
reports, liberal editors and reporters are hinting that Gov. Bush is a
louse because he was able to get an officer’s commission and a coveted
fighter pilot billet on account of his name rather than his
qualifications. In fact, if the research is right — and much of it
isn’t — Gov. Bush was neither competent nor in line for his promotion
to second lieutenant and subsequent appointment to fighter pilot
training after boot camp.
The problem is there were so many things wrong with this story that I
honestly didn’t know where to begin. So I decided to start at the top,
so to speak.
First, the Times’ treatment of the controversy surrounding President
Clinton’s shameful dodging of the draft at the time Bush was climbing
the ranks bordered on insanity. The Times wrote, “In 1969, Arkansas
Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton offered to join a Reserve Officers Training
Corps program, even though he had received an induction notice that made
him ineligible to do so. His draft maneuvers got him a deferral but
brought him harsh criticism when they were revealed during his 1992 run
for president.” Oh, please.
Not only is this obvious fluff but it is factually wrong. Clinton
never completed his Rhodes scholarship, he repeatedly lied to his
Draft Board to make sure he never had to serve one day in the military,
let alone Vietnam, and he broke his promise to return for ROTC training
(he just never showed up). In addition, he eventually wrote his board a
scathing letter in which he whined about being eligible for the draft
and spoke of his “loathing” of the military in general. In short,
Clinton never intended to spend a day in a military uniform and,
as has been his trademark throughout his political career, sought only
to delay and thus defer his obligation — which he did.
While there is no evidence to suggest that either Bush or Clinton
were going to be drafted at all, clearly there is a difference between a
man who volunteers for any service during a war and a man who
lies, cheats, and bashes in order to usurp his obligation. To me that
contrast is stark and manifest.
Further, the Times article led readers to believe that Bush’s
commissioning process was somehow tainted because of his father. Yet
the report listed several sources, all of whom said there is just no
evidence that former President Bush lifted one finger to get his son
into the Guard’s pilot program. Those who served with him also said the
younger Bush was dedicated, worked very hard and expected no free
rides. In fact, many of them confirmed to the Times that Gov. Bush had
volunteered for air combat duty in Vietnam but was never sent — hardly
something he or his father had control over.
The Times also made it sound as though Bush, who joined the Guard
because he thought it a better opportunity to get into the cockpit of a
fighter jet, only chose that branch because he knew Guard units “never
saw combat.” In fact several did, including the Indiana National Guard,
whom former Vice President Dan Quayle was a member. Quayle didn’t go,
but others in the Indiana Guard were not so fortunate.
Times reporters also spoke of Bush’s stint as a pilot as being during
the “height of the war” — further suggesting that he must have done
“something” to get out of having to go to Vietnam. In fact, by the time
Bush graduated flight school, the war was winding down anyway and the
Paris Peace Accords were only months from being signed. According to the
Times, “pilots were in demand in Vietnam,” but the report conveniently
failed to mention when pilots were in demand.
Besides, after Operation Linebacker II
in December 1972, U.S.
air and ground forces were no longer needed in large numbers because the
Nixon administration was already well into bringing tens of thousands of
them home. In fact, that was one of his 1972 election campaign
promises.
Finally the Times tried to make something out of the fact that Bush
received a transfer to an Alabama unit in 1972 “for three months to work
on the Senate campaign of a politician there.” The report continued,
“At the time, the Alabama unit was downsizing, and there appeared to be
no real task for him to perform.”
It’s likely true that the Alabama unit was downsizing, but at
that time so were virtually all Guard and active duty air and
ground combat units. Like I said, Nixon had already decided that war
was just about over for America and was determined to bring it to an end
as soon as possible. The first way to achieve that, one would reason,
is to remove your forces from battle. Duh.
What is ironic is that throughout the report the Times repeatedly
said that no enlistment or promotion rules had been violated and no
established procedures were broken in order to give the junior Bush his
spot. That in and of itself should lead any rational person to ask,
“Why is this worthy of the front page, and where’s the story here?”
The answer is there simply is no story. The mainstream
liberal press is just scared to death of losing the White House in 2000
and, to be fair, after eight years of Bill and Hillary Clinton they
ought to be worried.
Even if Bush did receive special treatment to get in
the Guard, it is obvious he worked hard to make his appointment
worthwhile, that he sought to fly jets in combat over Vietnam, and that
he served the nation’s military with honor and distinction. Clinton, on
the other hand, has never served any office he has held with
honor and distinction. His denigration of the office of the presidency
is the stuff legends are made of and, barring revisionism, will be
remembered as the most corrupt administration in U.S. history.
The blatant irony and hypocrisy behind the Times’ motive, however,
didn’t even register with the editorial staff. It was just a few years
ago when they and most of the other establishment liberal press were
admonishing Americans for making such a big deal out of Clinton’s
lack of military service. In fact back then, it wasn’t supposed
to matter even that Clinton lied repeatedly to avoid the draft and avoid
military service altogether.
To smear Gov. Bush for trying to perform military service —
regardless of the entrance circumstances — is absurd, ludicrous and
typical of a hypocritical media apparatus that is destroying the last of
its own credibility. I don’t believe this “story” will go nowhere
because it isn’t a story to begin with — at least not one most
Americans will find newsworthy. In fact, I predict millions of
Americans will find it too offensive to forgive.
If only Clinton had received as much scrutiny for his patently more
deceptive behavior.
