So, we’ve got to go on an Easter egg hunt.

First stop, yesterday’s column. The Amazing Froomkin has this to say about Rather’s suit, in great contrast to chinless wonder Teabag Fred’s winger-rampant and disinformation-ridden Op-Ed page. Let me just fair-use the whole paragraph:

Dan Rather Watch

Eric Boehlert of Media Matters marvels at the reaction to Dan Rather’s lawsuit, specifically from all the “mainstream journalists who rushed in to denounce the former anchorman as dishonest, arrogant, bitter, and delusional, all the while making sure not to take up Rather’s challenge of addressing the underlying facts of the story surrounding Bush’s no-show military service.”

And the key point that Teabag Fred’s service providers conveniently omit:

Writes Boehlert: “[T]he dirty little secret that [winger] bloggers and mainstream journalists don’t want to discuss is that Rather is right — the National Guard story was true.”

We were never defeated on the merits of the story. Not ever. If CBS caved for business reasons after Federalist Society operative F/Buckheard fired off his Rovian triple-bankshot on serifs, that’s not our problem—except insofar as Bush got selected again, because our famously free press happily accepted any excuse to drop the story, of course.

Second stop, the long Googled list of Froomkin’s exhaustive posting—thank The God(ess)(e)(s) of Your Choice for Froomkin:

For more background, here’s some of my own coverage of the controversy over Bush’s service.

Third stop, the Easter Egg!  Read more 

Another fat-bellied, satiated Republican rat slithers away from the administration’s sinking ship to spend more time with the nest: Dan Bartlett. Ah, memories:

Bartlett handled damage control during the first Bush presidential campaign, particularly on questions regarding Bush’s National Guard service and business dealings. Bartlett collected [destroyed? faked?] documents, interviewed [prepped? intimidated? tampered?] people involved in the stories and confronted Bush with direct and often uncomfortable questions about the various controversies before fielding reporters’ [toothless, lackadaisical] inquiries [if any].

Yeah, you squashed the toothpaste back in the tube on that one, Dan. Good work, and it couldn’t have been easy, even with Unka Karl helping that has-been Dan Rather stumble on the wrong story. When all the time Paul Lukasiak had the goods, based on detailed examination of the actual Guard records:

I think its obvious to any reasonable person who looks at Bush’s military records that the only way to describe his actions was “dereliction of duty.” You don’t need to know what the specific rules and procedures were to recognize that Bush did not, as the White House insists, “fulfill his duty.” Simple common sense tells you that Bush did not have the authority to decide to stop flying, as the White House suggests that he did. Nor is it difficult to conclude that there is something wrong when someone doesn’t show up for over six months.

Je repete: Lukasiak had the goods. Because Lukasiak mastered the Guard’s requirements for duty, which nobody in our very well paid and famously free press* bothered to do:

Bush’s actual minimum participation requirements were far greater than those found in the US Code and CFRs, because his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 1125D, that of an F102 pilot, and F102 pilots were required to do far more than the absolute minimum. When one compares Bush’s record against the requirements of his actual job, there is no question that he failed to come anywhere close to meeting his obligations. Bush had two choices, either fulfill the requirements of his AFSC, or request a different job. He did neither.

So, I do wonder what Bartlett’s “direct and uncomfortable questions” were.  Read more