resurrectionsong

March 15, 2004

The Drudge School of Journalism

Eric Boehlert, writing for Salon, Bill Morlin and Karen Dorn Steele, writing for the Spokesman-Review, and Marty Isham, author of a soon-to-be-released book that fueled this entire exercise in creative writing, must all have attended the Drudge School of Journalism. And, no, I don't mean that in the nicest possible way.

Instead of reporting facts or even waiting to find out if their suspicions have any merit whatsoever, these people are all happily making near-accusations that have no basis in reality whatsoever. From Boehlart, happily fanning the flames:

As a lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard, George Bush insists he voluntarily stopped flying in 1972 because he simply lost interest in being a pilot. That explanation has never washed (most pilots would rather fly than eat), and now a new possibility has emerged; the Pentagon, suspicious of possible drug or alcohol use, booted Bush from the cockpit. That's the intriguing scenario laid out in a detailed, must-read from Sunday's Spokane, WA., Spokesman-Review newspaper.

Pointing to stringent U.S. regulations known as the Human Reliability Program -- and in place at the time of Bush's spotty service -- the rules were used to weed out pilots who had access to nuclear weapons. Pilots such as Bush. According to the paper, HRP was instituted "to screen military personnel for their mental, physical and emotional fitness before granting them access to nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Under the rules, pilots could be removed immediately from the cockpit for HRP issues."

Unfortunately for the supporters of the theory, there is not one single shred of evidence to support this theory. Unfortunately for the rest of us, that doesn't stop them from spreading their conspiracy theories. Like all journalists with an axe to grind, they theorize away, painting a picture almost wholly of their own imagining, and then pretend that they are on to something big.

‘‘The Human Reliability Program, in a nutshell, applied to every U.S. Air Force and Air Guard pilot in any aircraft they would fly,” said Marty Isham, a former Air Force briefing officer.

Now a military historian and researcher, Isham is writing a book about the Air Defense Command, which controlled Air Guard units nationwide, including the Washington and Texas squadrons.

Isham said there is a ‘‘good likelihood” HRP regulations were either applied or about to be applied against Bush and that is why he stopped flying on April 16, 1972.

Never in the article, though, is a scrap of evidence offered (other than the authors' imaginings) to support the conclusion. In the absence of evidence, though, the lack of a paper trail is used as damning evidence in and of itself. This isn't a news story; it's a work of fiction.

The Spokesman-Review article ends on this oh-so-chilling note.

‘‘If Bush was under the Human Reliability Program, there should be a paper trail. And if there's not, that's very, very unusual,” the University of Texas professor said.

Or, maybe there is no paper trail because he wasn't under the Human Reliability Program.

Of course, that wouldn't support the theory, would it?

Posted by zombyboy at March 15, 2004 10:22 AM | TrackBack

Comments

I really hate our paper. The Spokesman-Review really seems to think it should be the standard-bearer for Seattle-style political partisanship.
...one of the reasons I feel there is a left-ward slant to the newsmedia is I see an obvious bias in that direction everytime I open my freakin newspaper.
And Spokane is largely Republican/Conservative, so the newspaper being out of step is jarring to me.

Posted by: nathan at March 15, 2004 12:14 PM

Reading that article was pretty jarring to me--I had to check to make sure that it wasn't one of the alternative papers that only run far-left conspiracy theory nuts. You don't expect to see a real news outlet run a story like this, especially under the heading of "breaking news."

Posted by: zombyboy at March 15, 2004 01:12 PM

Wait- I just read/heard something somewhere (brain is sacnning files) that said that there wasn't drug testing in the Air Guard until after GWB was out...? Anyone hear that or read it?

Besides, really, we all know just how far the arm can reach when it really wants to grab something...

Posted by: Rae at March 15, 2004 01:27 PM

These guys piss me off so much!

To them, there are only two possible conclusions to be drawn from any evidence about Bush's military career.

Either he was AWOL and a deserter, or more research is needed.

Give it up.

Posted by: Shad0runr at March 15, 2004 04:47 PM

Either he was AWOL and a deserter, or more research is needed.

That really does sum it up nicely, doesn't it?

Posted by: zombyboy at March 15, 2004 04:49 PM

You don't expect to see a real news outlet run a story like this, especially under the heading of "breaking news."

Fifteen years ago or so, the San Jose Mercury News ran a series of articles airing the belief among some African-American moonbats (apparently including Rep. Maxine Waters, IIRC) that the CIA was importing cocaine into inner cities to spread drug addiction.

Sometimes it sucks to have a long memory. Robs me of a lot of opportunities to be outraged.

Posted by: McGehee at March 15, 2004 07:08 PM

The other thing that bothers me about all this is that IF he was removed due to the HRC program, it was for the same things he already admitted (or at least didn't deny): alcohol and/or cocaine abuse.
Even more importantly, it was more than 30 years in the past. The Dems and the Left have continually advanced the concept of "Moving On", that as soon as a Dem leader gives a half-hearted apology, it should be forgotten and removed from the debate, so I don't see how it would make any difference to Bush's Administration even if this is why he was removed from flying.
He clearly isn't suffering from those problems right now.

Posted by: nathan at March 16, 2004 10:09 AM

Absolutely. It's a smear campaign being run by journalists who don't even have the decency to remain consistent with their own ideals.

Posted by: zombyboy at March 16, 2004 10:12 AM

Or (worse), they are consistent in their own ideals: Anti-Republican.
Hmmm...am I really that cynical?

Posted by: nathan at March 16, 2004 03:25 PM

Unfortunately, you're probably completely right about that.

Cynical or not, it sure feels like the truth.

Posted by: zombyboy at March 16, 2004 03:30 PM