I sometimes think I’m a compulsive note taker. I almost always have a pad and pen (or pencil) nearby so I can scribble down some thought that crosses my mind, an observation of the way the world works, a commentary on my own quirks and desires (including “wish lists” of specific books, DVDs and products I might like to have), ideas for screenplays, thoughts about movies as well as scenes and images from projects I’m already working on, including scripts and my so-far unnamed fantasy epic. And in the past nearly eighteen months, I have jotted down numerous ideas for posts to this blog, some of which I have realized, most which remain just germs of an idea, awaiting some effort to bring them to life in a form which better services to communicate the ideas to others (than a random scribbling on a scrap of paper).
Whenever I sort my notes, I come across numerous such ideas, blog posts not realized. Some I may return to, others have become dated by the time I review the verbal record of my brainstorm. Perhaps, if I have time (which I doubt) in the coming weeks, I may address a few of these ideas. For while the inspiring event may have been a few weeks — or months — in the past, the passage of time has not diminished the importance theme I wished to address.
In one such note, likely from late November (or early December of last year),* I wondered at Mary Mapes’ insistence that the documents she relied upon for a celebrated September 8, 2004 60 Minutes II piece on the president’s National Guard service were genuine. In the immediate aftermath of the program, bloggers raised questions about the authenticity of these documents. CBS was forced to retract the story. And the subsequent Thornburgh-Boccardi report established that the documents, in the words of Powerline’s Scott Johnson, were “pathetic frauds.” (In this January 29, 2005 Weekly Standard column, Johnson offers a good summary of the story.)
In my recently rediscovered note, I wondered why, if Mary Mapes believes that the documents are indeed authentic and remains convinced that that then-Lieutenant George W. Bush received preferential treatment in his Guard service, she doesn’t (now that she’s unemployed) use her free time and reporting skills to authenticate the documents. She could go down to Texas to try to connect the documents to Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian, Bush’s then-commanding officer. And review (and debunk with facts and arguments) her critics’ claims.
After reviewing this note, I did a little Internet sleuthing and even with my limited knowledge of the story, found a few details which could help Ms. Mapes in her detective work (some in online excerpts of her own book). For example, Bill Burkett, the man who gave her the documents, said he got them from a Lucy Ramirez in a Houston Holiday Inn. If Ms. Mapes really believes the documents are genuine, she could go down to that Holiday Inn and see what she could learn there, especially given that Ms. Ramirez gave Burkett a “specific room number.”
I highly doubt Ms. Mapes will find anything, given that (among other things) Little Green Footballs‘ Charles Johnson created an exact copy using Microsoft Word, technology not available when the documents were first written. That said, by doing everything in her power to authenticate these documents, Ms. Mapes would prove that her belief that they are genuine is not based on animus against the president, but instead on a commitment to uncovering the facts of the case.
I’m pretty sure I had first scribbled this note late last fall when Ms. Mapes book came out. One issue from this story remains relevant even today — that if a critic of the president really believes his or her allegations are accurate, that individual should put her money where her mouth is — and do what she can to prove her case. Ms. Mapes is one among many in the MSM (and on the Left) who has made substantial allegations against the president, yet fails to address the points critics make in calling those allegations into question. This is why (I believe) her failure to follow through remains relevant even today.
Ms. Mapes contends the documents are authentic. To prove that she’s doing more than just taking issue with her critics, she needs to undertake the legwork necessary to prove them wrong. Unless she shows a commitment to authenticating these documents, she will reman just another celebrated individual afflicted with B.D.S. — Bush Derangement Syndrome. And a poster child for the bias — and decline — of the MSM.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
* Usually I date my notes, but this one lacked a date.
Because authenticity or truth makes no difference to her, no more than it does to any liberal.
Oops, anyway, she believes it, therefore it’s true. It makes no difference if the facts hold it up or not, as long as she believes it.
If CBS can’t even admit that those Microsoft Word documents weren’t created in 1972, what chance do we have of the media admitting they were wrong about WMD, wrong about the links between Saddam and al Qaeda, or wrong about any of the other allegations they have made about the Bush Admin?
Even if she found incontrovertible iron-clad belief, no one on this blog or Powerline would believe it. So whats the point?
You’re right, Gryph. She lied to us before, what the hell would be the motivation to trust her in the future?
The thing is that liberals have been spinning this yarn for years, even longer than what is known on the national level. It’s been investigated and has been concluded that there’s nothing there. The truth is out there, but the libs don’t give a damn about it. It would ruin their agenda. Plus, they would have to admit that they’re wrong and have been lying to the American people for years. You know that they’re not about to do that.
For the sake of discussion, one can grant Mapes’–what? Perfidy?–now, to continue the discussion: Where was he? Has anyone on either side of the argument ever documented where he was? Other than anecdotal evidence?
Regardless of the above, re-hashing this serves no good purpose, does it?
Let the invective fly!
:–)
In the spirit of bipartisanship, I offer you this blog spot:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
It contains columns from what seems like the entire spectrum of political ideology. I just read a piece by Miranda Devine, SMH (Sydney Morning Herald), which pretty much repeats what you’ve been posting about the “reality” of life in Baghdad.
Agape.
Patrick, if she was to prove her accusations even 50% would that diminish her efforts to help brief Democrat political operatives on the employability of the fake information? Would that diminish her deceit to CBS News, Rather, and the network? That’s a double No.
I don’t think you’re exactly a good choice to raise any issue about credibility or lying. Bigots lack credibility on most issues because their hatred clouds sound judgment or reason. To wit, Patrick in another post: “I’ll be the first to say that I think Islam is a bad religion….”
Like someone else suggested… go get your white robe and pointy hat on Patrick and then tell us why you think we should accept your posturing on Mapes’ integrity.
Gene–I agree, RealClearPolitics is a great site.
Patrick, if Mary Mapes could authenticate these documents, then I for one would believe her claims. But, given the link I provided above to Little Green Footballs, I highly doubt that’s going to happen. Too many type-face issues. Bill Burkett is far from a credible source; he seems to have a vendetta against the president and he’s the one who supplied the documents.
RWP, #!, aren’t you painting with an awfully wide brush when you post that the truth makes no difference to “any liberal”.
I don’t personally know a lot of people who’d describe themselves as “liberal” but those I do know have religious values, are patriotic, and, while they disagree with many of his policies, do not hate George W. Bush. They are not socialists. Most of them support the war in Iraq but are anxious to see Iraqi forces assume more responsibility for security so the American presence can draw down.
– Andrew Sullivan
Andrew’s exactly correct.
Of course, Andrew has no problem endorsing Christianists who believe that gays are second-class citizens who should be stripped of legal rights — as long as they’re Democrats.
This is why I don’t really even bother with Sullivan any more. He simply cannot figure out why his constant hatemongering and stereotyping against the religious continues to drive gay rights lower and lower and lower. As long as he and the others who blame Christianity for the fact that they will gladly sell out to homophobia as long as it comes from Democrats continue, gays will continue to lose rights.
Patrick’s quote shows why I don’t bother with Andrew any more. His conclusion is only wrong and his rhetoric is laughable.
And Patrick, this comment has a little to do with my post as Andrew’s rhetoric has to do with reality.
To call the GOP a “fundamentalist church” is just plain silly. And then to add that line about bribing business interests! Jeez! Has he paid any attention to any of the Republican legislation? Only a handful of bills come from the “fundamentalist” wing of the party — and some of them don’t even make it past committee hearings! Has Andrew noted that the two candidates leading in the polls (McCain, Giuliani) for the 2008 GOP nod are anything but fundamentalists? Has he spent anytime at Republican meetings — or interacting with the Republican faithful? Does he use facts to justify his rhetoric? Has he talked to Republican party chairmen — at the state and local level — and not use those extremists whose views make the headlines?
Yup, the fundamentalists have a presence in the GOP, but the only issue where they seem to be having any success at promoting significant legislation is blocking gay marriage at the state level. No wonder Andrew thinks they’re in control. They’ve been successful at opposing his pet issue, the very issue which seems to define his every political view since February 24, 2006.
No serious poll has ever shown the president’s ratings below 39, a considerably higher number than Truman enjoyed at certain points in his second term. And I think it is more than fundamentalist Christians who support him. I also wonder where Andrew derives that 25% figure. He probably pulled it out of a hat because it sounds nice.
The president has made many mistakes — and my support for him is, on the whole, lukewarm, but when I read silly comments like Andrew’s on the state of he GOP, I find myself taking rushing to defend the president because while he may not be perfect, he’s far from the demon of some excitable voices on the Left. And the GOP is far from the fundamentalist behemoth from the crazed imagination of Bush-hating secularists. And it’s fun taking on such silliness from Sullivan. Because his arguments are increasingly easy to rebut.
It’s too bad; Andrew used to make strong arguments. Lately, however, he seems only to be making angry rants.
Like Gryph. (Who was projecting again, in his #4)
Has anyone on either side of the argument ever documented where he was?
Byron York at NRO extensively documented Bush’s service with the Texas ANG, and demonstrates conclusively that not only was Bush exactly where he was supposed to be, he actually exceeded his required commitment.
The problem with Sullivan’s analysis isn’t so much that 25% of the base is fundamentalist religious (as a matter of fact I think Bush is more likely to lose fundamentalists than hardcore GOPers), but because about 25% of the GOP base is hardcore GOP.
I think a dem problem would have the same issue-about 25-30% of its base are going to view a democrat president as favorable and support him no matter what. What were Carter’s approval ratings (did they do approval ratings in the 70’s, I admit I was too busy riding bikes and playing hide and go seek to care much about Carter)?
The reality is that each party has a base that is unlikely to sway away from their party.
12: Of course, Andrew has no problem endorsing Christianists who believe that gays are second-class citizens who should be stripped of legal rights — as long as they’re Democrats.
Such as?
Dan at #13: “And Patrick, this comment has a little to do with my post as Andrew’s rhetoric has to do with reality.” Good point, Dan; right on the target.
But when has truth that stopped Patrick’s anger? He’s been taught all his life that when he’s mad, those are bad feelings, he must speak. Not to speak requires self restraint and that’s bad, too. Speak if you have to make it up. Speak if you know it’s a lie. Speak if it’s hate filled speech –that’s Patrick’s trinity of irrational rhetoric.
Most bigots are angry at their core and get more mad as their opinions are further marginalized; it’s a terrible cycle and the only way to stop it is a group hug. (jk)
No, because if truth, facts, and reality did make a difference, there’s no way anyone could be a liberal.
#15. Thanks for the link. The article is interesting.
Such as?
John Kerry.
(i)Such as?(/i)
Robert “Sheets” Byrd
Dan says;
So let see… you critisize Andrew because he endorsed John Kerry, who “sold out to Homophobia” but you have no problem endorsing Bush because he…..”sold out to Homophobia”? !!
Sorry, but you just lost any credibility on defining what anyone’s political “reality” is.
People like Mapes who don’t admit when they are wrong often make fatal errors. She suffers from eyes wide shut.
Well said Instant Magic –it’s a problem for a some here like Patrick, Stephen, Kevin, raj, Mr Moderate, GoB, Matty and all the variations. They aren’t able to see, understand or comprehend because to do so would require opening up their eyes –seeing things differently than they’ve been brainwashed to perceive– a tough, tough task to those who have made political negligence an artform.
I use to think that guys like Patrick, Stephen, Kevin, raj and others could be helped to see the truth… but they want nothing to do with balance, fair criticism, or any dissent from their version of political truth. And the speed at which they casually play the Victim Card, wow.
It’s a shame; usually that kind of hardcore political dogma doesn’t hit people until they get into the 70’s or 80’s… for some of those mentioned, I think it hit them in college.
So let see… you critisize Andrew because he endorsed John Kerry, who “sold out to Homophobia” but you have no problem endorsing Bush because he…..”sold out to Homophobia”? !!
Well, first, that was me who made the quote to which you are referring, Gryph.
Second my point in criticizing Sullivan was that his excuses for bashing Bush invariably backfire when compared with his endorsement of Kerry.
For instance, Sullivan bashes Bush for opposing gay marriage and supporting constitutional amendments to strip gays of rights for religious reasons; Kerry supports the same thing for the same reasons, but Sullivan praises that as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
For instance, Sullivan bashes Bush for increasing spending; Kerry planned to spend upwards of two trillion dollars more than Bush, but Sullivan praises that as “fiscally responsible”.
For instance, Sullivan bashes Bush for expanding entitlement programs like Medicare Part D; Kerry supported not only Part D, but a LARGER Part D AND even greater expansion of government entitlement programs, but Sullivan supported and endorsed that.
What Andrew would like you to believe, Gryph, is that he stands on principle. However, Andrew’s only real principle is that anything that Bush does is wrong, so the opposite must be right — regardless of the facts involved in the matter.
Patrick at #23 “Sorry, but you just lost any credibility on defining what anyone’s political “reality” is.”
And you, Patrick (why do I keep imagining a chubby pink starfish?) serving as daily commander of the tin foil hat brigade have a lot of room to question anyone’s credibility, political reality, or what is meant by the word “is”. Despite all your effort, Mary Mapes is still an outcast amongst her own kind. She willingly engaged in deceit and dishonesty. She suspended her journalist ethics by ferreting out the story in advance to Kerry campaign para-operatives, and she got doused for it. Rightly so.
Sullivan isn’t “the” story except to the extent you can spin discussion off into a debate on his veracity. And it’s too bad others rise to the bait.
I keep seeing my name over and over in V the K’s and Michigan Matts comments. I don’t actually read them but I find it surprising that they can’t come up with something else to talk about than me.
NDT, I still think you and GPW just have personal issues with Sullivan. He is not a liberal. When did “conservative” come to mean sucking Bush’s dick all the time? You are just blinded by the bush in front of you. He’s not going to be in office forever you know. How are you going to define conservative after he is gone?
And there are a lot of conservatives, such as William F. Buckley, or George Will, who agree with Sullivan on many, many things regarding the Bush Presidency. But no doubt you will soon paint them with the scarlet letter “L”, soon enough.
I usually try not to use a wide brush to paint people’s motivations but when it comes to politics, liberals (and I’m thinking of a discussion I had with my sister whom I love very much) expect all politicians to lie about everything. They’re more interested in the *truth*. The *truth* is that Democrats, no matter what they actually say or do, support equal rights for blacks and women and gays, support tolerance and *care* about the poor. If they promote bills that work against any of those things, well what’s really important is the *truth* that they *care.*
The *truth* of the Republicans is that they oppose equal rights for blacks and women and gays, no matter that they say or do things contrary to that *truth*.
That’s why if Kerry and Bush made the exact same statement about gay marriage it makes no difference at all. Because the statement has nothing to do with the *truth* that Democrats *care* and Republicans hate gays.
Mapes is more interested in the true truth… that Bush shirked his National Guard duty. We can get cramps from laughing at “fake but accurate” but some people take this very seriously. It’s the same thing with the Abu Ghraib guy… so the picture wasn’t him like he claimed it was… the true truth is that he was treated the same way. Fake but accurate.
So what if it was a police officer who “knew” the true truth and decided that false testimony was acceptable because it served that greater truth?
Lets even assume that the officer was 100% correct about the true truth. Is fake but accurate acceptable?
Mapes real mistake (other than putting the true truth above the truth) was in thinking that the story itself was significant. That it *mattered* if a young George Bush didn’t religiously attend to his guard duty, that if she could just *prove* the true truth that everyone knew was true, the people who responded with “so?” would have to face that true truth at last.
What she failed and still fails (apparently) to understand is that if you check in with the commander, tell him where to find you, ask him if he needs you and if not, could you go do this other thing, that the commander might well say “yes” even if you’re *not* a favored son.
She wasn’t even right about the true truth that she was hoping to prove.
Patrick at #28: “…seeing my name over and over… I don’t actually read them”.
I can’t speak for VdaK, but I think you’re being disingenious to tohers here -which tops your bigotry of Arabs and Islamic followers anyday.
Patrick in #23, I didn’t say what you attribute to me.
As to your words in #29, well, did you read my latest piece, posted before you penned this comment. I gave the president Ds in two areas and faulted his communication skills and acknowledged that the “fairest criticism” readers have made about this blog is that we have not criticized the president often enough.
I do not define conservatism by the president. Andrew may not be a liberal, but he is certainly not a conservative. He features a quotation on his blog saying that conservatives define anyone as a liberal who utters one word of criticism of the president. Yet, I have read some of the best criticism of the president on conservative editorial pages — and blogs. I can’t consider anyone a conservative who utters the silly and inaccurate diatribe you quoted above. You claim I have a personal issue with Sullivan. He’s been behaving for the past 25 months as if he has a personal issue with the president.
I don’t consider William F. Buckley, Michelle Malkin or the Wall Street Journal any less conservative because they have criticized the president — and neither do the great majority of serious conservatives. I have no clue where you — or Andrew — get the notion that we define conservatism by George W. Bush. I have not seen that notion anywhere in this blog — or any of the conservative blogs I read regularly — or on any conservative editorial page.
Dan, well said. I wish more conservatives would stop thinking of W as some conservative heir of the Reagan Revolution. Or the WSJ or Natl Review or Amer Spectator or Weekly Standard or others as the “voice” of conservatism.
Conservatism in America is anything but monolithic. It’s richly diverse, subtly nuanced, and wildly mutating –unlike it’s counterpart, modern liberalism, which is dead to innovation and continues to operate on the predicate of Just Do No.
Matt–you pretty much summarized the reasons we did our “report card.” We do not see the president as the defining figure in American conservatism.
And while we believe he has proposed some very “non-conservative” policies, we also think he has been a solid Reagan conservative on some issues, hence the 9 different categories.
22: Sullivan has criticized Byrd, whom he calls a “former Klan member and active anti-gay bigot”:
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_04_04_dish_archive.html#108122145709523328
According to Sullivan, Byrd is “a former racist who now directs his bigotry at gays.” (We may legitimately dispute his use of the word “former.”)
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_07_17_dish_archive.html#112204102605927711
He hasn’t criticized Byrd very often, because on the national stage Byrd is basically irrelevant. (Heck, he’s not even relevant in his own party.)
21: During the presidential campaign, John Kerry did not declare that Gays should be deemed “second-class citizens,” or that we should be “stripped of legal rights.” Neither did Bush, for that matter — he left that rhetoric to his fundamentalist supporters.
I don’t see Sullivan letting Democrats off the hook when it comes to Gay-baiting.