If they ARE forgeries (and that's a big IF...even with my extremely low opinion of old media, I have hard time believing they'd be party to or duped by something like this...but I could be giving them too much credit), then the Globe should be put out of bidness. Period.

I know the vast majority of the print and TV media are liberals (reference SBVT getting zero airtime on the Today Show while oft-debunked author Kitty Kelly gets THREE days...try to spin that one, MSM defenders), but I can't figure out if their incessant attacks (which are often found later to be outright lies or simply untrue) are due to liberal bias or just flat out incompetence.

Although most ARE biased left, it may not BE the bias...I'm starting to think the media is simply dominated by BAD reporters. They just don't know HOW to do their jobs. Any other takes on this?

Gloating is such an ugly thing.

But, sometimes, one just has to gloat.

Bill Hobbs has repeatedly defended Bush against charges of being AWOL. He hase repeatedly declared the "Case Closed."

Yet, each and every time Bill Hobbs has told us there's absolutely nothing to the stories of Bush's dubious service--another fact pops up to demonstrate Bill hasn't quite told the truth.

How many more times will Bill Hobbs have to invent new stories to defend Bush? And how many more times will these stories be shot down? It's a little pathetic watching Hobbs mutter darkly about 'forgeries' and cling to the WH talking point about having an honorable discharge.

I'd remind folks one of the washington DC snipers has an honorable discharge, too--and he went AWOL and assaulted a superior.

As Lawrence Korb (fmr Reagan Asst Sec. of Def) said about Bush's lack of service: "If I cheated on my taxes and didn't get caught--I still cheated on my taxes."

This, in a nutshell, is the latest in the Bill Hobbs defense of AWOL Bush. Let's call it the Bill Hobb's OJ Simpson defense.

Gosh, you mean to say that the documents CBS and others obtained under FOIA, copies of which the White House itself released following the broadcast of 60 Minutes, are forgeries ?

Gee, how and where did the White House get copies of supposed forgeries ? And why would the White House distribute copies of forgeries to the media ?

The supposed refutations you're citing don't refute anything. There are fairly extensive reviews of Dubya's records which clearly show he failed to fulfill his obligations, and they go way beyond the silly points argument (which is pretty much all your "refutations" offer).

Failure to appear for the flight physical, suspended from flight status, initial reserve obligation extended by six months, I've yet to see a "refutation" for these facts which are supported by the records the White House already released.

Except, Chris, that even Atrios has admitted that the documents the WH put out were the copies they were sent from CBS. Curses, foiled again.

Failure to appear for the flight physical: didn't need to as the military was phasing the plane out and Bush, no longer a full-time pilot but just a one-weekend-a-month guardsman, was no longer needed as a pilot.

Suspended from flight status: yeah. See above.

Silly points argument: What is silly about that? The points are how the Guard tracked a guardsman's service and tallied up to see if he had met his obligation. Bush did, in spades.

Now, from the Left we still hear that no one ever saw Bush on post in Alabama. Except, three credible witnesses have recalled seeing him there. And the colonel whose famous quote the Left has bandied about for years turns out to have been suffering from Alzheimers when he was asked if he remembered ever having, 30 years ago, seen Bush on post.

As for why the White House distributed the allegedly forged documents, SDN has correctly stated it: the WH provided the media with copies of the documents that CBS provided.

As for Mr. Korb, he was responding to a question about whether Bush skipped drills in Massachussets after moving up there to attend Harvard Business School. Of course, Korb was responding to a question based on a falsity. Bush was not required to attach himself to an ANG post in Mass., and attend drills because HE WAS RELEASED EARLY FROM HIS GUARD COMMITTMENT.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

The Kerry campaign and its allies in the media are stupid to push the "Bush was AWOL" assault a third (fourth? fifth?) time. People already know Bush wasn't a war hero, didn't go to combat, and all that. And Bush isn't running on his military service three decades ago - Kerry is.

Yet here comes the renewed assault, based on documents that the mainstream press thinks it understands but - if you ask almost any veteran - they clearly don't. They don't understand military records-keeping, or military personnel processes or anything of use in interpreting the documents. Which is why the blogosphere is filled with current and former military people pointing out all of the errors in the way the press is reporting about the Bush military service record documents.

All the pro-Kerry media and the Kerry campaign are doing by pushing this slanderous attack is giving vets one more reason to not vote for Kerry. And the media, by pushing to investigate Bush's military records but failing to even demand release of Kerry's military records, merely exposes its blatant bias for all the world to see.

They have become the boy who cried wolf.

Holy S***, Jade is back from the dead. None the wiser, sad to say.

Hey Jade, how's this for "muttering darkly" about forgeries?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html

I swear I wish I could have a beer with Jade after Bush's reelection. We wouldn't even have to talk...I'll just watch Jade cry like a beeatch and mutter darkly "but I swear he was AWOL...."

"Failure to appear for the flight physical: didn't need to as the military was phasing the plane out and Bush, no longer a full-time pilot but just a one-weekend-a-month guardsman, was no longer needed as a pilot".

That is one big smelly crock that you're trying to pass, friend. That plane was still in use at Bush's unit several years after Bush was discharged. In any event, who exactly made the decision that Bush was "no longer needed" ? And is that claim backed up by ANY sort of documentation ? I'll presume that your lack of military experience comes into play here, because "one weekend a month" is exactly what he was committed to as a member of the National Guard. Are you saying that since his active duty training was complete, he was free to just forget the committment ? To quote you, "ask any veteran". I'd love to know how the "didn't need to" defence measures up in a military court.

"Silly points argument: What is silly about that? The points are how the Guard tracked a guardsman's service and tallied up to see if he had met his obligation. Bush did, in spades".

The fact of the matter is that points can only be awarded for missed training, per regulations of that time, for training which is accomplished within very limited time frames and approved in advance. Bush's records show this was not the case.

I would point you to to www.glcq.com for a fairly extensive look at what the Bush records show.

You can list me as a 13 year Army vet who will never vote for that AWOL scumbag you're pushing. I sat in barracks in Germany for 2 years after the collapse of East Germany, but that sure as hell didn't mean that I was free to leave because I wasn't needed or that the Cold War had ended.