Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (14639)	10/1/2005 1:12:32 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Marvin Kalb Responds to Power Line like a typical lib on the losing end of a disagreement. (See the post,"The Klueless Kalb Report" which this is in reply to) As noted above, I wrote to Mr. Kalb with a brief summary of the evidence showing that 1) the documents were fakes, and 2) the underlying story--that President Bush had used "influence" to get into the National Guard, and had failed to fulfill his duties as a member of the Guard--was false. I got the following response from Mr. Kalb this morning: <<< Dear Mr. Hinderaker: Thank you for your long, exhaustive email. You took the time to write it, and I appreciate that very much. If I responded point by point, I fear we would still end up at opposite sides of the issue. For me the key point is that President Bush had the opportunity, as did thousands of other young Americans to go to Vietnam, to fight for America there, many never to return. He chose the Texas Air National Guard with duty in Texas and I believe Louisiana. The documents in Rather's story were faulthy, fake, fogeries,--choose your word. They were no good, at the end of the day. That was lousy journalism, and evefryone knows that--that's the easy part of the issue. The rest...well, you go your way, I'll go with the young men I covered who went to Vietnam for their country. We can disagree. Good luck. Marvin Kalb >>> Which seemed to me to change the subject rather dramatically. So I responded as follows: <<< Mr. Kalb, thank you for responding. I am glad that you acknowledge the falsity of the documents as well as--I think--the falsity of the underlying story. President Bush has never claimed to be a war hero. That said, he served. The duty he performed was both difficult and dangerous. Does he deserve as much credit as those who got shot at in Vietnam? He says he doesn't, and I agree. On the other hand, he deserves more credit than those who could have volunteered but didn't, and as a result didn't serve at all--like, for example, me. But service in the National Guard isn't what the Kerry campaign and CBS criticized Bush for. They accused him of using some nefarious "influence" to get into the Guard, and of not fulfilling his duties once he got there. Those accusations were false, and the documents that supposedly proved them were, as you acknowledge, fakes. Thanks again for your response. John Hinderaker >>> powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (14639)	10/1/2005 5:34:00 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

A salute to Col. Campenni Power Line John's correspondence with Marvin Kalb has triggered an avalanche of outstanding letters from readers. I hope we can take the time to post some of the best this weekend, but for the moment I want to note the message from Presient Bush's Air National Guard colleague Col. William Campenni (ret.). In February 2004 the Washington Times published Col. Campenni's letter to the editor refuting all the themes of the fraudulent CBS 60 Minutes II story that ran the following September. Overnight Col. Campenni wrote: <<< You are wasting your time arguing with the Kalbs and other morons trying to defend Rather and Mapes fabrications. Mr. Kalb is unconvinced because he refuses to trouble himself with the facts, all of which are readily available if he was willing to put out the effort. And this guy is a journalist! For example, when Kalb says "I have yet to see the evidence, which I presume you have and are willing to share," it means he has been too lazy to read what was already in the public domain. In both published articles and cable TV news appearances, I have refuted most of the Rather/Mapes/Goodale/Thornburgh/Pein claims, using facts, witness statements and documents from the period in question. I would be glad to share them with Kalb and ilk, if they will then admit their error, but I think we are dealing with a bad case of invincible ignorance. Those of us who served in the Texas Guard with George Bush would sit back and roll in laughter at some of the nonsense and drivel that was being dispensed by Rather and his media amanuenses, until we realized that people were actually believing it. Every claim that Rather/Mapes put forth - Bush using influence to get in/out of the Guard, Bush going to the head of the line, Bush avoiding Viet Nam by joining the Guard, the "meshing" defense, Bush disobeying direct orders - were refuted by me and others, with documents and witnesses. Whereas the typographical errors were the starting point in exposing these forgeries, for those of us actually there it was the content and format of the memos themselves that were the proof of their falsity - we just didn't do it that way or use those forms, and the dates and people involved were fictitious or impossible. We were able to cross match them with our own records and calendars to prove that dates and events were incompatible, or that the people referenced (Strong, Carr, Hackworth, Lechliter, Burkett) were not in a position to give accurate comment. I won't be wasting my money buying Mapes' book, but I just cant wait to shoot down her whole novel. The first excerpted chapter has already been a gold mine of errors. Maybe I should write my own book exposing these morons - but I don't think that truth has much marketability these days. Best, Bill Campenni >>> powerlineblog.com washtimes.com