Skip to main content.

George W. Bush served honorably during Vietnam.
CASE CLOSED.

Last week 60 Minutes II had a story of recently discovered memos from the Texas Air National Guard which "proved" that during his service in the National Guard George W. Bush disobeyed an order from his commanding officer to take a physical exam and received preferential treatment and reviews of his (Bush's) service. The implication of the story was that his service was less than honorable, and his silence on the issue was implicit confirmation of his dishonor.

The documents are forgeries.

As of this date CBS News is sticking with the story despite

CBS's argument that Bush's service was dishonorable relies on those memos being genuine. Since the memos are not, the argument fails. One is not required to answer questions asked in bad faith; White House silence on the issue cannot be construed as implicit confirmation. An equivalently unfair question to ask Dan Rather would be "Did you beat your wife?"

Quite frankly, the arguments over Bush's service during the Vietnam War are over. I will distrust any future "newly uncovered evidence" unless such evidence comes directly from George W. Bush himself.

So, who are the losers this week?

CBS News and Dan Rather

A legitimate news organization would bend over backwards to be transparent about the documents and the source of the documents - CBS should release the original documents to independent experts to verify the ink, paper, technology used to create the document, and so on. CBS should reveal the source of the documents. Alternatively a legitimate news organization would retract the story and apologize immediately - mistakes happen. A legitimate news organization would then go after the source of the forgeries, if for no other reason than to defend their own legitimacy.

So far, CBS News and Dan Rather are not showing themselves to be a legitimate news organization. Instead, they look like a propaganda organ of the hate-Bush crowd.

Terry McAuliffe (chairman, Democratic National Committee)

He's essentially argued that the documents are legitimate - and that they may have been generated by Karl Rove (President Bush's campaign manager) to make the Democrats look bad. Genuine fakes, Mr. McAuliffe?

The unanswered question so far

Who is the source of the forgeries?