I can see how the reporters would be upset that the entire story was squelched ultimately by this one questionable document. Obviously, one questionable document shouldn’t render the subject of Bush’s service record off limits for all time. It’s just one bit of evidence that didn’t pan out.

However, the reporters who constructed the story of irregularities in Bush’s service chose to make this questionable document one of that story’s cornerstones. It was the weak member that caused the entire structure to collapse. If they had taken the time to gather more valid evidence – or had admitted that they couldn’t find much valid evidence – they might have saved themselves some trouble.

Not sure they really deserved firing, but they at least deserved censure for writing and airing a bad story.

ps: and with humor. Thanks for the post!

I’ll see your son and father, and raise you two cousins and a distant uncle. And I’ll go ahead and throw in Operation Care and Comfort as well as Operation First Response.

Well, my husband served in Desert Storm and Shield. So there. I care about our armed forces. So there. My father served. So there. I think, according to your rules, this gives me more ‘authority’ than you, since a spouse is a closer relation, legally than a parent. So there.

Do we really need to play this game? Just because no one else is constantly spouting off their record or their relatives’ records in the armed forces doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. Maybe you are just the only one here who feels that this sort of thing gives you some sort of moral authority that trumps what everyone else has to say.

I don’t know of any thread in which you have NOT tried to use this. It is tiresome. You are not unique in that you are related to service members. It is not necessary to use that fact to be heard here. We love to hear from you just the same. It’s great to have someone to debate these things with who doesn’t just throw incessant insults (tomjfrombfflo).
Please. Give it a rest already.

The irony in all of this to me is that not one person throwing darts has stood up to say that they have been to war. Not one.

It’s not a critique, it’s an observation.

Kind of the point, Laura. You didn’t bother, for example, to observe how “childish”, not to say foolish, Mapes and Rather sounded in attempting to trash Bush’s service record, did you? Yet that was the topic of the post that initiated the thread.

Certainly people can sound foolish talking about things of which they have no experience or knowledge, and that includes you and me (in, for example, discussing foreign policy). But call them on their mistakes or ignorance, not on whether or not they’ve “served” in the State Department.

The only post I made on this thread was an observation at how childish you all sounded throwing, hurling, each one about like little children. So, in response to that Sally, I asked a very simple question. And, I guess the answer is No. So, that said, you all sound a little foolish with all your expert banter, leading me to ask the question. The answer apparently is “no, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!”

left? Please…

If you want to say that criticizing the service records of politicians is not particularly relevant, that’s at least a respectable even if questionable position. But if you’re implying that only those who have served themselves can make such criticisms, that’s starting to sound a lot like the contemptible “chicken hawk” slur that’s so popular among the effete left.