CBS Affiliates Pre-Empting 60 Minutes?

[PeachMonkey]

Tonight on "60 Minutes", CBS apparently interviewed Ben Barnes, the Texas politician who is now admitting that he helped GW Bush (among others) leapfrog many others on the waiting list to enter the Texas National Guard.

I say "apparently" because the local CBS affiliate pre-empted this episode of "60 Minutes" to host a 50th Anniversary celebration for their station.

I thought this was a local (if tasteless) choice, but apparently this happened with several other affiliates, including WAFB in Baton Rouge, LA.

Did anyone else notice this? Was it merely evidence of irresponsible behavior, or does it help show a conspiracy among our so-called "liberal" media to avoid educating the populace on Dubya's shortcomings?

 

[bignick]

hmm...this is the first i've heard of this...i don't really watch tv anymore...no time...thanks for the heads up

 

[bdparsons]

Maybe somebody got wind of the fact that Mr. Barnes is clearly a Kerry supporter and is now making statements that directly contradict statements he made UNDER OATH in 1999 when he said he neither granted or was requested by anybody to show any preferential treatment or do any favors for George W. Bush concerning his service in the Air National Guard. So the question is was he lying then or now? Hmmm...

Bill Parsons

 

[michaeledward]

Interesting. I hadn't heard about stations pre-empting. Not surprising though, some stations didn't show Night-Line the night that it read the names of US Soldier who died in Iraq. So much for a 'Free Press'.

You should be able to view the Ben Barnes interview here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60II/main3475.shtml

I think some of the new documents reported by CBS are interesting. I also think the report was not nearly as damning to the President as the evidence shows.

Memo to File May 19, 1972
SUBJECT: Discussion with Bush, 1st Lt. Bush

1. Phone call from Bush. Discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill now through November. I told him he could do ET for three months or transfer. Says he wants to transfer to Alabama to any unit he can get in to. Saysthat he is working on another campaign for his dad.
2. Physical. We talked about him getting his flight physical situation fixed before his date. Says he will do that in Alabama if he stays in a flight status. He has this campaign to do and other things that will follow and may not have the time. I advised him of our investment in him and his commitment. He's been working with staff to come up with options and identified a unit that may accept him. I told him I had to have written acceptance before he would be transferred, but think he's also talking to someone upstairs.

Memo to File August 18, 1973

SUBJECT: CYA

1. Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job. Harris gave me a message today from GRP regarding Bush's OETR and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it. Bush wasn't here during rating period and I don't have any feedback from 187th in Alabama. I will not rate. Austin is not happy today either.
2. Harris took the call from GRP today. I'll backdate but won't rate. Harris agrees.
​

 

[PeachMonkey]

I also think the report was not nearly as damning to the President as the evidence shows.

I think that's because you missed the memo, Michael.

Remember: evidence showing the President to be an AWOL scoundrel (or any of the various other crimes and incompetencies he's perpetrated) is to be buried, or at least washed over as "youthful indiscretion" that makes GW a "downhome wholesome kinda guy".

 

[deadhand31]

Where to begin...

The physical would have been taking to maintain his flight status. Now, in going to Alabama, he would not have done any flying at all. So basically, it would have been him taking a physical so he would keep a license to fly in a station where there was not going to be any flying.

Yes, he took time off. However, he also made up that time before the end of the year.

One thing about these memos, the guy who wrote them is now dead. It could mean something, it could not. How are we supposed to know the true outcome? I don't know.

 

[Makalakumu]

How about we interview James Bath? Or is he dead too?

 

[PeachMonkey]

The physical would have been taking to maintain his flight status. Now, in going to Alabama, he would not have done any flying at all. So basically, it would have been him taking a physical so he would keep a license to fly in a station where there was not going to be any flying.

Yes, he took time off. However, he also made up that time before the end of the year.

Thanks for summing up the GOP talking points, deadhand. However, this is simply not the entire story.

First, the last time I checked, officers in the military don't get to decide which of the obligations of their commission (in this case, a physical to maintain the flight status required by his position as a pilot) they fulfill.

Second, the media has continued to ignore the vast majority of details already available in the documents about Bush's National Guard service, including evidence that Bush was not "transferring to a light duty station" but deliberately avoiding completing the final years of his obligations to the National Guard. I refer you to:

http://www.glcq.com/trans.htm

This site includes both commentary and links to the actual documentation.

 

[michaeledward]

The physical would have been taking to maintain his flight status. Now, in going to Alabama, he would not have done any flying at all. So basically, it would have been him taking a physical so he would keep a license to fly in a station where there was not going to be any flying.

Is it, therefore, acceptable for officers in the United States military to disregard a direct order from a superior?

Lest we forget, the United States military invested over 1,000,000.00 in training Lt. Bush. In return he was obligated to complete a tour of service. Certainly, he could transfer to a different unit, provided "equivilent" duty was available (in Alabama, or in Massachusetts). I don't understand how "equivilent" duty did not involve flying high performance aircraft. Can you shed any light on this?

 

[Makalakumu]

The Biography "Fortunate Son" by JH Hatfield gives a well researched account of the event in question. I suggest you read it. By the way, Karl Rove has been caught on record threatening Mr. Hatfield and his daughter. This is noted in the book also.

upnorthkyosa

PS - JH Hatfield is now dead... :idunno:

 

[deadhand31]

Funny thing tonight, perhaps you should have watched Peter Jennings. He reported on the suspicious condition of the documents. It was found that the documents in question would have to have been typed on what was the equivalent of a $20,000 word processor back then. To see further info, go here:

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040909d.html
http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4596&R=9FCD2F192
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html

As of now, it's pretty inconclusive. Were they real, or are they transcriptions? Not sure at this point. We'll have to see what develops.....

 

[michaeledward]

Funny thing tonight, perhaps you should have watched Peter Jennings. He reported on the suspicious condition of the documents. It was found that the documents in question would have to have been typed on what was the equivalent of a $20,000 word processor back then. To see further info, go here:

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040909d.html
http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4596&R=9FCD2F192
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html

As of now, it's pretty inconclusive. Were they real, or are they transcriptions? Not sure at this point. We'll have to see what develops.....

Very interesting. Very damning if the documents prove to be forgeries. 60 Minutes is usually pretty good about editorial control.

deadhand31 ... have I seen you perform similar research on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yes, it is curious that nobody Republican and conservative and right-wing wacko in their politics so much as mentioned that maybe we should cut John Kerry some slack until all the facts were in, or that maybe some of his weirder accusers were lying or hallucinating, or that maybe some of the tripe was just made up. I'll be darned.

To me, what's interesting is this:

We KNOW that George Bush was a party boy, who pulled strings to get into the Guard and sat out the war. (I loved hearing Rush whine that ANG service was really, really, really dangerous...funnily enough, he never compared it to driving a plastic boat up the Mekong River in, say, 1969.) We know that he took time off from the ANG, somehow, to go work on a campaign for an ally of his dad's for a year, then went to Harvard Business School (why my gosh, not altogether the plain, aw shucks honest farmer, is he?). We know that he did badly in business, we know that he got a sweetheart deal and was involved in, a) building a new stadium with taxpayers' money, b) subsequently buying the Texas Rangers. We know that he essentially did nothing for nobody else (well, he did screw around and get arrested) until 1987, when he seems to've had a conversion experience: subsequently, he got elected governor (incidentally, Texas has a very weak governor, with little power), and then President. Then, and partly for reasons he couldn't control, he ran the debt to 500 bil, got us into two wars--one of which had no real justification--and remained associated with people like Ken Lay.

That's what we know for absolute sure.

We also know some things about Kerry for sure. His family had money, and he was well-educated, and he volunteered to go to Vietnam. He served fairly bravely, won a couple-three medals, got out early. When he got home, he joined the VVAW--which, for all Rush Limbaugh's fantasies, was NOT popular--and gave some medium-electrifying testimony before Congress, apparently based on his deeply-held beliefs. We know that he went back to Mass, and served for years as a prosecutor, that he was a decent Lieutenant Gov, that he got elected to the Senate.

Oh, and we know he kinda looks ( and acts, at times) like a lummox. Of course, as Bill Mahrer's been mentioning, who the hell cares? I don't want a buddy, or a daddy, or a spiritual leader, or a goddamn role model, or a Fuehrer, anyway.

But anyway, we know a lot of stuff for dead certain sure, no serious disputes. It's enough for me, and it should be enough for anybody rational.

Like that'll work.

 

[deadhand31]

Question: How do we KNOW that Bush pulled strings to get in the national guard? I'm looking to see non-editorial sources on this. I know that people say Barnes say he helped secure a slot for Bush after he said he didn't. Is there any documentation on this?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gee, I dunno. Because the frickin' Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives got on TV and repeatedly said that he got the kid into the guard, because he was asked by Geo. Sr. to do a favor for his son? Because there were a couple hundred people already on the ANG list, and Geo. Jr. got in ahead of all of them? Because--hate to tell ya--the Bush family is wealthy and VERY well-connected in Texas, and that's how the world actually goes round?

Sheesh, read Molly Ivins' books--this stuff's been out there for years.

But we agree, doubtless, that however Bush got into the ANG, he was in the Guard--or taking time off for a political campaign--while Kerry, Kerrey, Gore and Max Cleland were in Vietnam?

This doesn't bother you in the least? Cheesy Purple Hearts bother me, but are more than counterbalanced by other things.

Aren't you in the least bothered by Bush's partyboyism? His rich kid privileges, for all his staged folksiness? His ducking into the ANG? The DUI arrest? The failed businesses, the Rangers deals? The getting us into Iraq despite advice from people like Powell, the lack of facts (if not actually some cooking the books) in support of that war, the running up an insane deficit, the tax cuts for the wealthiest, the constant Bible-thumping, the strong and close ties to Enron and other iffy companies, etc. etc?

No, guess not. if that's so--and seems like it is--OK, fine. But your decision has nothing to do with Bush's history, or Kerry's for that matter. it isn't based on facts about the economy, or Iraq, or a lot of other things.

It's based on ideology and hope. Perfectly OK--and I mean that--but why not just defend those things, rather than making up claptrap?

 

[deadhand31]

1. Don't get so defensive. I was simply looking for documentation. I want to be able to research this.
2. Do you have the name of the speaker? A name would help in looking into it.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Was ah bein' defensive? here ah thought ah was being offensive.

2. Oh...good point...here's a helpful quote:

"Tonight on "60 Minutes", CBS apparently interviewed Ben Barnes, the Texas politician who is now admitting that he helped GW Bush (among others) leapfrog many others on the waiting list to enter the Texas National Guard."

Hey! wait a minnit!! that's the first line of this thread, which was on THE SAME PAGE I JUST POSTED ON!!! I'll be gosh-darned!!!!

Why...why...it's as though you're not really interested in research or facts, you just want to avoid the issues!!!

 

[deadhand31]

So let me get this straight.. the guy who, under oath in 1999, said he didn't do anything to get Bush into the guard is basically admitting to purgery? One thing I want to know, how do we know which statement is true?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I have a feeling that if we listened to the interview (which I did not get a chance to do), and examine any evidence offered (I would be surprised if the 60 Minutes team did NOT ask him to address what he said earlier), we can try to decide which is true.


Without being able to see the show, the evidence remains hidden, and we are left more in the dark.

 

[rmcrobertson]

So let me get this straight--this bothers you when a Democrat does it, but when some of Swift Boat types change their stories, or exaggerate where they were, that doesn't bother you.

And let me get this straight: you wanted to know the guy's name, but you couldn't look at the top of the page, but you DID know his name all along, so you accuse him of, "purgery."

And let me get this straight: you're concerned about facts, but you don't choose to deal with the facts that all sides of this discussion can agree upon. And you're concerned about service to one's country and nailing down service to one's country, but when you know for sure that the President avoided service in Vietnam and that the circumstances under which he did so are iffy, that's OK by you. And you believe that servicemen should be respected, except for John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, and Max Cleland, and anybody else who actually went, got wounded, and came home opposed to settling problems with violence.

And it doesn't bother you in the least, the spectacle of Republican party operatives who themselves ducked out on the service they so eagerly espouse, running around the country attacking the patriotism of those who actually went, including John McCain, whenever they find it convenient.

But of course: immaculately logical.

If you wake up one night with the ghosts of Eisenhower and Goldwater sitting on the edge of your bed and yelling at you, don't come cryin' to me.