Replies

Good letter, but don't hold your breath waiting for them to print it.

I get published several times a year, but this might be too long - although I would hate to leave any of it out. They once published a long letter from me word for word, when I was responding to a distinctly antisemitic editorial they were too ignorant to recognize. This is my first since to the new editorial page editor, and it has been a couple of months, so at least I am eligible....

don't hold your breath waiting for them to print it.

Today the paper called to ask if my letter was intended for print. I said yes.

"Good letter, but don't hold your breath waiting for them to print it."

This is what they printed as their lead letter today, along with what they left out in bold, and what they substituted in Italics.

Letters 02/21: Skirmishing continues about military service

I had hoped that the change in the heading of your editorial page would signal an improvement in the quality of the content below, but this has not been the case at all. The Tuesday editorial about the President's service record is a striking example of the laziness and intellectual laxity that have become your new and shameful hallmarks.

You have published unsupported rumors and allegations as fact, and ignored the researched and documented findings of other organizations that did the research you did not. have already done what you failed to do, such as research or fact finding, that is the proper responsibility of the news organization you claim to be. Instead, you hide behind your deliberate ignorance in order to propagate three false charges against a President you dislike.

First, he received his guard appointment because he agreed to pilot training, which required both qualification and commitment to over a year of active duty training, which others ahead of him on the waiting list did not do.

Second, his early discharge to attend college was a common occurrence, not some kind of special favor to the son of a congressman. Also, by that time the F102's he flew were being phased out, and he would have needed retraining and requalification to continue flying for the few months of service he had left.

Third, and the heart of the matter, concerns his reporting for assigned duty in Alabama. Some - like you, lacking the courage to make the accusation - have passed along anonymous accusations of the President shirking his service in Alabama. National Guard service is a SECOND job, except during activation, and accomodation to civilian activity is normal and unexceptional. Guardsmen are paid for days present at either the regular drills or makeup drills, which are also common. Points are awarded for attendance, and credit for service is based on accumulating sufficient points. The President's honorable discharge is sufficient evidence of completion of his obligation, but more recent evidence is even more compelling.

For that, you might have perused the Associated Press story published on your own web site on the same day, indicating, "The pay information (released) documented the dates when Bush showed up for Guard duty", and "You are paid for the (specific) dates you served."

An apology from you - and from others who have chosen to engage in this innuendo - would be welcome and refreshing, although totally unexpected. You established a pettern in your equally dishonest editorial about Judge Pickering, and I suppose we can expect no better from you in the future.

That is too bad - for Memphis, and for you.