(1) Do you accept the conclusion of appendix 4 of the Thornburg Report that the memos in question were forged? If not, why not?
(2) As noted in the powerline article, there are a number of internal contradictions in the "Fortunate Son" story --- such as the statement that General Staudt was attempting to apply pressure to LTC Hodges more than a year after his retirement --- as well as direct testimony from people involved in the process and copies of Bush's efficiency ratings that contradict the notion that Bush received unusual preference in his enlistment, his advancement, and his eventual seperation from the service. This appears to be substantial evidence, as you requested, that Bush did not receive preferential treatment. Have you evidence to the contrary? If so, can you cite it
and is it available for examination?
If you've been following this, Kalb replied to Powerline, answering the first question in the affirmative. I then wrote, as exerpted below:
Sir --- I note that you have responded to John Hunderacker at Powerline and I apologize for saying that I would append a link in my previous email and then failing, by oversight, to do so. I'm glad to see that you did make the connection in any case. And I appreciate your answer to my question (1).
I'm still interested in the answer to question (2), ie, do you believe that Bush rceived preferential treatment in joining the TANG, and if so, what evidence can you offer for this in the face of repeated denials and other contradictory evidence.
Mr Kalb responded to me by email today, both declining to answer and refusing permission to quote him.
Of course, comments are open and I'll be happy to publish any answer or correspondence he wishes.
5 comments:
Without quoting Mr. Kalb, what reasons did he give for refusing to answer and be quoted?
It seems to me this carries on the fine tradition of the "elite media" as a legend in their own minds.
None. He did, however, object to me noting his refusal to comment. Since I shan't be able to quote his response, I can't give specifics, but but I will say that it was composed primarily of a supercilious and sarcastic ad hominem.
How else could he reply? The SoS media has been reduced to sticking its thumbs in it ears, waggling fingers and sticking out its tongue for some time. I know that you visit Rosen's blog from time to time, Seneca, and Steve Lovelady's responses over there are the same thing.
Being stupid AND thin skinned must be a terrible thing to endure.
I am going to have to review the law on publishing correspondence without permission of the writer.
This intrigues me. I cannot believe that he can insult you and legally seal your lips. Wadda jerk.
Vet, it's not a matter of what he can legally do, it's what I feel I can ethically do. I asked him for permission to quote him and he refused, so I'm ethically bound.
On the other hand, as I pointed out to him, he could hardly expect me not to note that he's refused to comment.
Post a Comment