Not Much There

A nice way to start your Saturday.

The New Republic slaps its one of its nominal editors, Sully. Linking to the Annenberg Center "analysis" on the AWOL issue, Sully says:

THE DESERTER CHARGE: Here's a useful primer. Not much there.

Of the Annenberg Center report, TNR says today:

But Bush supporters might want to think twice before citing that study, which is but a slight paper showing about the level of rigorous analysis you'd expect from a White House press release. For starters, it merely compares different media accounts, ignoring the fact that the Globe's investigation drew on hundreds of records and numerous interviews with military officials, whereas other news stories counted the rebuttals of Bush's staff as heavily as military documents and testimony by his commanding officer. Indeed, the only original research the Annenberg folks seem to have done is an interview with, of all people, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, who dodges the entire question by saying that "the bottom line is he met his minimum requirements for that year." Absurdly, the report presents this as proof that Bush never skipped town, even though Bartlett was talking about what Bush did in 1973, when what's in question is what he did in 1972. But the report's biggest idiocy is its premise that, just because Bush did not technically desert or go awol, the criticisms of his military record are somehow irrelevant. But no one believes that Bush fled combat--he was never even in combat. Rather, critics charge--and, Bartlett notwithstanding, the evidence concurs--that Bush didn't fulfill his military obligations during a time of war. Needless to say, if the Annenberg study is the best dog the GOP can muster, then the DNC chairman has picked the right fight.

Choose one of the following:

(1) Indeed.

(2) Heh.

(3) Ouch.

(4) Advantage: TNR!

(5) Think twice? Sully don't play that!