Well the LATimes at least admits it. There something that still irks me, though. Also in that article you get this:
Whatever the truth, CBS' real error was trying to prove a point that didn't need to be proved. It doesn't take documents for anyone to realize that Bush pulled strings to get into the National Guard. And, during the Vietnam draft, nobody went into the National Guard out of passion to defend his country. It also doesn't take new documents to establish that Bush shirked even his National Guard duties when he moved to Alabama and then to Harvard Business School in Massachusetts.
The brouhaha all but managed to place Bush's Vietnam-era service off-limits as a campaign issue, after weeks in which John F. Kerry's impressive record has been under savage attack. Bush gave a smirky speech Tuesday to the National Guard Assn., waxing on about the patriotic sacrifices of the Guard's men and women over the years. All of that is true, but not about him.
I might be willing to give you the point that Bush found his way in the Guard partly because his name was "Bush." But the rest of those two paragraphs just drive me nuts. Shirked? There's evidence suggesting that Bush more than fulfilled his yearly Guard requirements. Much more. Next, "John F. Kerry's impressive record"? I not here to question it. But there are those that have, and with some authority on the subject. Yet, once again, one story is accepted with only some forged documents and hearsay as back-up, while another is ignored on the "understanding" that it's baseless.
In the end, that is exactly was makes the Mass media liberal and me crazy. Bad suppositions become truth because they are never challenged or checked...until now...but it still drives me crazy.