Boston Globe "independent source" turns into another plant
By Estes Posted in User Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from Diaries.
A good friend did some digging on the principal source behind the Boston Globe story on Bush. Turns out that this guy has a trail and the claim of Boston Globe's "months of research" is likely bogus.
Read on.
Get this out there. The Blue Media has gone beyond the shill now and should be called out.
I am writing to share with you some unreported information about that Boston Globe story that came out yesterday morning about Bush's national guard story. I have contacted some major news outlets about this and have received no responses. If I am correct in my assertions, then the Globe is engaging in what really amounts to a left-wing conspiracy -- taking conclusions of left-winger anti-Bushies and distilling it into a seemingly objective piece. Given Edward Robsin's comments yesterday, they are also lying about their activities, too.
Please give me just a few moments to get this across. I am no kooky conspiracy guy. I am a graduate student in political philosophy at Chicago. I think you shall find this worth your while.
One of the most frequent quoters in the Globe is a Mr. Gerald A. Lechliter. The Globe simply labels him a former colonel in the USMC. There are two problems with this characterization:
Mr. Lechliter is not simply a colonel. He is an anti-Bush political activist with what appears to be quite an ax to grind. There is evidence that implies that the Globe did not simply make use of Mr. Lechliter's thoughts to flesh out their piece. It is likely that Mr.Lechliter is the principle brainchild of every Globe assertion. PROBLEM #1:
I Googled Mr. Lechliter today. Here is what I found.
Mr. Lechliter now has a website that seems to have been created in the last 24 hours. This seems to coincide with a report he authored about Bush's service in the Guard, which was written sometime before August 16, 2004. It is called:"President George W. Bush's Military Service: A Critical Analysis." It can be found at this site: The NY Times, the sister publication of the Globe, has it on its site, too. In November, 2003 Lechliter (who claims in this work to be an Independent) praised an article by Ed Weathers that argued that Iraq is a quagmire like the Soviet Union's Afghanistan. In this essay Weathers directly compares the United States to Soviet Russia in both action and intent. Mr. Lechliter compliments Mr. Weathers for thoughts like this: "A superpower, in defiance of most world opinion, invades an Islamic Middle Eastern nation. The superpower is hoping to effect regime change and, citing an "imminent threat," declares the invasion "an international duty."" Mr. Lechliter adds his own insight: "Good article. You are right on the money about the analogy, except for geography, but there is no perhaps about the US supplying money and arms to the Afghan resistance units against the Soviet Union from 1979-89." Lechliter is an "endorser" of "Veterans Against the Iraq War."
In this essay on Bush's guard service, Lechliter makes the following comment about Bush's record in this essay about his guard service: "Since 9-11, he has wrapped himself in the flag to push forward a domestic agenda that is anything but compassionate." Later in the essay, he strongly implies that Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director, is guilty of felonies. Lechliter was writing letters to Salon.com praising their work on the National Guard story all the way back in February. There he was insisting that Bush should release his guard records. Lechliter has also written to The Washington Monthly over the same issue. These two partisan journals have long believed that Bush was AWOL. He has implied that the Weekly Standard received illegal memos from the Bush Administration regarding terrorist activities, and that the FBI is investigating. Despite all of this ostensible partisanship and his active anti-Bush pontification, Lechliter claims in this essay on Bush's guard service to be an "Independent." He implies that he is an unbiased observer who has been swayed by the facts. But the fact is that Lechliter has long since been attacking Bush's guard duty, that he has vehemently opposed the war in Iraq, and that he essentially thinks Bush is a demagogue. That makes him about as independent as Bernie Sanders! PROBLEM #2:
There is evidence to imply that Lechliter is not simply a helpful quotation for the Globe story, there is evidence that implies that it is his brainchild.
Editor and Publisher yesterday printed a piece yesterday in which Edward Robinson, the principal Boston Globe person behind today's story, claims that the timing of this piece is not at all intentional. "We are talking about several hundred pages of records that most people would not understand because they use a lot of military parlance," Robinson said. "That means it takes a lot of effort."
The implication is that it was so tough to put together the facts that it took five Globe writers nearly six months worth of work. But if you take a close look at Lechliter's 36 page essay and the Globe story, you'll notice the following things:
They make exactly the same allegations. Lechliter indicates Bush's attendance record was spotty and insufficient, he makes great note of those two written promises he made in '68 and '72. He argues that Bush could have been reprimanded. He argues that he skipped out early at the end. He implies that he was not so reprimanded for political purposes. Every claim that the Globe makes is made by Lechliter in this piece. It uses exactly the same documents the Globe uses. Generally, that Globe essay is a perfect distillation of Lechliter's piece. It offers nothing that Lechliter has not offered. Lechliter's essay was published nearly a month before the Globe story. Lechliter's essay was written by one person -- rather than five -- and it is exponentially more detailed in its analysis than the Globe story (this is not to imply that it does not have severe problems in method and logic). Robinson claims that it took them this long to write this piece and that it is the fruit of their own research. Why should anybody believe that they actually did this work? Lechliter, whom they quote extensively (and therefore have been in contact with), made all those arguments back in mid-August in a much more extensive fashion!
The Globe owes all of us an explanation. At this point it is very plausible that Lechliter is the source of every Globe claim. It is very plausible that Lechliter and the Globe connected sometime in late August or early Sepember, that Lechliter sold them on his essay, and that they repackaged every major conclusion of his as if it is the work of unbiased journalists, rather than a partisan anti-Bush activist.
We can either believe that or this is all one big coincidence, that the Globe perfectly duplicated Lechliter's work, just happened to use him as a source, and just happened to have forgotten to comment in the piece that Lechliter has been pushing all of this stuff since before August 16.
I hope you can use this information.
Sincerely,
{NAME WITHHELD}
Chicago, ILHere are some extra websites that I have used as sources.
Lechliter here writes about his new essay on August, 16 2004. It must have been written before that.
I quoted Robinson from this site.
Lechliter is noted as a contributor to Veterans against the Iraq War at this site.
....promoted this baby to the front page. ;-)
But the digital gumshoe here gets 100% credit. As for sending to Powerline, or anywhere, feel free.
I'm leery of sourcing. Links?
MSM's credibility is going downhill (what's new). But between Rathergate and the Globe's Lechliter bias problem, bloggers have been the difference in turning the tide on MSM's lackluster performance. Major kudos to Estes!
I checked out Mr. Lechliter's web site and noticed that it is actually a subdomain of another site:
GLCG.COM
A WhoIs lookup shows this domain to be registered as:
Registrant:
goddam librul commie queers of the USA
lukasiak, paul ****@snip.net)
2230 st albans st
philadelphia
PA,19146
US
Tel. +000.0000000
Creation Date: 09-Apr-2004
The web site itself is labled as:
THE AWOL PROJECT
An Examination of the Bush Military Files
What is even more interesting is what you find if you google Paul Lukasiak.
He appears to be a member of the gay community who has made somewhat of a career out of trying to prove that Bush stole the 2000 election and the media covered it up.
It is often true that one is known by the company one keeps. This would certainly seem to apply to Mr. Lechliter
I banned him from both this site and tacitus.org, partly because he was incapable of civil conversation, and partly because he decided to take it on himself to show that, pace my run-ins with Steve Sailer, I was nonetheless a die-hard racist at my core.
Because all conservatives are.
In any case, if Lechliter is affiliating with that buffoon, his credibility just managed to sink even lower in my book.
To echo electron, do Google Lukasiak. It's an instructive exercise.
..typical.
The Redstate thread
He's a Malkin-hater.
Michelle Malkin seems to be a polarizing force. I watched several left-of-center folks post pictures (from her Matthews interview) mocking her asian looks. They seem to feel content calling her racist while making fun of her. One of them called her an "Asian Ann Coulter." the other called her a "b--ch." When taken to task about these remarks...they sadly could see absolutely nothing wrong with them. And yet it's the conservatives that are labeled racist and sexist!
Standing up for Michelle is akin to declaring one one has lunch with Ann Coulter. They dislike her more because she is not conforming to the racial stereotype they have created for her.
Anyone supporting her is now a racist. It's one of the left's talking points when discussing Michelle or her views.
Banning Lukasiak was a good move.
For those too lazy to google Lukasiak;-)
Google Lukasiak
Can we say fanatic?
This connection is interesting. I'm very curious if this USMC is the real deal. Let's just say my instinct is that there is more to him that meets the eye too...
On a related note, I am really amazed at how amateurish these plants and forgeries were assembled that they could be brought to light so easily. I mean the media is being undone not so much by their bias, but their laziness.
The Web - as a information source and a communication medium - means that the their practice of counting on the slowness and the inability of ordinary people to organize and react to their misinformation as a factor in their lack of research is forever changed. What I am struck by is the fact the MSM has been so stunned by what has happened. They left themselves wide open.
I mean it is obvious now that from 60 Minutes to the Boston Globe to the upcoming segments on the Today Show, the MSM just believes that the American People are stupid and won't bother to check them out - even when the holes in their story are legion.
To paraphrase John Kerry: "Mainstream Media, this is your wake up call."
Oh, and "stupid is as stupid does."
Wow... Other Left Bloggers are taking credit for the Boston Globe story
Check out this excerpt:
Finally the mainstream media gives weight to what RAW STORY reported Aug 1, that President George W. Bush failed to adequately perform his service to the National Guard and was effectively absent without leave. The Globe story, which quotes Reagan Asst. Defense secretary at length, was RAW STORY's primary source in their original Aug. 1 story. I actually personally called the story into the Globe the first week of August, and the following week, the Globe reporter who wrote their new `exclusive' stopped returning my calls.
Sadly, neither RAW STORY nor, more importantly, Paul Lukasiak, the Philadelphia researcher who invested five months of his life doing the research on which the Globe story is based, are not mentioned. But everyone who's been paying attention to the story knows who reported it first. Just thought you might throw in a link to our original story if/when you post the Globe link.
So... the Boston Globe story is actually a Left Wing Blogsphere plant (and who knows how much further it goes).
The timing works, and the gentleman seems to have quite an axe to grind. A former USMC colonel would have a good grasp of modern military procedure and such, but not what the AF NG used 30 years ago. He has a conduit to the Boston Globe, and that would feed to the Kerry campaign easily enough. No proof, just speculation.
tweell
the guys at Powerline now!