The same journalists who used phony documents to attack President Bush’s military service recognize no “right to know” why Senator John Kerry’s honorable discharge is dated long after his service was over and during the Carter administration, when less than honorable discharges were allowed to be upgraded to honorable. 

The “public’s right to know” apparently extends only to such things as will not cause the public to reach conclusions different from those of the liberal media.

My favorite press secretary was Margaret Tutwiler, who treated reporters like misbehaving little boys, which is how they often acted. Nor were the reporters’ antics due solely to personal boorishness.

They had before them the example of Dan Rather and Sam Donaldson, who reached the big time on TV by being snotty to Presidents. At the very least, White House correspondents can get more time on the tube by waxing indignant at what they choose to portray as violations of “the public’s right to know” while the cameras are rolling.

“Are you satisfied with the way this was handled?” 

“Were you aware that they were just going to allow a private citizen to inform a local paper of this?”

“Did the Vice President follow all appropriate safety procedures that are familiar to hunters?” (the illustrious David Gregory)

“Was that his gun, that shotgun?”

“Is it proper for the Vice President to offer his resignation, or has he offered his resignation?”

“Who was doing the providing, and who were they providing it to?”

“Was the Vice President immediately clear that he had accidentally shot his friend, or not?” (again, Mr. Gregory)

“How is it that the word of the shooting, and that the Vice President was involved… could have been confused or delayed?”

“Under TX law, is this kind of accidental shooting a possible criminal offense?”