|
 |
February 13, 2004 DRIP, DRIP, DRIP....You may recall the full text of George Bush's answer to Tim Russert on Sunday regarding his National Guard files:
"We did so in 2000, by the way." Really? And yet after I posted a copy of Bush's 1972-73 ARF Retirement Credit Summary on Sunday, the White House followed up by releasing the same document on Tuesday, along with a previously unreleased set of payroll records. On Wednesday they released a copy of his dental records.
Finally, on Thursday, they showed reporters an unredacted copy of the
part of Bush's 1968 National Guard application that asks if he's ever
been arrested:
I continue to be stupefied by this performance. First, why did Bush say on Sunday that everything had been released in 2000 only to have own staff then release a bunch of previously unreleased documents on Tuesday? And why-oh-why are they playing "document of the day"? It's as if they're pursuing some bizarre strategy deliberately designed to prove to the world that they have plenty of documents in their possession and they are carefully releasing only the helpful ones after long and careful examination. It's just mind-bogglingly stupid. There are only two things to do in a situation like this: either stonewall completely or else open up the entire file and take their lumps for what's in it. (Adding a tearful Clintonesque apology would probably work pretty well in the latter case, although I suspect Bush's personality may be a little too Nixonian to pull something like that off.) Instead they seem bound and determined to keep this stuff dripping out in the most transparently self-serving way possible. It's unbelievable. What do you suppose today's document will be? A hangnail report from 1973? Posted by Kevin Drum at February 13, 2004 09:15 AM | TrackBackComments
Maybe it's an attempt by the White House to overwhelm us with trivia in the hopes everyone will agree that the whole matter is foolishly trivial. If so, the Bush people may have failed to notice that the foolish part is their weird prolongation of the whole thing. No matter. We'll endure the drip, drip, drip and keep asking for more because we want to get all of the drips out of the White House. Posted by: TonyB at February 13, 2004 09:23 AM | PERMALINKYou hit the nail on the head with the term "Nixonian." Somebody in the White House needs to go back over the history of the early to mid 1970's and take notes. Right now, they're following the what-not-to-do script by the book. Posted by: Slothrop at February 13, 2004 09:23 AM | PERMALINKBut you authorize the release of everything to settle this? Read it again, Kevin. "To settle this." Meaning, everything having to do with the AWOL issue. His NG Application has absolutely nothing to do with the AWOL issue. Duh. Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 09:23 AM | PERMALINKIt IS a bizarre performance. You could hardly come up with a better strategy for 'feeding the beast' that is a press corps. Regular deliveries of small bits of information that keep the story moving forward without overwhelming with details -- that's the ideal diet for this creature. I can only imagine that this 'strategy' is based on short-term thinking. In the short-term it makes a little sense. Stonewalling is more obviously painful, and releasing everything is more obviously painful. Just letting out this last little bit of info seems the safest course...but in the long-term it's undeniably the worst, and the most painful. This is, of course, the short of sharp, systematic thinking that one would hope for from the first president with an MBA. It's hard to imagine this man ever had difficulties in business. Posted by: Brandonimac at February 13, 2004 09:24 AM | PERMALINKMcClellan: This overdue notice from the Houston Public Library from when Bush checked out "The Very Hungry Caterpiller" proves conclusively that Bush served his full tour in Alabama. Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 09:25 AM | PERMALINKAl, nice Clintonian parsing of words there. Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 09:26 AM | PERMALINKBTW: I absolutely believe GWB previously authorized the release of everything that settles this - what you are seeing now are things the WH didn't even know existed but they are are getting out there to "further" settle this. Now, when can we get back to Kerry and his "pretty young thing" Alex Polier? Posted by: Charlie at February 13, 2004 09:27 AM | PERMALINKBTW - this post goes to prove that the the anti-Bush people like Kevin are NOT simply interested in the AWOL issue. Obviously, the 1968 application obviously has nothing to do with the AWOL issue. So why post it unless you are interested in more than just the AWOL issue? So what really seems to be going on is that people like Kevin are REALLY interested in simply trying to dig up any dirt they can find on Bush from 30 years ago. Arrest records. Abortions. Whatever. THAT'S what Kevin and the rest are really after -- the AWOL issue is just the pretext. Now it all is starting to fit together... Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 09:28 AM | PERMALINKI wondered why Bush's response was redacted, until I noticed that the instructions specifically directed him to exclude minor traffic violations with fines of $25 or less. And he proceeded to list minor traffic violations with fines of $25 or less. ~remembering how folks told me that the people in Palm County didn't deserve to have their votes count if they couldn't follow instructions on those butterfly ballots~ Posted by: Vicoscia at February 13, 2004 09:29 AM | PERMALINKMeaning, everything having to do with the AWOL issue. His NG Application has absolutely nothing to do with the AWOL issue. Duh. Ummm Al, his whole service in the NG is at issue. How he got in, what he did or didn't do while he was there... how much coke he snorted. The whole thing's on the table. Tell me, does your back hurt from bending yourself into a pretzel to try to explain this away? D'OH! Try again. Posted by: four legs good at February 13, 2004 09:30 AM | PERMALINKWell, Karl Rove and Co. were probably blindsided by this National Guard stuff coming up again. After all, he had been elected twice as governor and had made it through the media coverage in 2000. (If the media is so damn liberally biased, why the hell did Bush get a pass on this in 2000?) This wasn't on their radar, and why should it have been? Bush made their problems way, way worse by his answers to Russert. He blew it by agreeing to open his files. Maybe Bush thought they had been scrubbed? Whatever the case, the White House is doing a pretty good job of prolonging the story. Bush blew it! Posted by: Jim E. at February 13, 2004 09:31 AM | PERMALINKArrest records. Abortions. Whatever. AHA! I knew that story about chimpy and maria and the illegal mexican abortion was true!! Thanks for confirming it for us. In all seriousness, if he didn't go around with a stick up his ass pretending to be mr. war god he wouldn't be in this fix. Posted by: four legs good at February 13, 2004 09:32 AM | PERMALINKHow he got in, what he did or didn't do while he was there... how much coke he snorted. That's exactly what I'm saying! Whether he got anyone pregnant while in the Guard... whether he used Guard doctors for abortions while he was in the Guard... those are ALL topics that I fully expect Kevin will be digging into next. Probably starting with the cocaine allegation. Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 09:33 AM | PERMALINKThis is funny: So what really seems to be going on is that people like Kevin are REALLY interested in simply trying to dig up any dirt they can find on Bush from 30 years ago. So it is like Whitewater. I'm on your side, people, but schadenfreude is a dish best served cold, as they say. Posted by: Fontana Labs at February 13, 2004 09:33 AM | PERMALINKSo it is like Whitewater. Yep. I predict in 10 years, Kevin will be a conservative and write a book entitled "Blinded by the Left". Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 09:35 AM | PERMALINKI'm still waiting for the 1972 proctologist's report to be released. I fully expect to see a diagram showing Al's head firmly lodged. Posted by: marky at February 13, 2004 09:36 AM | PERMALINKAssume for a moment that Burkett's story is true. Could a second set of records exist in Colorado that didn't get scrubbed? Do things get filed in triplicate in the military? If this is the case, then the drip,drip,drip --cherrypicking--of the files can continue for days. Posted by: Straight-eye for the queer guy at February 13, 2004 09:36 AM | PERMALINK(Adding a tearful Clintonesque apology would probably work pretty well in the latter case, although I suspect Bush's personality may be a little too Nixonian to pull something like that off.) I know what you mean by Nixonian in this instance, Kevin, with reference to Watergate. But we should also remember that twenty years earlier, Nixon pulled off the ultimate tearful apology in politics, the Checkers speech that probably saved his career. Posted by: Haggai at February 13, 2004 09:38 AM | PERMALINKI'm still waiting for the 1972 proctologist's report to be released. I fully expect to see a diagram showing Al's head firmly lodged. Post of the day and it's only 9:40 AM PST! Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 09:38 AM | PERMALINKTrying to guess motives and strategies is a little like trying to interpret God's wishes through watching weather patterns, but it's fun, so here goes. I think Jim E is onto it. I think Bush thought his records had been completely scrubbed, so he confidently said "release 'em," kinda like "bring 'em on." It was a great, macho thing to say at the time, and in a black and white world the records are either scrubbed or they're not, right? Ruh Roh. So now nobody wants to tell the boss things weren't completely taken care of, and the dribbling continues. Bush won't come clean because no one has the balls to tell him they screwed up on scrubbing the records. Posted by: Tripp at February 13, 2004 09:38 AM | PERMALINKI am trying to learn to be a troll. I see that we are now going back 40 years. Not 30, but 40. In addition to trying to figure out what's true, I also try to figure out who cares. I expect that this issue matters a great deal to those Democrats who voted for Robert Kerrey over William Clinton in the 1992 Democratic primaries, and for Robert Dole over William Clinton in the 1996 presidential election. Is that a big enough constituency to change the outcome in 2004? Is it enough to overcome the efforts of the VietNam veterans who oppose John Kerry, and those who think he lied in his congressional testimony as leader of VVAW. I don't know that he lied, but some voters do think that. I'll bet that there are more voters who think Kerry lied in his congressional testimony than there are Democrats who cared so much about military service that they voted for Dole. Maybe next time I'll call myself "centerlefttroll". stay tuned. Posted by: clevernewname at February 13, 2004 09:42 AM | PERMALINK"And why-oh-why are they playing "document of the day"? It's as if they're pursuing some bizarre strategy deliberately designed to prove to the world that they have plenty of documents in their possession and they are carefully releasing only the helpful ones after long and careful examination. It's just mind-bogglingly stupid." Kevin, they're doing this because it worked for them so far. When
pressed for details, give an example ('British intelligence has
learned...'). Haggai: that's right, I forgot about good 'ol Checkers. I actually wasn't thinking about Watergate, I was just thinking of their similar self-rightous personalities. I just don't think either one of them could pull off a genuine apology or ever admit they'd made a mistake. But you're right. Nixon was able to fake it at least once. Posted by: Kevin Drum at February 13, 2004 09:45 AM | PERMALINK"Do things get filed in triplicate in the military? If this is the case, then the drip,drip,drip --cherrypicking--of the files can continue for days." Posted by: Straight-eye for the queer guy at February 13, 2004 09:36 AM | PERMALINK They're only filed in triplicate if they can't be filed in quadruplicate, or higher... Posted by: Barry at February 13, 2004 09:48 AM | PERMALINKHey, i've asked this question several times without getting any
response, so I'll test my learning curve again and ask: Are convicted
felons ineligible to be President? I recall that from my school days,
but I could easily be wrong. You know, we have a kind of Reagan's bind here. Your 15 minutes of fame are winding down on this "expose". Kerry's
pant's around his ankles has effectively killed this story. It was a
good run, you should be proud of yourselves. Wow. That exchange with Helen Thomas is pretty amazing. Check it out at Talking Points Memo. Scott would NOT answer the Question. "Did the President ever do community service while in the National Guard." He wouldn't answer it. Go read the exchange. I am not making this up, he was freaking out, bobbing and weaving, doing everything he could to NOT answer that very simple, yes or no question. Now, I know when I ask someone, like, say, an 10 year old kid "Did you break this window?" and they won't answer me, the answer usually is "Yes, I broke the window." Now, maybe Republicans behave differently. Maybe a Republican child would say "I'm not going to address that question" or "I answered that last week". But it's pretty clear to me that Bush does NOT want to answer the question of whether or not he ever did community service while in the National Guard. Why not? Because it might lead to more questions, namely: "Why did you have to do community service?" Whis is the REAL question he doesn't want asked. Like Old Hat somewhere else said, I will eat my hat if cocaine is not involved here. Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 09:52 AM | PERMALINKHow exactly does anything John Kerry did make this story any less relevant? First of all, the Kerry story thus far has limited legs, other than what Drudge has said. Secondly, no matter what Kerry might have done, this is still a story. The only question is whether it's story #1 or #2. Both the questions over Kerry and the Questions over Bush speak strongly to the concept of character. The question is whether or not you want this person to be a leader. If John Kerry really did what Drudge alleged, I'll agree he'd be a poor President for me. But if Mr Bush was given a task to do by the government and then had such disdain for other people's authority, and had such arrogance in his own power that he couldn't even bother to show up, then by all means it's still an issue no matter what Kerry did. Btw, have y'all seen the Press corps jumping on Scott this mornign when he refused to give a yes or no answer to the question of whether or not Bush missed time to do community service? I haven't seen them that alive in 3 years. If you have a minute, please visit my web page. Thanks! Posted by: Balta at February 13, 2004 09:56 AM | PERMALINKThanks for the grammar lesson "Jay". Cheer up, you can always drum up
more Bush cocaine allegations from a felon in jail or maybe make up
another story out of whole cloth. What's the diff? Gavin . . . snoooooooooore . . . This news just in: Look over there! No! THERE! Posted by: tnd at February 13, 2004 09:58 AM | PERMALINKIt was a spelling lesson, and you're welcome. Posted by: Jay at February 13, 2004 09:59 AM | PERMALINKCircus? I can't wait to get to the transcript for today's press briefing. Thanks for reminding me gavin! Posted by: marky at February 13, 2004 09:59 AM | PERMALINK"Read my lips -- I will absolutely release all my military records ..." On Nov 18, 2003 Scott McClellan did an ask the White House session. Bryan, from Drexel Hill, PA writes: Scott McClellan When you put in into proper context, it is nothing compared to the challenges facing our men and women in the military. It is nothing compared to a single mom who is working to support her family. Helen Thomas has certainly been a mainstay of the White House press corps for more than 40 years. I think she gives everybody a hard time. She is just doing her job. I think there has to be a high level of trust between the Press Secretary and the press corps. The relationship is built on respect and honesty. The White House press corps is made up of some of the best and brightest professionals who have very demanding and challenging jobs. I have great respect for the jobs they do and while there is a natural tension at times, we are all here for the same purpose -- to serve the American people. I wonder if he still feels the same way? You mean Kerry's next press briefing asking whether he boffs his interns on a daily basis? That briefing Marky? This is rich. Posted by: gavin at February 13, 2004 10:04 AM | PERMALINKBalta: "If John Kerry really did what Drudge alleged, I'll agree he'd be a poor President for me. But if Mr Bush was given a task to do by the government and then had such disdain for other people's authority, and had such arrogance in his own power that he couldn't even bother to show up, then by all means it's still an issue no matter what Kerry did." Sure - just keep it in perspective, one was 30 years ago before he straightened out his life and the other was 3 days ago. Posted by: Charlie at February 13, 2004 10:05 AM | PERMALINKfrom wonkette And So It Begins: Suspected Sweetie Sleuthed, Spotlighted # Her mother Donna claims Kerry. . . was “after her”.
RELATED ENTRIES Will the Floodgates Open Now? Kerry Goes on Record About Intern # RELATED ENTRIES FEB "I used to say to my husband, my late husband, 'If you ever get something I'll maim you. Not kill you, just maim you.' And we'd laugh, laugh, laugh." Uhm, OK. Just want to point out that although she says "not kill," he is her late husband. Ha-ha. Ha. Ha. . . The Ungaggable Teresa Heinz [WP] RELATED ENTRIES Kerry Roundup: Are You Bored Yet? # RELATED ENTRIES Does This Have Anything to Do With the Kerry Thing? A Hint of Some Sort? # Wish List
RELATED ENTRIES Gossip Roundup: Giving the Kerry Story a Rest # [more...] And With That, Senator Miller Put the Straw Back in His Mouth and Resumed Whittling # We've thought about it, actually, and here's our advice: When criticizing lewd behavior, do not use the phrase "yanked my chain." We're just saying. Floor Statement on 'Deficit of Decency' in America Prepared Remarks for Delivery on the Senate Floor [Senator Zell Miller] RELATED ENTRIES Kerry Story: So Five Minutes Ago # Wesley Clark to endorse Democratic front-runner John Kerry [AP/SFGate.com] RELATED ENTRIES We're Already Tired of This Story: Kerry's Sex Life # FROM CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY'S CRAIG CRAWFORD: "Drudge item on Kerry
intern issue is something Chris Lehane (Clark press secy) has shopped
around for a long time -- it was one reason the Gore vetters in 2000
shied away from Kerry as a running mate choice -- their conclusion that
it wasn't bad enough to disqualify him, except for the fact that they
couldn't risk it as they were trying so hard to distance themselves from
Clinton's personal failings (note: Lehane worked for Gore at the time
-- and briefly advised Kerry during this campaign). The Kerry camp has
long expected to deal with this, and have assured party leaders they can
handle it." But our favorite bit of background is this, from NewsMax.com last April: "One story being examined for the upcoming series involves Kerry’s
brief fling in the 1980s with a young British journalist working in
Washington," The Hill reports. . . "The woman soon tired of the
arrangement and dumped Kerry for a member of Pink Floyd." CLARIFICATION: The NewsMax.com story is not about the same fling Drudge is writing about -- Kerry was single then. While it may have been sort of embarrassing to be dumped for David Gilmour, it's not scandalous. The Hill: Boston Globe to Probe Kerry Private Affairs [NewsMax.com] RELATED ENTRIES Quick, Quick, Quick, Hurry, Hurry: Wonkette Kerry Contest # We can't actually run a pool, but we can run a contest. Send us your guess as to what respectable news organization (and we'll go ahead and include Fox here) will first break the Kerry sex scandal. Do it now! Time is of the essence. We're also taking guesses for who the woman is. No contest there -- W. is the real winner, right? UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh is talking about the story on the air. Adds a bonus tin-foil-hat fillip to it: Hillary is behind the leak because she wants to step in as the nominee. Brilliant! But Rush is not respectable. UPDATE UPDATE: Shortest contest ever! ABC radio in DC (WMAL, which carries Rush, natch) just went with it, and I think we have to consider them respectable. (Please don't press me on why.) Contest winner is J.N.! RELATED ENTRIES Covering the Kerry Scandal: Tips # Bill Clinton --> John Kerry Luckily, "Drudge Report" stays the same. You'll save valuable time -- time you can now spend hunting down a sample of Kerry's jizz. RELATED ENTRIES Kerry: Would You Have Sex With This Man? # CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN We just wish we could make our type the right size to dramatize this development. But, seriously, who is going to believe this? Someone have sex with John "Treebeard" Kerry? We'll believe it when we see the semen on the dress. CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS [FUCKING DRUDGE FUCKING REPORT] Posted by: terry lenzner on the job at February 13, 2004 10:05 AM | PERMALINKIn yesterday's comments here at Calpundit, Marky wondered if a felony conviction makes a person ineligible for the Presidency. Can anyone provide a answer to that question? If it's true, it would go a long way toward explaining why the administration is so defensive about investigations into W's background. If there is a felony conviction on his record, he would be forced to evacuate the Presidency, no? Posted by: peter jung at February 13, 2004 10:08 AM | PERMALINKThe drip-drop effect is to give Rove & Co. time to track down the
key people (Generals, Colonels, Clerks, cops, x-girlfriends, etc) and
help them to remember the correct story. We'll get to the incriminating
docs eventually, but like any good defense attorney, Rove needs to know
what these witnesses are gonna say before he puts them on the stand. The drip-drop keeps the press from saying enough games in a very Tarantino-esque way:
Posted by: Peter at February 13, 2004 10:10 AM | PERMALINK If there is a felony conviction on his record, he would be forced to evacuate the Presidency, no? Nope. Nothing the Constitution says a felony conviction disbars someone from being elected President. Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 10:10 AM | PERMALINKTo All, Is it possible to limit the number of characters posted so we can limit the ability of the FREAKS who repost entire articles to degrade the reading experience? It seems clear to me it is an attempt to make it difficult to make one's way through the more thoughtful poster's responses. Posted by: tnd at February 13, 2004 10:12 AM | PERMALINKMarky, To be President you have to be: 35 years old. Unless you were born before 1789, then you could be President. So yeah, you can be a felon. Now, if you, say, WERE convicted of a felony, had it somehow hushed up, and then put your signature to numerous statements saying NO when asked about felony convictions throughout your life and career as a public servant, it might cause reasonable people to question your fitness to be President. Reasonable people who might otherwise have supported you. In other words, Republicans. Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 10:12 AM | PERMALINKDoubts raised on Bush accuser For at least six years, a retired Texas National Guard officer has maintained that President Bush's record as a member of the Guard was purged of potentially embarrassing material at the behest of high-ranking Bush aides laying the groundwork for Bush's 2000 run for the presidency. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett, who has been pressing his charges in the national news media this week, says he even heard one high-ranking officer issue a 1997 order to sanitize the Bush file, and later saw another officer poring over the records and discovered that some had been discarded. But a key witness to some of the events described by Burkett has told the Globe that the central elements of his story are false. George O. Conn, a former chief warrant officer with the Guard and a friend of Burkett's, is the person whom Burkett says led him to the room where the Bush records were being vetted. But Conn says he never saw anyone combing through the Bush file or discarding records. "I have no recall of that," Conn said. "I have no recall of that whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada." Conn's recollection also undercuts another of Burkett's central allegations: that he overheard Bush's onetime chief of staff, Joe M. Allbaugh, telling a Texas Guard general to make sure there were no embarrassments in the Bush record. Burkett says he told Conn, over dinner that same night, what he had overheard. But Conn says that, although Burkett told him he worried that the Bush record would be sanitized, he never mentioned overhearing the conversation between Allbaugh and General Daniel James III. Burkett's allegations about the Bush records come as the White House is attempting to answer mounting questions about whether Bush fulfilled his obligations as a member of the Texas Air Guard during the early 1970s. Burkett's allegations also will be a major focus of a book on Bush to be published next month. But the book's author, James Moore, a former Houston TV news correspondent, concedes he never interviewed some of the key players who could have verified Burkett's charges, including Conn and retired National Guard Colonel John Scribner -- the officer Burkett says he saw removing items from the Bush file. Moore, told yesterday that Conn contradicts Burkett's story, said he believes Burkett's allegations are true. "I think we're into a classic he-said, she-said," Moore said. Earlier this week, Burkett told the Globe that, in the telephone conversation between Allbaugh and James, Allbaugh said the Bush file had to be sanitized because two of Bush's aides were planning to review the records in preparation for Bush's 1999 autobiography, "A Charge to Keep." Burkett said that he overheard the conversation, conducted over James's speaker phone, while standing outside the open door of James's office, and that he was so troubled he told Conn about it that evening. But Conn, now a civilian government employee working with the US Army in Germany, said Burkett never told him of the conversation. And Allbaugh, a Washington consultant and lobbyist, said, "I would never be so stupid as do something like that." Allbaugh said he discussed Bush's file with Guard officials but only because Bush wanted to review it, and had never seen it. Burkett, in his Globe interview and in Moore's book, titled "Bush's War for Re-election," said that a week to 10 days after he overheard the conversation between Allbaugh and James, Conn brought him to an office at the Camp Mabry military history museum, where Conn introduced Burkett to Scribner. Burkett says that at the moment they met Scribner, the officer was busy scrubbing the Bush file. According to Burke, Conn asked Scribner what he was doing and Scribner replied that he was looking through Bush's records. Burkett said Conn and Scribner then briefly left him alone, and that he saw some pages of Bush's military records in a trash can near Scribner's desk. Conn contradicts most of Burkett's rendition. He said that he remembers introducing Burkett to Scribner at the museum but that Scribner never said he was going over the Bush file. "If he had said he was going through George W. Bush's records I would have dropped my teeth. Wow," Conn said. "I would definitely have remembered that. I don't recall that at all." Burkett also says that, before the encounter with Scribner, he was standing with a group of Guard officers, and heard a ranking officer order Scribner to review the Bush file and remove any documents that might be embarrassing to the then-governor. But Scribner told the Globe yesterday that no such thing occurred. "It didn't happen. I wasn't even there," Scribner said. Burkett has, in the past, raised his allegations about the Bush records as part of his personal struggle with the Guard over medical benefits. For instance, in a 1998 letter to Texas state Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, Burkett complained that he had not received adequate medical care when he became seriously ill after returning from a mission to Panama. He also said Guard officials had retaliated against him because he had conducted a management study critical of the Guard. © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company. Posted by: JUST THOUGHT YOU LOSERS WOULD WANT SOME FACTS, INSTEAD OF KEV'S CHERRYPICKED CRAPOLA at February 13, 2004 10:14 AM | PERMALINKPersonally, I **love** "document-a-day". Do you think they will release stuff over the weekend, or do we have to wait till Monday for the next drip-drop? Will Monday come soon enough?? I can't stand the suspense!! Posted by: 71077345 at February 13, 2004 10:15 AM | PERMALINKDoubts raised on Bush accuser For at least six years, a retired Texas National Guard officer has maintained that President Bush's record as a member of the Guard was purged of potentially embarrassing material at the behest of high-ranking Bush aides laying the groundwork for Bush's 2000 run for the presidency. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett, who has been pressing his charges in the national news media this week, says he even heard one high-ranking officer issue a 1997 order to sanitize the Bush file, and later saw another officer poring over the records and discovered that some had been discarded. But a key witness to some of the events described by Burkett has told the Globe that the central elements of his story are false. George O. Conn, a former chief warrant officer with the Guard and a friend of Burkett's, is the person whom Burkett says led him to the room where the Bush records were being vetted. But Conn says he never saw anyone combing through the Bush file or discarding records. "I have no recall of that," Conn said. "I have no recall of that whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada." Conn's recollection also undercuts another of Burkett's central allegations: that he overheard Bush's onetime chief of staff, Joe M. Allbaugh, telling a Texas Guard general to make sure there were no embarrassments in the Bush record. Burkett says he told Conn, over dinner that same night, what he had overheard. But Conn says that, although Burkett told him he worried that the Bush record would be sanitized, he never mentioned overhearing the conversation between Allbaugh and General Daniel James III. Burkett's allegations about the Bush records come as the White House is attempting to answer mounting questions about whether Bush fulfilled his obligations as a member of the Texas Air Guard during the early 1970s. Burkett's allegations also will be a major focus of a book on Bush to be published next month. But the book's author, James Moore, a former Houston TV news correspondent, concedes he never interviewed some of the key players who could have verified Burkett's charges, including Conn and retired National Guard Colonel John Scribner -- the officer Burkett says he saw removing items from the Bush file. Moore, told yesterday that Conn contradicts Burkett's story, said he believes Burkett's allegations are true. "I think we're into a classic he-said, she-said," Moore said. Earlier this week, Burkett told the Globe that, in the telephone conversation between Allbaugh and James, Allbaugh said the Bush file had to be sanitized because two of Bush's aides were planning to review the records in preparation for Bush's 1999 autobiography, "A Charge to Keep." Burkett said that he overheard the conversation, conducted over James's speaker phone, while standing outside the open door of James's office, and that he was so troubled he told Conn about it that evening. But Conn, now a civilian government employee working with the US Army in Germany, said Burkett never told him of the conversation. And Allbaugh, a Washington consultant and lobbyist, said, "I would never be so stupid as do something like that." Allbaugh said he discussed Bush's file with Guard officials but only because Bush wanted to review it, and had never seen it. Burkett, in his Globe interview and in Moore's book, titled "Bush's War for Re-election," said that a week to 10 days after he overheard the conversation between Allbaugh and James, Conn brought him to an office at the Camp Mabry military history museum, where Conn introduced Burkett to Scribner. Burkett says that at the moment they met Scribner, the officer was busy scrubbing the Bush file. According to Burke, Conn asked Scribner what he was doing and Scribner replied that he was looking through Bush's records. Burkett said Conn and Scribner then briefly left him alone, and that he saw some pages of Bush's military records in a trash can near Scribner's desk. Conn contradicts most of Burkett's rendition. He said that he remembers introducing Burkett to Scribner at the museum but that Scribner never said he was going over the Bush file. "If he had said he was going through George W. Bush's records I would have dropped my teeth. Wow," Conn said. "I would definitely have remembered that. I don't recall that at all." Burkett also says that, before the encounter with Scribner, he was standing with a group of Guard officers, and heard a ranking officer order Scribner to review the Bush file and remove any documents that might be embarrassing to the then-governor. But Scribner told the Globe yesterday that no such thing occurred. "It didn't happen. I wasn't even there," Scribner said. Burkett has, in the past, raised his allegations about the Bush records as part of his personal struggle with the Guard over medical benefits. For instance, in a 1998 letter to Texas state Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, Burkett complained that he had not received adequate medical care when he became seriously ill after returning from a mission to Panama. He also said Guard officials had retaliated against him because he had conducted a management study critical of the Guard. © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.... Posted by: YOU GOT ANY MORE SHIT TO PEDDLE, KEV? at February 13, 2004 10:16 AM | PERMALINKHey TROLL: The Boston Globe article you quote above was LINKED TO BY KEVIN 2 hours ago! You accuse him of cherrypicking, but he has been entirely forthcoming with info that may cast doubt on Burkett's story... Posted by: 71077345 at February 13, 2004 10:17 AM | PERMALINK*Applauds* Kevin you are fantastic. Kudos to you. Posted by: Matthew at February 13, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINKIf the community service stint & the refusal to take the flight exam are fully investigated & reported I predict that George W. Bush will not be elected. Posted by: IneedsomeP.U.L.L. at February 13, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINKPeter: Nothing in Article II that I can find. Traficant had to be kicked out of Congress, save for a Nixon Law I'd imagine the same would go for Bush. Posted by: Spyral Pegacyon at February 13, 2004 10:21 AM | PERMALINKApparently, the LA Times didn't have a crime reporter look at Bush's
1968 Guard application form. If it had, the paper wouldn't have accepted
McClellan's blow-off explain-away of the redaction. Don't think there's any prohibition on a felon becoming president. Also think it's interesting that the folks on this site who have been
most critical about how outrageous it is to bring up GWB's lame NG
performance are the same folks who are now gleefully spreading around
what amounts to slanderous innuendo about Kerry. Bit of a double
standard, I would say. Especially considering that the criticisms of
Bush's record are at least based on rather large gaps in his record that
GWB has now attempted to explain with about 10 different versions. Not
to mention that he has now lied by saying: 1) We turned this all over
in 2000, and 2)I'll turn over all records. Now, if you, say, WERE convicted of a felony, had it somehow hushed up, and then put your signature to numerous statements saying NO when asked about felony convictions throughout your life and career as a public servant, it might cause reasonable people to question your fitness to be President. I doubt he was ever convicted. That would mean a trial; I think that someone out of a jury of 12 would remember the spoiled rich cokehead. A felony arrest and mysterious dropping of charges, on the other hand, wouldn't surprise me.
"Your 15 minutes of fame are winding down" Quick look over there. THE HINT OF S E X! What don't you try the 'There are bigger problems' gambit? Here's a new one out of the box. What happens when the Enron case comes to trial? Might we see Big Time connections with Bush? (Halliburton is currently under investigation. Those $7,500 a month,car leases will come home to roost. Posted by: spocko at February 13, 2004 10:30 AM | PERMALINKHey -- wasn't GWB arrested TWICE at Yale? Once for pulling down the goalposts at a football game, and once for stealing a Christmas wreath from a department store?? He only claims one arrest on his TANG app... Also the instructions specifcally say you don't need to disclose minor traffic violations w/ fines of $25 or less. Posted by: 71077345 at February 13, 2004 10:38 AM | PERMALINKIsn't it ironic though that if you're a convicted felon, you can be president but you can't vote for one. Posted by: carrie at February 13, 2004 10:40 AM | PERMALINKBTW - this post goes to prove that the the anti-Bush people like Kevin are NOT simply interested in the AWOL issue. Obviously, the 1968 application obviously has nothing to do with the AWOL issue. So why post it unless you are interested in more than just the AWOL issue? Damn. Al just figured it out. After telling us to stop obsessing over the AWOL issue, he's discovered that most of the folks who visit Calpundit are interested in all of Bush's failings, large and small. What can we do in the face of such a penetrating intellect? Damning with faint praise: Despite his multiple inane posts, Al at least has the civility to express himself in less than a million words. Should comments have, say, a 500-word limit for a while, till the sun comes out and the trolls turn to stone? Posted by: TonyB at February 13, 2004 10:41 AM | PERMALINKI'm currently working on a big story about Bush, I just need to get through to one of my sources. He went to kindergarten with Bush. Apparently Bush got a "B-" in "Shares his toys with the other children," not a "B+" as he previously claimed. Obsessing... Posted by: Lonewacko at February 13, 2004 10:54 AM | PERMALINKWhat Bush reported on his National Guard application -- one arrest -- appears to contradict his previous statements that he had been arrested twice by that time. I discuss this on my blog: DID BUSH COME CLEAN ON HIS NATIONAL GUARD APPLICATION? On a related topic, I don't think Bush has ever told us the total number of times he has been arrested. With his DUI arrest, college prank arrest and rowdiness arrest, we know it's at least three times. Is that it, or are there more arrests? It would be nice to know the total number. Posted by: Gary at February 13, 2004 10:56 AM | PERMALINKI don't know Kevin, you've got me. I simply don't understand this performance. Rove isn't that stupid -- I would think that he would see that, as you outline, the way to deal with this is to release all the records at once. I disagree with you that they could stonewall the thing and end up releasing nothing. Not at this point. That'd be tough to get away with. Because of their actions, any rational person can see that there's
something to this story, as you so eloquently point out time and time
again. Thanks for the facts, troll. Scribner and Conn contradict each other. Posted by: dequincey at February 13, 2004 11:00 AM | PERMALINKI continue to be stupefied by this performance. First, why did Bush say on Sunday that everything had been released in 2000 only to have own staff then release a bunch of previously unreleased documents on Tuesday? Ummm... cuz he's such a pathological liar that he lies without even thinking twice about it??? Posted by: renato at February 13, 2004 11:02 AM | PERMALINKRegarding TonyB's post, how about just removing the most egregiously long posts, leaving only the link to the story? Can this be done? The loon with the Lenzner fetish has posted the same entire story numerous times on numerous threads, with more intent to obstruct readability and waste bandwidth than anything else. I'm making a donation to Kevin today, in "honor" of this nutball. Posted by: JK at February 13, 2004 11:03 AM | PERMALINKThe truth is sometimes painful -- let's also make it profitable (for Kevin). Pick your favorite troll and donate to Kevin everytime he/she/it posts. Posted by: sponsor a troll -- Donate to Kevin at February 13, 2004 11:06 AM | PERMALINKThis document strikes me as odd for a couple reasons. There is no form number or issuing authority anywhere on it. There is no name on it. There is no page number. I'm not calling it fake. I just think these are odd things in a bureaucratic document. I also have to wonder why, if the listed infrations are so minor, they were redacted. Something seems not quite right about this. Posted by: JoeW at February 13, 2004 11:11 AM | PERMALINKBen: re your question about how many 30 year old recods does anyone have, the real question isn't how many does anyone have at home, but how many does the government in some form or other have on you? You would be surprised how many are available and microfiched to death. Think of this: you can get a copy of your birth certificate, even if you are over 30! You can get a copy of your marriage certificate or license! You can get a copy of your high school grades! Your college grades! Your military records! You can even get information about the marriages and divorces, births and deaths of your ancestors! It's amazing what you can get! Posted by: Carol at February 13, 2004 11:14 AM | PERMALINKI think they're starting to panic. That's pretty much it. While the aWol question is neatly obscuring real issues -- the war in Iraq (I got a laugh out of a troll who claimed that Bush could run on his record in Afghanistan and Iraq), the economy, the environment, the First Amendment, the epic corruption -- it still leads to a president bleeding poll numbers. It makes no sense. Oh, and attention freeper brainiacs: the Kerry "scandal" is almost dead already. Joe Conason fully debunked the Drudge sludge over on Salon (subscription, but you can get a free day pass by watching an ad). This is turning out to be the biggest non-scandal of the race. (/) Roland X Hi there Roland - Joe didn't debunk ANYTHING - what he may have set himself up for is a libel suit (if Pollier and Kerry had an affair): ". . . the Drudge Report defamed his leading Democratic challenger with a 'world exclusive' smudge of personal dirt." Posted by: Charlie at February 13, 2004 12:01 PM | PERMALINKre: the redactions. speaking as an underling in the legal field, attorneys are very free with their markers and claiming "privileged" whenever records are to be produced. it's their natural inclination not to reveal anything more than what absolutely has to be revealed, damn the inferences. since it's a pretty safe assumption bush isn't calling the shots, the documents have been reviewed to death by rove, attorneys and worse (worse?). as to the document-a-day strategy, that just shouts, "incompetent!" Posted by: paperpusher at February 13, 2004 12:02 PM | PERMALINKHamilton-- You can be convicted of a drug offense (or any other felony) without a trial. It's called a plea-bargain, and having only community service as the punishment fits rather well with this whole meta-narrative. Posted by: Chris Anderson at February 13, 2004 12:04 PM | PERMALINKThe closest Bush got to a true smirk during the Russert interview was when he said "we did so in 2000." What we really want to see has already been destroyed, he knows it, and knows nothing truly revealing will be found anywhere. Posted by: irezz at February 13, 2004 12:34 PM | PERMALINKOh you mean that Bush failed to release the documents in 2000---when George magazine reported on them:? ====================== Two documents obtained by Georgemag.com indicate that Bush did make up the time he missed during the summer and autumn of 1972. One is an April 23, 1973 order for Bush to report to annual active duty training the following month; the other is an Air National Guard statement of days served by Bush that is torn and undated but contains entries that correspond to the first. Taken together, they appear to establish that Bush reported for duty on nine occasions between November 29, 1972-when he could have been in Alabama-and May 24, 1973. Bush still wasn't flying, but over this span, he did earn nine points of National Guard service from days of active duty and 32 from inactive duty. When added to the 15 so-called "gratuitous" points that every member of the Guard got per year, Bush accumulated 56 points, more than the 50 that he needed by the end of May 1973 to maintain his standing as a Guardsman. On May 1, Bush was ordered to report for further active duty training, and documents show that he proceeded to cram in another 10 sessions over the next two months. Ultimately, he racked up 19 active duty points of service and 16 inactive duty points by July 30-which, added to his 15 gratuitous points, achieved the requisite total of 50 for the year ending in May 1974. =============================== Or are you still upset that no one rembers him in Alabama ---- except for two who served with him: http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1076497178284961.xml =================
I disagree that Bush & Co. don't know what they're doing by dragging this out. As is apparent by the press secretary's attitude today, they hope to portray this as "just politics", and anyone who keeps asking questions as fishing in the gutter. Most Bush supporters (see defenders' comments here) will gladly pick up this theme and ignore the obvious stonewalling. And this administration understands that all it needs is a plurality come November. Unfortunately for this crew, the press doesn't seem willing to play along this year. The only thing that will save them is if Nader decides he wants 4 more years. Posted by: Fred Arnold at February 13, 2004 01:08 PM | PERMALINK>There's no apostrophe in "pants." There's one in mine. Posted by: apostropher at February 13, 2004 01:08 PM | PERMALINKRegarding felonies and the presidency: Bush and Cheney are the first President and Vice-President to have been convicted of felonies ever to hold the offices. Posted by: terry lenzner on the job at February 13, 2004 01:31 PM | PERMALINK"Adding a tearful Clintonesque apology would probably work pretty well in the latter case, although I suspect Bush's personality may be a little too Nixonian to pull something like that off." Not if he manages to involve a scotch terrier somewhere in the apology, ala the Trickster's "Checkers speech". Something like, "I know my democratic opponents have demanded that we put my daughter's dog "Noodles' to sleep (affectionately reaches over and scrathes behind 'Noodles' ears), but that's not going to happen-- not while I'm in the White House". Come to think of, Roosevelt's "Fala" was a scotch terrier, too, wasn't he? Posted by: Sovereign Eye at February 13, 2004 02:21 PM | PERMALINKThe oddest thing about this particular piece (the question about arrests, in case the trolls have made you lose track) is that the WH didn't release the doc, they just showed it to reporters. What's up with that? Why do it that way? I guess they might figure that they will keep the story away from the people that aren't their "friends". That's best spin I can think to put on it, as unflattering as it is I can think of a lot of other reasons, such as the reporters who looked at it were also sworn not to mention something else on it, as a condition of looking. Or that there was something about it that wouldn't stand up to extended scrutiny. I'm just speculating, but can somebody come up with a plausible reason why they might do this? -j The Magic of Misdirection - Keep 'em focused on the minutia, while we figure out how to deal with the BIG lie. Posted by: Trudi at February 13, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINKOr are you still upset that no one rembers him in Alabama ---- except for two who served with him: Remember, these are the bright fellows who let a DUI come out the Friday before the 2000 election, instead of going on Oprah in February and saying "Way back when, I had a DUI. But it made me quit drinking, and become a better person, and I'm all the stronger for it. That DUI was the best thing that ever happened to me." So if all of this is about a couple of 1962 fender-benders, they're making the same mistake. Makes me think its about something more... Posted by: Robert Earle at February 13, 2004 03:02 PM | PERMALINKAnybody notice the redaction makes the document look like a Franz Kline? Posted by: davids at February 13, 2004 08:51 PM | PERMALINKOnline Casino : Virtual City Casino - Vegas Palms Casino - Fortune Room Casino - All Poker Casino - The Sands Casino - 49ER Casino - Show Down Casino - Vegas Towers Casino - 7 Sultans Casino - River Bella Casino - Online Casino Bonus - Penis enlargement pills - casino 3k Internet Shareware: Evidence Eliminator - Internet Eraser - History Kill Posted by: Vegas Palms Casino at July 1, 2004 12:06 AM | PERMALINK6616 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 8, 2004 04:07 AM | PERMALINK1645 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - 8364 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 03:09 PM | PERMALINK1174 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 10:39 PM | PERMALINK6377 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: buy viagra at August 13, 2004 01:27 PM | PERMALINK4021 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 02:22 PM | PERMALINK6147 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: play blackjack at August 17, 2004 03:15 AM | PERMALINK2960 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 59 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 11:45 PM | PERMALINK4858 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 7466 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 03:42 PM | PERMALINK7056 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 07:59 AM | PERMALINK8461 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 08:04 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
