Doubts raised on Bush accuser
Key witness disputes charge by Guard retiree that files were purged
By Michael Rezendes, Globe Staff, 2/13/2004

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: HAVE YOU NO SHAME, MR. DRUM? at February 13, 2004 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

This is getting old, quack, quack.

Posted by: A. Scalia at February 13, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

The real question is, did the other two guys know about John "Bill" Calhoun? How could "Bill" have seen him and the other two missed him completely?

Posted by: bryguy at February 13, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Whew!

When I heard the Pillsbury Doughboy talking about this on the way back from lunch, I'd thought someone actually saw something relevant to the story.

Good work Kev, keep it up.

Posted by: Greg at February 13, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

DO YOU WANT CONN'S PHONE #, KEVVIE?Doubts raised on Bush accuser
Key witness disputes charge by Guard retiree that files were purged
By Michael Rezendes, Globe Staff, 2/13/2004

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.
DO YOU WANT CONN'S PHONE #, KEVVIE?

Posted by: DO YOU WANT CONN'S PHONE #, KEVVIE? at February 13, 2004 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

FROM CAP. ED'S BLOG
The Globe, which has been at the forefront of the media pushing this story, now reveals that the entire series of accusations had no basis in reality and in fact should never have been legitimized by the press in the first place. The author of an upcoming book that purports to detail the AWOL charges and their cover-up now admits he never even attempted to interview the two people Burkett accuses of "sanitizing" Bush's files:

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.

Listening to Hugh Hewitt's show yesterday, Peter Beinhart of The New Republic vehemently accused Hugh of irresponsible journalism by mentioning the Drudge Report story about Kerry's alleged infidelity without having done any responsible verification of the sources, in effect making Kerry publicly prove his innocence without having any evidence of his guilt. However, TNR and every other media outlet has done the exact same thing to George Bush despite the normal presumption of innocence and the extraordinary presumption of satisfactory and complete service that an Honorary Discharge presents. Instead, for at least the file-shredding accusations, every media outlet in the country relied on a single source that its investigator never felt the need to verify with the people he accused of participating in the cover-up!

Not only that, but the Globe story finally shows prior motivation for Burkett's accusations:

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.
Now that the Globe has demonstrated the journalistic bankruptcy of this story, I await the apologies of the national media in disavowing this libelous and shameful story. I shan't hold my breath.

UPDATE: A big welcome to Prof. Reynolds' readers from Instapundit, as well as from other links. One link was back to this forum, in a thread that had a response with a subject heading that called either Captain's Quarters or Instapundit the "biggest Bush a@@-kissing blog". I couldn't get to it from behind the firewall here, but I hope it refers to me. I've always wanted to be #1 at something ...

Posted by: TERRY LENZNER IS THE REAL PRO, KEV. YOU'RE JUST A SAD, WANNABE BERNSTEIN at February 13, 2004 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

For me and many people my age, the technicalities no longer matter. The real undisputed fact is that the Chimp got grounded and barely met his obligations if at all. I don't give a fuck what kind of discharge he bought; his service, what there is of it, is shameful and cowardly. Bush's actions spit in the face of the army and the country.

Posted by: Lupin at February 13, 2004 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

What is "bizarre" is the continual moving of the goal posts on this "story". No matter how much proof Bush offers it will never be enough for you guys. A week ago it was "how come they can't find any witnesses from his Alabama guard days" They do and it's "Wow, that' strange. Must be a cover up". Whatever.

Posted by: gavin at February 13, 2004 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

AH, THE FACT-CHALLENGED LUPIN.

Posted by: name withheld at February 13, 2004 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

I'd love to know if John "Bill" Calhoun all of the sudden starts buying expensive cars or a new house now. It was just a matter of time before they found someone that could be bought.

Posted by: john d'oh at February 13, 2004 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Man, that Burkett sounds like he's full of crap.

Still doesn't answer shit about why Bush didn't take his physical when ordered to.

Or about whether he did community service while in the NG.

Or about discrepancies in his record that could easily be cleared up by releasing it in full.

Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

Ha!

We've got the Shrubbies in an incoherant, snarling rage!

We're getting close to something.

Your going DOWN, guys.

More, More, MORE!!!

Posted by: Sovok at February 13, 2004 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

The goal posts never moved---they're still at "yes, absolutely" in response to Russert's request that Bush show EVERYTHING in his record.
The W.H. is still at their own 10 yard line.

Posted by: marky at February 13, 2004 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

"Sullivan said she knew Bush drank during the '72 campaign, but usually just one or two beers at a time and not on a nightly basis. "He told me years later that was the only year he ever drank," she said."

Well, there goes HER credibility. Even W admits he was a major boozer for many years.

Posted by: 71077345 at February 13, 2004 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Gavin,

I will be happy and fully satisfied if Bush would step before the press and answer these questions:

1. Were you ever arrested for a felony?
2. Did you do community service at PULL?
3. Why did you not take your physical?

I'd even settle for 1 and 2, since he's already told what I consider to be a BS story about 3.

Until he answers those first two, I'm going to consider him to be withholding information that is extremely pertinent to his fitness to be President.

And I don't care if he was AWOL. Don't give a shit. As far as I'm concerned, he's a coward for not joining the AF and going to Vietnam, so skipping out on his committment to the Guard is sort of small change compared to that.

Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Would you asshats give it a rest!!! Theres NOTHING THERE! Why don't you look at some of the other issues out there NOT being reported by the big media outlets.

Posted by: Kevin Bacon at February 13, 2004 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

While I would find it deplorable if Bush had actually shirked his duty in the Guard, as a veteran, I am laughing at this notion that Bush has to "prove" where he was on certain dates over THIRTY YEARS ago. The fact that this was NOT an issue when it should have been (i.e., 1972) demonstrates that it also should not be an issue now. If he had done anything wrong it would have been noted and handled BACK THEN (before he was powerful and influential).

I couldn't prove where I was on a certain date TEN years ago, let alone thirty.

Try this: prove that you attended class sessions during your 4th grade school year. The mere fact that you passed the 4th grade and weren't held back should be sufficient evidence that you performed what you needed to do. Shouldn't it?

Posted by: Out4Blood at February 13, 2004 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

James R. Bath is listed under Bush on the flight suspension record. Some people are reporting (it is rumored) that Bush and Bath were arrested for cocain together.

Someone should check for an arrest record at the courthouse for Bath. It would be in the public records if it existed. If - if - Bush and Bath were arrested together the original officer's report (with both names or perhaps a "blacked-out" mystery name) might be in that file even if the original Bush report was sealed by a court order. It is certainly worth a look.
==============================

Posted by: Grrpy at February 13, 2004 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Ha!
Sovok says:

"We've got the Shrubbies in an incoherant, snarling rage!

W"e're getting close to something.

"Your going DOWN, guys.

"More, More, MORE!!!"

Hey, moron: the shrubbies aren't the ones filling up their blogs with baloney "leads" and dumbass surmise (leading nowhere, by the way). nor are they making desperate phonecalls to drunk old ex-guardsmen with axes to grind. Who's obsessed: I think his name is Kevin Drum "Ace Sleuth."

Posted by: Journo 101 at February 13, 2004 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

So a guy shows up to read magazines for guard duty 30 years ago and Mr. Calhoun remembers seeing him "at least six times."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. At the very best, for this kind of time lapse, we would expect "I remember seeing him," Mr. Calhoun. There seems to be slim to zero chance that you could accurately count the number of times you saw him.

This story has been floating around for ten years. Funny that, with memory this specific, Mr Calhoun only thought to come forward now.

I think your GOP coaches fed you too strong a cover story.

Posted by: Timothy Klein at February 13, 2004 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

interesting thing about John Calhoun is that Bush's pay records show that he wasn't in AL at the time that Calhoun says he saw him sitting around the base, reading magazines.

Posted by: 71077345 at February 13, 2004 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

No matter how much proof Bush offers it will never be enough for you guys. A week ago it was "how come they can't find any witnesses from his Alabama guard days" They do and it's "Wow, that' strange. Must be a cover up".

More accurately: A few days ago, it was "how come they can't find any witnesses from his Alabama guard days to confirm the attendance that goes with the other records," and today its "Wow, they dug up a witness that contradicts the records they've presented, that's strange."

Posted by: cmdicely at February 13, 2004 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Try this: prove that you attended class sessions during your 4th grade school year. The mere fact that you passed the 4th grade and weren't held back should be sufficient evidence that you performed what you needed to do. Shouldn't it?

Maybe. Again, the Monkey doesn't care if he was AWOL. Joining the Guard to get out of Vietnam is enough evidence for me as to his character.

I want to know if he was ever arrested and had to do Community Service for it.

And I think THAT is what they're hiding here.

I could be wrong, but they certainly didn't want to answer a very simple Yes/No question this morning.

Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

If he had done anything wrong it would have been noted and handled BACK THEN (before he was powerful and influential).

This is a common logical fallicy. I forget the name. But your logic is thus: If I commit murder, I will be punished. I was not punished -- therefore, I did not commit murder. It't just plain shoddy logic. Bush's lack of consquences for his dismal guard performance is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'proof' that he did OK. Particularly not when one reads about the state of the Guard back then.

Further, Bush's service then is not that hard for him to remember -- he has gone out of his way to hide it. Bush knows exactly what it is that he did or didn't do in the early 70s.

Posted by: Timothy Klein at February 13, 2004 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Geez, the Burkett subplot - were the records scrubbed - is really just that, only a subplot to the primary storyline.

For those of you bored by the primary storyline, no one needs to keep reading it, but for the rest of us who are reasonably fascinated, the questions remain: just how cavalier was Bush at the end of his National Guard service?

And it's hard to avoid the conclusion that, like many, he was fairly cavalier, particularly about the physical examination.

That said, Kevin, i used to do oral history work, and it's very easy for people's memories to be clear and yet wrong about 30-year-old events. That's why oral historians spend a lot of time doing documentary research, and that, right-wing nitwit friends, is why the documents are the single most important matters.

And the single most relevant document remains the base commander in Texas's refusal to file a performance review since he hadn't seen Lt. Bush.

Now, someone up there said something about this wasn't important in 1972, which isn't true: of course it was important. But in the context of the time, Bush was probably no different than, say, Richard Cohen.

The real question is why the press didn't do this kind of vetting in 2000, and the answer, of course, is quite clear: the color of Al Gore's suits, the volume of Al Gore's sighs, the role of Al Gore in the interent - these were the things that the press considered important in 2000, not whether Bush was pushing a puff bio....

Posted by: howard at February 13, 2004 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Doubts raised on Bush accuser
Key witness disputes charge by Guard retiree that files were purged
By Michael Rezendes, Globe Staff, 2/13/2004

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 HAVE YOU NO SHAME, MR. DRUM? at February 13, 2004 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: HAVE YOU NO SHAME, MR. DRUM? at February 13, 2004 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

That "drip drip drip" is the sound of Kevin's obsession with this on his own credibility.

Posted by: Kate at February 13, 2004 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Wait a minute here! Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun said in the interview that bush would sit in the back & read magazines & flight manuals.

He's lying.

BUSH CAN'T READ, PEOPLE!

I'm friggin' sherlock holmes!

Posted by: Greg at February 13, 2004 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, please pay no attention to trolls "filling up (your) blog with baloney" and continue your investigations. This is proving to be an interesting unraveling.

Good work!

Posted by: SED at February 13, 2004 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Kate, try rewriting that sentence. It made no sense at all. I think Jay (see posts above) can help you out:)

Posted by: marky at February 13, 2004 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Georgie Bush, WAR PRESIDENT seen reading magazines (in a soldierly fashion). Is bidnessman Calhoun going to sit with his serrvice buddy at the Nascar race they're both attending this weekend? This is just TOO much fun!

Posted by: Racerboy at February 13, 2004 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Try this: prove that you attended class sessions during your 4th grade school year. The mere fact that you passed the 4th grade and weren't held back should be sufficient evidence that you performed what you needed to do. Shouldn't it?

I know that even if someone else didn't consider it sufficient evidence that I could name at least 15 people from my fourth-grade class who could be questioned as to whether I was there and whether they remember me being absent for any length of time.

And I'd also tell them that the school system should have attendance records, and that my teacher might even had a grade book showing my grades, and that anyone who really wants to know is happy to go down any of these paths to see what they need to see.

I also know that a whole lot of dumbasses are promoted in school when they don't deserve it.

Posted by: JD at February 13, 2004 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, does this gentlemen have pay stubs and what not that match the President's dates he showed up? For instance, let's say -- just to pick a date out of the air -- that his pay stubs state he was there on 2/13/73, shouldn't the President's pay records also state that he was there on 2/13/73?

See my point?

Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 13, 2004 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

The trolls are positively frothing at the mouth Kevin! Please keep hitting this sore spot, it fun to watch them squirm and wince.

Just like in "All the President's Men," you're onto something!

Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

One thing you can say about the Bushies: they are living proof that public education in this country is a shambles. Reading their mindless vitriol, routinely offered in defense of their mindless biases, leads anyone with a brain and a sense of decency to conclude that we should spend a great deal more time and money on education, and try to lift the logic-impaired and indecent out of their swamps of ignorance and into the real world.

Posted by: Ivor the Engine Driver at February 13, 2004 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Ok, the Bush-boy screams of outrage were kinda funny to begin with, but now it's just getting out of hand. Did we really need three complete transcriptions of the Boston Globe article? Especially when Kevin has already discussed it in another thread and Burkett isn't particularly central to the main argument anyway.

It's getting harder and harder to look through these comments. But your posts, Kevin, are as good if not better than the nation media, as always.

Hope you're not getting too much hate mail for your efforts. No good deed goes unpunished.

Posted by: Nick at February 13, 2004 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

OMG - You can just watch the signal to noise ratio flip as soon as Instahack sends a few minions over. No wonder Glenn doesn't have comments. He doesn't want anyone to see that the mean IQ of his followers is 62.

Posted by: Thumb at February 13, 2004 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Try this: prove that you attended class sessions during your 4th grade school year. The mere fact that you passed the 4th grade and weren't held back should be sufficient evidence that you performed what you needed to do. Shouldn't it?
Posted by Out4Blood at February 13, 2004 10:29 AM

Good point. Similar to OJ didn't kill Nicole because if he had, he'd be in jail.

Posted by: The Spirit of Howard Beale at February 13, 2004 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

While I would find it deplorable if Bush had actually shirked his duty in the Guard, as a veteran, I am laughing at this notion that Bush has to "prove" where he was on certain dates over THIRTY YEARS ago. The fact that this was NOT an issue when it should have been (i.e., 1972) demonstrates that it also should not be an issue now. If he had done anything wrong it would have been noted and handled BACK THEN (before he was powerful and influential).

I dunno bud. At my dad's funeral last year all kinds of men came up and told me stories about my dad and them from back in the day. Gee, the day was... gasp!! over 30 years ago, during his AF days.

So give it up. And anyway LOL, what manly service shrub did! sitting in an office reading magazines and training manuals. Compare and contrast:

Shrub reading magazines V. Kerry, wounded in active duty in Vietnam.

Silly rabbits.

Posted by: four legs good at February 13, 2004 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

While I would find it deplorable if Bush had actually shirked his duty in the Guard, as a veteran...

Well some us think he did shirk his duty, starting with the undisputed fact that he got grounded, which he lied about in his autobiography.

Posted by: Lupin at February 13, 2004 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

> The mere fact that you passed the 4th grade
> and weren't held back should be sufficient
> evidence that you performed what you needed
> to do. Shouldn't it?

The elder of the DC snipers received an honorable discharge from the Guard, after slugging an officer and two courts martials. Kinda de-values the claim than an honorable discharge from the Guard proves anything, other than you got an honorable discharge. Doesn't it?

Posted by: Ivor the Engine Driver at February 13, 2004 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Journo 101 AKA "Dumbass"

Why do you keep posting under different names? Do you really think it will make it seem like there is more than one of you?

But that aside, at this point, one thing is very clear:

Smirky did not take his guard duty very seriously, finding it to be an annoying inconvenience, which he shirked to the maximum extent possible.

GWB could shut this conversation down in a second, all he has to do is release his full military record - which he promised to do on national television.

Have you ever asked yourself why he refuses to do this?

Answer: He's hiding something.

We won't stop until we find out what it is, or when the trail goes cold.

The trail is NOT cold, in fact it's really hot, which is why we have morons like you desperately trying to throw us off the scent.

Get used to it, Chimpy's going down, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Posted by: Sovok at February 13, 2004 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

"This is proving to be an interesting unraveling."

What exactly is interesting about this? How Libs have convinced themselves that Bush was AWOL based on little evidence, and now that what there was has dried up, they keep finding less and less important questions about Bush's service. Now its not, Bush was AWOL, but that he missed a physical.
Look in the mirror guys, you look ridiculous. Polls show nobody cares about this, even a large portion of dems think its irrelevant. Your fixation is bizarre.

Posted by: Reg at February 13, 2004 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Try this: prove that you attended class sessions during your 4th grade school year. The mere fact that you passed the 4th grade and weren't held back should be sufficient evidence that you performed what you needed to do. Shouldn't it?

Not necessarily. Isn't that what shrub's "no child left behind" is all about? or is that bullshit too? (that was rhetorical, don't bother)

Posted by: four legs good at February 13, 2004 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

"Burkett isn't particularly central to the main argument anyway."

May I ask what is Kevins "main argument" anyway? And what is central to it?

Bush didn't fulfill every single obligation in his National Guard service? We knew that already. So what exactly is the point?

Posted by: Reg at February 13, 2004 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Calhoun, whose name was supplied to the AP by a REPUBLICAN CLOSE TO BUSH, is the first member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group to recall Bush distinctly at the Alabama base in the period of 1972-1973. He was the unit's flight safety officer.

Calhoun said he contacted TEXAS GOP LEADERS with his story in 2000 when the issue was raised just before the November general election.

It wasn't until his wife contacted GEORGIA GOP OFFICIALS that Calhoun's name surfaced.

That's real odd. I can find the phone number to any fucking number of national news organizations in 30 seconds on the Internet...yet Calhoun and his wife needed SIX YEARS to get their little tale out? And, oh yeah, I can find the phone numbers of any fucking number of national news organizations in 30 seconds on the Internet, and these bozos for some reason needed to contact the GOP first?

Uh uh. Something stinks to high heaven, and it smells exactly like GOP horseshit.

The "drip drip drip" sound is that of dumb Repugs bleeding as they realize the hypocrisy of supporting a draft dodging chickenhawk. Now, since the documents they are selectively releasing don't prove a goddamned thing, they're desperately going to the "he said, no he said" strategy.

Cowards support cowards, I suppose.

Posted by: Keep it Up Kevin. Repugs Have No Shame, and No Balls Either at February 13, 2004 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Now its not, Bush was AWOL, but that he missed a physical.

No, it's that Bush was and is a fuckup who depends on his daddy to bail him out.

And missing the physical got him grounded. Something he lied about in his autobiography.

A fuckup and an asshat. Some hero you got there.

Posted by: four legs good at February 13, 2004 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

How long before someone from the P.U.L.L. community service days surfaces in Houston? Not too long I'd guess.

I think the wheels are comin' off the wagon.

Posted by: IneedaP.U.L.L. at February 13, 2004 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Someone should really take a closer look at those dental record. As I recall, the dental record show Bush in Bama on Jan. 6 1973; I was under the impression that Bush's temp re-assignment to Bama was only till Nov 72. If it's true that Bush was only suppose to be in Bama till Nov 72 then why was he still there in Jan?

Posted by: Radix at February 13, 2004 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

"This is proving to be an interesting unraveling."

What exactly is interesting about this? How Libs have convinced themselves that Bush was AWOL based on little evidence, and now that what there was has dried up, they keep finding less and less important questions about Bush's service. Now its not, Bush was AWOL, but that he missed a physical.
Look in the mirror guys, you look ridiculous. Polls show nobody cares about this, even a large portion of dems think its irrelevant. Your fixation is bizarre.
Posted by Reg - 10:51 AM

The Bush TANG saga is the Bush Presidency in metaphor/microcosm.

Posted by: The Spirit of Howard Beale at February 13, 2004 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

These trolls worship a draft dodger! While Bush sits out the "political war" thanks to Daddy, Kerry's taking pellots in a combat zone out of a sense of duty and obligation to his country! I'll take a vet who knows what warfare sounds like as my president any day over some civilian militarist who don't know shit. You trolls are probably the big, bad flag waver types, think yourselves great patriots. Idiots.

Great work Kevin. Those of us who know how to think for ourselves are greatful for the information you are slipping through the idiot filter.

Posted by: cranky at February 13, 2004 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

Jeebus! Freeper trolls everywhere!

Troll boobies!
(¤)(¤)

Posted by: wÒÓ† at February 13, 2004 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, I have a question, Mr. McClellan - when did the president stop using cocaine?

Was the president AWOL because he was involved in mandatory community service?

A followup: What were the Dallas Cowboys that he served with like? Did the President ever see the movie "North Dallas Forty," which is based on the Cowboys of the same era? Did the booze and drug binges portrayed in the book and film match the President's experiences?

Posted by: Lyndon Johnson at February 13, 2004 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Should any of the former Air Force personnel who were reasonably sure that there was no story here -- stray pooch, retired LTC and john deterick come to mind, but there were others I can't remember -- come by this thread, would you mind answering a question for me?

Given what we now know, and given the way in which the White House has been disseminating what it knows, are you still reasonably sure that there is no story here?

The reason I ask is that two days ago I was convinced this was all a flap over nothing; just a ham-fisted attempt to try avoid saying "oops". Thanks to this latest rounds of releases, though, I'm starting to wonder if there really is something the Bush Administration is trying to cover up because I, like Kevin, can't figure out why on earth they're releasing the records in such a sporadic fashion.

Posted by: Anarch at February 13, 2004 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

I have to admit, there's something here that has me totally baffled:

----
"I saw him each drill period," retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona Beach, Fla., where he is preparing to watch this weekend's big NASCAR race.
----

Why on earth did the reporter and the editor feel that the NASCAR race was an important detail in this story? Not only is in *in* the story at all, but it's in the *second paragraph*. How bizarre.

I think that speaks more about the level of journalism these days than anything else I've seen here.

Good work, Kevin. I'm learning a lot about the investigative process by watching it in progress.

Dorothy

Posted by: Dorothy at February 13, 2004 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

She can't run political ads, unless she sets up a seperate entity...and I'm not even sure if she can do that, since it's hard to claim you're "unaffiliated with John Kerry For President" when you're married to John Kerry.

Were I asked to do that, I could find a number of people who could certainly testify to the fact, and probably considerable documentary evidence beyond merely the fact that I graduated.

Of course, I also had a number of behavior problems in 4th Grade and, if I wanted to hide those, I'd have to refrain from bringing forth most of the available witnesses and evidence, which might make it more difficult.

Posted by: cmdicely at February 13, 2004 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

I love the smell of desperate trolls...

...smells like VICTORY.

Posted by: renato at February 13, 2004 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Geez, Kevin, you've got these trolls in a teeth-gnashing rage. Good work. ;)

Posted by: RoguePlanet at February 13, 2004 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

So, Burkett is still believable to you, despite the holes appearing in his story, and Calhoun's story is "mysterious." Are you even listening to yourself? A guy says he had lunch with Bush, saw him a number of times, and hung out with him, but he has no more credibility in your eyes than people who "don't remember seeing him."

And now you're matching tallies of drill session? Good God, do you think Calhoun was sitting around actually counting Bush's drill sessions back then, as opposed to maybe pulling an approximate number out of a hat during an interview?

While you deserve credit for being more reasonable than some of the crackpots on your comment section, you're still insisting on riding this one all the way down to the ground.

Posted by: tbrosz at February 13, 2004 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

And why do these two guys swear that they never saw Bush even though they were looking for him?

Shoot, I haven't seen Gweneth Paltrow, even though I've been looking for her for YEARS now! Guess that means she was never in New York City!

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Reg: "May I ask what is Kevins 'main argument ' anyway? And what is central to it?"

Kevin doesn't have an argument, he simply wants to know how Bush performed his duties in the Guard. The central point hasn't changed: if Bush would release all of his records voters could decide for themselves what is important and what isn't, rather than Bush deciding for them. What is wrong with that?

Posted by: k at February 13, 2004 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

I've often wondered why people think that questioning the intelligence of others is a winning debate strategy.

I've also often wondered how people can come to the conclusion that the absence of evidence that corroborates their beliefs is evidence that those beliefs are true. You'd think it would be the other way around. You might want to call it faith; but the whole point of faith is that you cannot prove it's conclusions.

Posted by: anon at February 13, 2004 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Meta post:

These troll posts are like email spam and junk mail.

P.S. It looks as if Rosey Joe tiernan has found his way to calpundit.

Posted by: steveo at February 13, 2004 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

I just love hearing right-wing trolls complain about Kevin's "obsession" with Bush's NG service. I mean, that's so much more trivial than being obsessed with Clinton's penis.

The irony is so thick it would take a chainsaw to cut through it.

Posted by: renato at February 13, 2004 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

The 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 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Why won't Bush release all of his National Guard records, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why won't Bush release all of his National Guard records, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why won't Bush release all of his National Guard records, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why won't Bush release all of his National Guard records, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why won't Bush release all of his National Guard records, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why won't Bush release all of his National Guard records, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why won't Bush release all of his National Guard records, he has nothing to hide, right?

Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

May I ask what is Kevins "main argument" anyway?

I believe Kevin's main argument is "Bush is EEEVVVIIILLL!!!"

Either that or that George Bush killed Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll.

Can't remember which.

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

What the hell are "safety magazines"? Are they printed with rounded corners and paper cut free edges, or carefully edited to remove any content which might tax the brain?

Posted by: Yubba at February 13, 2004 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Look in the mirror guys, you look ridiculous. Polls show nobody cares about this, even a large portion of dems think its irrelevant. Your fixation is bizarre.

Posted by Reg at February 13, 2004 10:51 AM

Cigar, anyone?

Posted by: joycamp at February 13, 2004 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

Bob Herbert says it best in today's Times:

So here's the thing: After strolling to the head of the line, and putting the Guard to the considerable expense of training him as a pilot, Lieutenant Bush didn't even bother to take his duties seriously. He breezed off to Alabama to work on a political campaign. He never showed up as required to take his annual flight physical in 1972, and because of that was suspended from flying.

[snip]

Mr. Bush's experience in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years is especially relevant today because it throws a brighter spotlight on who he really is. He has walked a charmed road, with others paying the price of his journey, every step of the way.

Posted by: Holden Caulfield at February 13, 2004 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Questions do remain about this issue, and as a life-long conservative Republican who has switched to being a Democrat over this very issue, I want to know how this issue helps us answer these questions:

How can we stick it to Bush?

How can we make Kerry more palatable to the center?

How can we keep this alive until November?

Posted by: kerry_alex at February 13, 2004 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

And which poll would that be, Herr Troll?

Posted by: Holden Caulfield at February 13, 2004 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Anon,

Allow me to quote from the Master:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Think on that.

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

In the 60s, even Dems opposed the Vietnam War in spite of the fact it was prosecuted by Dem Presidents. The country and its principles mattered more than the Party. But today none of the neo-fascist freepers dare break rank with or even criticize the Cowardly Caudillo. Disgusting.

Bush Sr had balls; the son is a lying cowardly piece of shit that is an insult to this country.

Posted by: Lupin at February 13, 2004 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter trolls:

"HOW DARE YOU TRY TO FIND THE FACTS OF THE STORY!"

Sheesh.

Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 13, 2004 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think the point is to keep this alive until November, kerry_alex. Non-Clinton-obsessed people (most of us, that is) got weary of hearing about his penis, Monica and impeachment.

I think the benefit is this issue seems to finally be getting past Bush's teflon. From now on, there's going to be a taint, a stain if you will, on whatever Bush does or has done, says or has said. The perception that he's a humble, God-fearing, good ol boy is being replaced by a perception of him as an inept, corrupt, dishonest back-room dealer and hypocrite, who has skated through life on his name.

(which is the truth about him, IOW)

Posted by: renato at February 13, 2004 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Well, this pretty much shows that you will not be willing to accept any positive evidence in Bush's favor on this matter. It's a shame, I always came here for reasoned left opinion...now you've stooped to Eschaton's level.

Posted by: x at February 13, 2004 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

now you've stooped to Eschaton's level.

was that intended as an insult?

Posted by: renato at February 13, 2004 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Can't help but think then AWOL stuff is just smoke to cover/divert from the story about why Bush was groundedand how he got out of his filight contract. I was Air Force during this era, '66-'69 and on flight status, getting dropped was a very big deal for a pilot in any branch of the service. Think the Boston Globe story probably got it right.

Posted by: Chuck at February 13, 2004 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think the point is to keep this alive until November, kerry_alex. Non-Clinton-obsessed people (most of us, that is) got weary of hearing about his penis, Monica and impeachment.

Exactly.

As soon as Chimpy releases ALL of his military records as promised, we'll drop it.

Posted by: Holden Caulfield at February 13, 2004 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?

"Spring 1971: Bush is hired by a Texas agricultural importer. He uses a National Guard F-102 to shuttle tropical plants from Florida."

It's all over the 'net. Is "tropical plants" slang for... ? And what about this alleged
(James R.) Bath + Bush drug bust? If it happened, Bath would have a file even if Bush's file was sealed by a court order. And why is McC being so goofy about Bush doing community service?

==========================

Posted by: toogoofy at February 13, 2004 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Rummy the poet said: "Absence of evidence is'nt necessarily evidence of absence." Rummy should be poet laureate. Bush's credibility is shot. If it wasn't this story would have gone nowhere.

Posted by: cranky at February 13, 2004 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

considering the pull that got him into the guard in the first place, the fact that a large number of the folks serving in his unit were fellow sons of politicians and members of the Dallas Cowboys to keep them out of Viet Nam would imply that they weren't as willing to come down too hard compared to numerous other NG units. this shirking of such a light duty while others with your same draft eligibility were being killed and maimed in Nam since they didn't have the same ability to duck out from active duty shows us his moral character at the time. the fact that he still refuses to open up his full records now and show that he fulfilled his (light) duty to his country shows us his character now.

Posted by: preznit giv me turkee at February 13, 2004 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

My buddy the retired master chief tells me regular guys were handed rifles for less than blowing off drills - the real story for such Vietnam veterans is that this guy skated only becuase of his family connections. The real story for the rest of us is that W is not telling the whole truth following his MTP stunt.

Posted by: Pacific John at February 13, 2004 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

I think what bothers Bushites the most is that the "Guns and Jesus" strategy has its weaknesses, and if Bush is known to be a coward and a drug addict. and since he's denying such, then he'll be proven a liar once and for all -- then the whole "Guns and Jesus" thing crumbles.

You lose the fundies if the image of Georgie doing blow in his Guard uniform, running away from his duty.

That's why they're shitting their collective pants.

Keep up the pressure, because the mere process of this will make them look bad.

Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Questions do remain about this issue... -- Kerry_Alex

Alex Polier, is that YOU??? How's Kenya these days? We've go SO many questions for you! Why don't you come back to the states?!

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Reading magazines and flight safety manuals? Did you happen to notice a halo around his head, sir?

Posted by: Peter at February 13, 2004 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Since Mr Calhoun definitely remembers seeing Bush,I'm sure he would gladly release his records to show that his dates of attendance coincide with the dates of attendance for Bush.

Posted by: Baldwin Huey at February 13, 2004 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, Alex Polier, I've got another question for you...

Do you concur with your father that John Kerry is a "sleazeball"?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071162,00.html

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

I'm a bit intrigued by these concerns with Kevin's credibility and obsessiveness, especially by people who appear to be relative newcomers to the site. I guess it's kind of people to be concerned with his mental health and reputation.

However, last timme I checked, this is Kevin's site. Furthermore, if he's obsessed, then it is his obsession to have; if he's fooling with his credibility, it's his credibility to fool with. He is a grown man; he has a right to choose his own passions and fights. If he wants to pursue this issue till he's satisfied (e.g., until all informaion is released as promised), that is his right.

After all, I doubt that Kevin is singlehandedly feeding the current media frenzy.

If you're bored with the topic, then stop reading. The "headline" for each topic makes the content rather obvious, so just skip the one's that deal with the TANG.

What's the big deal, and why this desperate attempt to shut him up?

Posted by: doug at February 13, 2004 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Hmmmm...whole lotta skepticism about Calhoun, the staunch Republican who, now that his man Bush is floundering, suddenly miraculously remembers he saw Bush back in the day:

Then there's the this-just-in account from John "Bill" Calhoun, a Republican businessman in Atlanta. The Washington Post reported that "a Republican close to Bush" supplied the newspaper the phone number of Calhoun, who was an officer with the Alabama Air National Guard in 1972. Calhoun told the Post that he saw Bush sign in eight to ten times for duty at the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group at Dannelly Field in Montgomery from May to October 1972. Calhoun said, "He'd sit on my couch and read training manuals and accident reports and stuff like that."

Four years ago, when the where-was-W story broke (thanks to a piece by The Boston Globe's Walter Robinson), the Bush campaign promised it would release names of individuals who had served with Bush in Alabama. It never did. The campaign did provide the name of a former girlfriend, but she only said that Bush had told her that he had to report for duty in Alabama; she could not attest that he actually did. Finally, Bush has one witness--out of the 600 to 700 people who served at the Alabama base in 1972.

But Calhoun's account is contradicted by other information--including the few pages of records that the White House released earlier this week. Calhoun says that Bush showed up for duty several times from May to October 1972. But the payment and retirement records the White House handed out three days earlier show that Bush received no pay or attendance credits from April until the end of October 1972. Why, then, is Calhoun's account not in sync with the documents that, according to the White House, settles the matter?

Posted by: Sticky at February 13, 2004 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

I thought the lesson from Clinton is that scandals irrelevant to the job of president aren't worth investigating. I'll agree with that. The search for the "truth" doesn't justify scandal mongering unless the scandal is relevant. It is clear that this is irrelevant.

If all you conspiracy nut lefties are only interested in the truth, you cannot fault rightwingers for the same scandal mongering during Clinton's term, nor can you complain about investigations into Kerry's womanizing, drug use, or whatever else turns up.
After all, the justification, we only want the whole truth works just as well.

So which is it? Unfettered scandal mongering, or ignorance of events unrelated to the job of the president. You can't pick one for Republicans and one for Democrats.

Posted by: Reg at February 13, 2004 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

"I've also often wondered how people can come to the conclusion that the absence of evidence that corroborates their beliefs is evidence that those beliefs are true. You'd think it would be the other way around. You might want to call it faith; but the whole point of faith is that you cannot prove it's conclusions."

Well, Bush seems to be getting the Saddam treatment: Prove you have no more WMDs. The wingnuts had no problem with this illogical demand then. Though to be fair, Bush is actually asked to prove a positive. Prove you served fully !

He can't, he can only prove partially he served. He can't fill a gap of at least 5 months, and 7 more months have dubious evidence.

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Nice work
Trolls have a hard time getting their stubby arms around this....the only contemporaneous account, thus not relying on memories or ax-grinders:

"And the single most relevant document remains the base commander in Texas's refusal to file a performance review since he hadn't seen Lt. Bush."

On Sunday, W said he'd release ALL the records. Its Friday and he hasn't. why not?

Posted by: Cap'n Dunsel at February 13, 2004 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

"Spring 1971: Bush is hired by a Texas agricultural importer. He uses a National Guard F-102 to shuttle tropical plants from Florida."

Anybody know the name of the company and what became of them?

Posted by: The Spirit of Howard Beale at February 13, 2004 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

I think its relevant.

Posted by: ish at February 13, 2004 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

They can't, Reg? Where have you been?

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 13, 2004 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

"Relative newcomers to this site?"

You could say that. They're being herded in by exhortations from conservative weblogs to come over here and try to harass Kevin into dropping his questions, because the cons are deathly afraid of this story.

Pretty yellow, but par for the Republican course.

Posted by: Karl Rove at February 13, 2004 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

You lose the fundies if the image of Georgie doing blow in his Guard uniform, running away from his duty.

'fraid not. Part of the sales pitch is that repenting sinners get special awards 'n sh*t. You see, it's okay for the red states to have higher divorce rates (and virtually every other measure of social decay) as long as they come to Jesus. If Geo. if forced to come clean, his base will love him more than ever.

Posted by: Pacific John at February 13, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

I thought the lesson from Clinton is that scandals irrelevant to the job of president aren't worth investigating. I'll agree with that. The search for the "truth" doesn't justify scandal mongering unless the scandal is relevant. It is clear that this is irrelevant.

well, I can see that consensual sex has little to do with running the country, but blowing off military duty and being grounded for failure to take a mandated flight physical in your past may have some bearing on calling yourself a "war president" and leading the country into war as CiC

Posted by: preznit giv me turkee at February 13, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

"What's the big deal, and why this desperate attempt to shut him up?"

I always found calpundit's site a place of good debate. It was relatively civil and a fair amount of solid discourse backed up by some footnotes, documentation etc. There were tons of disagreements but at least the arguments were usually logical. Lot of fairly bright people from both the left and right came here for policy debates and the roll ratio was relatively low barring some linkage issues.

Now the website seems to attract the worst of both sides and I think the quality of the site has taken a big hit. But of course, I'm on the more libertarian side so my opinion doesn't really count.

Posted by: hoo at February 13, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

I am amazed at Req's plea for consistency.

Please apply your same love of consistency to analyze this malAdministration's policies and you know what ?
Tada.
You've become a Democrat.

Welcome.

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

I say we have a contest:

Put both GWB and JFK into bulletproof fiberglass boxes to protect their safety. Hook them up to telegraphs. Send them on tour through twenty U.S. cities allowing the public to ask whatever they want. I bet JFK will win.

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

"unless the scandal is relevant"

Live by the sword, die by the sword...

Meaning...
1) Payback's a bitch -- scandal-mongering is a two-way street.
2) Want to cultivate the macho/integrity image? Prepare to have it questioned.

Here's a suggestion: try running the country well, then you'll sail right through things like this.

But, since that's out of the question, then tough shit -- deal with what's landing on your plate. You all put it there.

Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Heh. Polygraphs. But what the hell, telegraphs, too! Why not?!

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Helen Thomas this morning asking a simple question could not get a straight answer from Scottie. Bush did community service instead of Guard duty. Thats what they're hiding.

Posted by: ish at February 13, 2004 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

If Geo. if forced to come clean, his base will love him more than ever.

Not in this case -- he's too deep into the lie. If he had volunteered his faults early on, there would be forgiveness. Not now -- certainly not for his whole base.

Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Reg,

You make a good point (Jeez, did I really say that?);o)

But Billmon (Billmon.org) made a good point - we can no longer afford to stay above the fray when the wingnuts are attacking form the gutter - it simply doesn't work.

Billmon suggests a Mutually Assured Destruction pact, if the wingnuts engage in gutter politics, there should be no doubt that progressives will respond aggressively in kind - hopefully this will provide some sort of deterrence.

Somehow I doubt it though.

Rest assured, the gloves are off, and they will remain that way, at least until Bush has been safely retired to Crawford.

Posted by: Sovok at February 13, 2004 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Looks like the vets ain't buying the Bush-shit:

I WAS IN the regular Army from 1969 to 1977, in Vietnam in 1970, and asked for a hardship discharge in 1976. My son was having seizures from a brain disorder, and my wife had almost died. My request was denied. President Bush was released early from the National Guard to attend graduate school.

Anybody of draft age in the 1960s knows that if you were from a rich or powerful family that had connections, you could get into the Guard, Reserves, or Coast Guard in order to avoid serving in Vietnam.

I served in Vietnam 34 years ago and remember many of those in my unit and what we did.

If the president can't remember those he served with, he probably wasn't there. If those he served with don't remember him, he definitely wasn't there.

For almost a year I have asked the Bush administration for my wife's, son's, and my own military medical records. All of my requests have been in writing and by e-mail. The president gets his records in a day (Page A1, Feb. 10) while my formal written requests are ignored.

Posted by: Sticky at February 13, 2004 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

You only get to cry "hypocrite" to a right-winger you think is unfairly saying Kevin is obsessing over this issue if you know that poster made a big deal over Clinton's escapades.

If you don't know that, you can't assume it, and any attempt to do so is based at the very least on an willingness to fudge logic.

Posted by: dems #1 at February 13, 2004 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, keep digging. As long as you report the questions and concerns and stories about all of your eyewitnesses/facts in your reports, it allows me to be my own judge as to how reliable their story/facts might be. You do that, and by doing that, you allow me to make my own judgements about the validity and importance of this whole story. I am actually now very much interested in the story behind the story that you are actually now discovering. Again this may or may not be important to people as an issue, but that is for each person to decide and judge for themselves. At least you are attempting to provide people with the all facts and sides of the story and once people have all these facts, it is clearly up to each individual as to if they agree with the facts, if they place any importance on the facts or story, and how they in the end judge Mr. Bush. Thank your for trying inform people about this so we can make up our minds.

Posted by: emal at February 13, 2004 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

This is the best the GOP can produce - the shrub read magazines and went to the dentist while in Alabama? The makings of a great Kerry ad -- one candidate commanding his boat in Vietnam, another sitting in an office thumbing through magazines. Was the shrub even in uniform when he was doing this reading -- the GOP's one witness doesn't say.
Helen Thomas pushed McClellan hard on the community service question today, McClellan (surprise!) stonewalled. See talkingpointsmemo.com for transcript.
Also recommend "White House Briefing" column of today's Washington Post and its commments from readers to get a sense of why this issue is such a hot one.

Posted by: irishboy at February 13, 2004 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

The same in reverse, dems #1,

You can only charge a leftie with hypocrisy if you know that he complained about the treatment Clinton got.

See how far that gets us ?

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Looks like the vets ain't buying the Bush-shit:

If Bush did not meet minimum flying requirements during two years of Air National Guard time, I don't see how he can claim to have served.

Lessee. They did promise to release ALL records, didn't they?

LEE GOODIN
Major, USAF (retired)

Posted by: Sticky at February 13, 2004 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Reg: "I thought the lesson from Clinton is that scandals irrelevant to the job of president aren't worth investigating. I'll agree with that. The search for the "truth" doesn't justify scandal mongering unless the scandal is relevant. It is clear that this is irrelevant."

I don't want to know about Bush's sex life or his private life, I just want to know what the official government records say about how he fulfilled official government duties. How can that be defined as "scandal mongering?"

Posted by: k at February 13, 2004 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

This is oft said, but not true. It's true in some cases, but not others. When something should have left evidence, and didn't, it's evidence that that something never happened. For example, if you claim you were at a secure facility one day, and the visitors log have no record of your visit, and security cameras have no images of you, that most certainly is evidence of your absence.

What all these "do YOU remember where you were every day 30 years ago???" types are missing (intentionally, methinks) is that there's a big difference between making someone account for mundane everyday activities and doing a job for the military, which keeps meticulous records of those activities. Absence of these records is evidence of absence, or of those records being lost or removed. This is not even close to asking someone whether he ate at McDonalds on July 9, 1971.

Posted by: Gaska at February 13, 2004 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

I think the real point here is that the press seems to be taking an interest in actually asking questions instead of being the admininstrations scribes. Kevin and a few others did enough of the heavy lifting for them so that they could get a running start at this, and they don't like what they're hearing from McClellan. They want a few simple answers and all he does is back and fill. It's quite hilarious if you read the transcripts.

One thing the media doesn't like is being patronised, and ducking any issue in such a transparent fashion just puts blood in the water. Whether there is anything to this or not, I reckon that the press briefings won't continue to be bullshit sessions where Scotty vomits up a bunch of homogenized pablum and they eat it up anymore.

Better crank up the attack machine, Karl!

Posted by: Ishmael at February 13, 2004 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

the rethugs know that there's more of us than there are of them (godz: "keep on running"), and this time we're motivated. no quarter. (led zep)

Posted by: paperpusher at February 13, 2004 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Looks like a few influential folks (in addition to Kevin )are keeping in mind the real Bush-shit in this story:

Mr. Bush favored the war in Vietnam, but he had the necessary clout to ensure that he wouldn't have to serve there. He entered the Texas Air National Guard at the height of the war in 1968 by leaping ahead of 500 other applicants who were on a waiting list.

Mr. Bush was eventually assigned to the 147th Fighter Group (later to become part of the 111th Fighter Interceptor Group), which Mr. Moore described in his book as a "champagne" outfit. "The ranks," he said, "were filled with the progeny of the wealthy and politically influential."

So here's the thing: After strolling to the head of the line, and putting the Guard to the considerable expense of training him as a pilot, Lieutenant Bush didn't even bother to take his duties seriously. He breezed off to Alabama to work on a political campaign. He never showed up as required to take his annual flight physical in 1972, and because of that was suspended from flying.

This cavalier treatment of his duties as a Guardsman occurred as thousands of others were being killed and wounded in Vietnam — youngsters of great promise like Roy Dukes, who was 20 when he died. Having escaped the horror of the war himself, one might have expected Lieutenant Bush to at least take his duties in the National Guard seriously.

Posted by: Sticky at February 13, 2004 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

I don't want to know about Bush's sex life or his private life, I just want to know what the official government records say about how he fulfilled official government duties. How can that be defined as "scandal mongering?"

indeed. heh.

--also reg, i don't completely disagree with your sentiments either. but there is that little impeachment matter. if bush volunteered to step down in 2004, then maybe i would have a little bygones be bygones sympathy. i don't think that's going to happen though.

Posted by: danelectro at February 13, 2004 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Looks like vets ain't buying the Bush-shit, and they see what the REAL issue is here:

I am also well aware of the political influence and privilege that pervaded the Guard. That is what was abused in Bush's case. His family's contacts in Texas and the federal government pulled the strings for him to be released in order to attend Harvard Business School.

Posted by: Sticky at February 13, 2004 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Considering the WH's capacity for blame when in a corner, do you think McClellan will still be in D.C. come Cherry Blossom Days?

Posted by: Eazy at February 13, 2004 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

I don't understand how, deep in what remains of their hearts, Bush's people in the White House can possibly be happy with Calhoun. They've been trying to project Bush as Hero and instead they get, as usual, Bush the slacker. After they pass a certain age, which Bush had done by 1972, people don't change radically in their basic make up from one decade to the next. The image of Bush serving the state of Alabama by sitting in an office and looking at the pictures in magazines doesn't match up well at all with the other image that Rove&Co set up so carefully a few months ago, of the War President popping out of a warplane that supposedly he piloted himself, onto the deck of an aircraft carrier to the cheers of the sailors, and declaring victory in Iraq.

Posted by: Sofarsogoo at February 13, 2004 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Al: "Shoot, I haven't seen Gweneth Paltrow, even though I've been looking for her for YEARS now! Guess that means she was never in New York City!"

Populations:
New York City: 8,000,000
187th Tactical Recon Group: at most 800

Al, how stupid are you?

Posted by: Cheney's Third Nipple at February 13, 2004 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

Physical (thanks to Olivia Newton-John)

I’m saying all the things Karl knows you’ll like
Got my talking points going
I gotta deny it all just right
You know what I mean
I dressed up in a flight suit, winning sure is fun
Then I brought the boys fake turkey
There’s nothing I ain’t done
For my country tis a thee…
‘Cept I didn’t take a physical, physical
I didn’t take no physical
Man, I hate those physicals!

Let me hear your doctor talk, your doctor talk
Let me hear your doctor talk
I’ve been honest, I’ve been good
Tried to get an appointment
If you know what I mean
I’m sure you’ll understand my point of view
Check me out telepathically
You got to know you’re bringin’ out
The urine test in me
I didn’t take no physical, physical
I didn’t take no physical
Man, I hate those physicals

Let me hear your doctor talk, your doctor talk
Let me hear your doctor talk,
I hate physicals, physicals
I never want a physical
Man, I hate those physicals

(repeat lyrics and then be grounded until further notice)

***

Posted by: MJS at February 13, 2004 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Helen Thomas, bless her heart, has gotten to the heart of what Shrub is hiding. George Bush was a party boy, drinking, screwing, most likely snorting.

For him to take a time out, out of the clear blue to "volunteer" to work with inner city minority kids, in the middle of benders is ludicrous on the face of it.

There is a reason he was there. Compassionate conservatism isn't it.

Posted by: Trifecta at February 13, 2004 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

I have been reading Calpundit for days now, mostly on this issue. Relentless scandalmongering is a part of politics, and always has been.

How many people are going to have their votes swayed by this? We already knew in 2000 that Bush had a history of drinking, that he didn't deny (or confirm) cocaine use, and the the last year or so of his National Guard duty was light. But Calpundit asked for the discharge paper and got it; Calpundit asked for the pay records and got them; Calpundit asked if anyone saw Bush in Alabama, and a witness has come forth; Burketts' credibility on the records destruction has a flaw (who puts documents in a trash can, face up, and keeps them there, if trying to purge the files?); Calpundit wanted evidence that Bush was in Alabama in early 1973, and the dental records establish that (unless a rich man went in for dental care from TX in order to save on the cost).

Does anybody who voted for Clinton really care about sex, drugs, and military service in 1972? If the comparison is with Kerry, did Kerry tell the truth in his congressional testimony concerning "daily" American atrocities in VietNam?(VietNam veterans against Kerry don't think so.)

Rereading Bush's interview I thought that Bush promised to release all records relevant to the question that Russert asked, not all his medical records.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler at February 13, 2004 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

I think we are beginning to see the tipping point on this scandal...where it tips back into nothingness.

The charge -- Bush never showed up for service after 5/1972.

Payroll records say he did.

They were faked! There was a cleansing of the records!

The accuser has an axe to grind, and his story is refuted, and he appears to be a professional malcontent.

Produce someone who was there and remembers him!!!

Well, he's been produced. And the lounging around in the office part sounds like the worthless George of the era.

The dates in the story don't match!! I tell ya, they don't match!!

1972 was 32 years ago. I am unsure somebody's memory is going to be excellent about specific dates after so many years. Frankly, I would be suspicious if there was a direct match.

Kevin. You've done good work, and raised all the right questions. Seems like they've been answered. I think it's fair to point out that Bush's service was less than one would hope from an avowed supporter of the war. But then it's time to acknowledge that the horse you're whupping is dead.

(OK, it's dead if this guy does not get creditably discredited.)

Posted by: appalled moderate at February 13, 2004 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Ahh, the delicate sound of the freepers squealing as they are lowered into the bed they made. Music to my ears.

Tit for tat isn't childish, its the dominant strategy in this game. That's why it's very dangerous to defect, like the right did last go-round. Now, it's too late. The only rational thing to do for the dems is to play dirty in return, and they are.

Buckle up, kids, it's going to be a bumpy ride. . .

Posted by: epist at February 13, 2004 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Looks like vets ain't buying the Bush-shit, and they see clearly the REAL issue here....a supposed "wartime president" who was given preferential treatment, and shirked his military duty:

Like Mr. Bush I spent duty on both active and reserve status during the Vietnam War, but never had to go to Vietnam....

I knew what would happen if I did not fulfill my obligation. I would be ordered to active duty and probably to Vietnam.

So, what's the story on President Bush?

Since the Bush accusations deal, in a significant manner, with time he spent in Montgomery, I have attempted to put the facts together in an accurate way to determine which are likely true and which are not. The charges against Mr. Bush are as follows:

1. Bush received preferential treatment when he was given a slot in the Texas Air National Guard in May of 1968, 12 days before his student deferment would have expired and despite a waiting list of over 500 ahead of him and the fact that his low score of 25 on the pilot's aptitude test was the lowest score allowed.

ANSWER: Likely true. Bush was sworn in the day he applied. His unit was called the ?hampagne unit." It's ranks included John Connalley's son, Lloyd Bentson's son, John Tower's son, seven Dallas Cowboys and two sons of businessmen who helped get Bush into the unit. Court records show that Ben Barnes, the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, testified that he had received a request from a longtime Bush family friend, Sidney Adger of Houston, to help get Bush into the Air Guard. Barnes also testified that he contacted the head of the Texas Air National Guard, Brig. Gen. James Rose on behalf of Mr. Bush.

2. Bush, after six weeks of basic training again received preferential treatment, gaining a commission as a 2nd Lieutenant. This occurred by way of a ?pecial appointment by the commanding officer of the squadron, with the approval of three senior officers.

ANSWER: Likely true. Normally, such a commission would require eight full semesters of college ROTC courses or 18 months of military service or completion of Air Force officer training school. A Texas National Guard historian has said he had never heard of the granting of a commission without those prerequisites, except for flight surgeons.

3. Bush was given preferential treatment by immediately being assigned to flight school and ?ast tracked" into the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, a standby runway alert component of the 143rd Fighter Group.

ANSWER: Likely true. Assignment to flight school was normally reserved to pilots graduating from ROTC training or Air Force officer training. He was ?ast tracked" over the existing pilot applicants on a waiting list.

Posted by: Sticky at February 13, 2004 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Medical records would also show if party-boy got treated for any STDs. Actually, that's not something i want to know, but it's probably something they don't want me to know either.

Posted by: marky at February 13, 2004 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I'm starting to agree: you're overreaching.

1) The pay records released by the White House show Bush getting paid for 12 days in the May 72-January 73 period: 28-29 Oct, 11-14 Nov, 4-6 Jan, and 8-10 Jan. That translates to 4 separate lines on the points sheet you're looking at, each of which counts the "points" for a single multiple-day period. Calhoun says he saw the guy on at least 6 different days at this time. That is not inconsistent with the documents in the public record.

2) The other pilots probably didn't see the guy, in part because 7 of those 12 days were weekdays, when the other reservists would have been at their regular jobs anyway. Bush obviously got authorization to come in on a few non-parade days and get paid for it. The only people who would likely have remembered him at all would be the handful of full-time staff, like Calhoun.

Shorter version of the above: Bush evidently didn't do much for the money. But the witness testimony and the documentation do agree with each other.

Posted by: BruceR at February 13, 2004 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

The trolls are missing another point, too. Calpundit is not making the Bush White House violate every rule of scandal management. Had they released ALL the records the day after MTP, it would've been a 2 day story, tops - with the added benefit of overwhelming everyone with the sheer quantity of data.

Instead, this one-document-per-day-if-we-think-it-helps-us strategy is keeping the story alive. Plus it allows people to focus on the inconsistencies and contradictions in individual pieces of evidence as they are slowly paraded across the stage.

From my standpoint as a Democrat, that's what's so delicious about this controversy -- it's almost entirely a self-inflicted wound.

Posted by: Greg Abbott at February 13, 2004 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

So on MTP Bush said he was a WAR TIME president.

I thought he said he was a WHORE TIME president.

My bad.

Posted by: hmmmm at February 13, 2004 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

If indeed GWB brushed off his medical and lost flight status in mid 1972, wasn't the US military still at war at this time ? What would have been the repercussions for a 1st LT in the regular Air Force doing the same thing, say one serving in Vietnam at the time ?

Am I missing something here ? I just sat through the whole of today's WH press briefing as supplied by Whitehouse.gov but I didn't see the exchange between Scotty and Helen Thomas that I read on a transcript of same published here. Has the WH redacted today's press breifing ?

Keep digging

It's turning into a rout

Posted by: poster at February 13, 2004 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

nice try, so-called appalled moderate,

but let me tell you as a REAL appalled American, Bush has NOT answered the question. Where were you ? I don't want him reminiscing, I want the records. Records that match, not some bullshit. Records' numbers DON'T change with time !

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Calhoun could be fake, or he could be real. Certainly, all this press might shake a couple people loose who remember the President, especially since it seems that he really was on base in Alabama.

Moreover, if Calhoun's real, there's a strong possibility he can lead to other people who remember Bush.

Let's wait and see.

Posted by: J Mann at February 13, 2004 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Bush was still Absent without Leave...

"George W. Bush left his Texas Air National Guard assignment and moved to Alabama in 1972 even though the Air Force denied his request for a transfer, according to his military records.

In fact, Bush did not even ask for an official transfer until nine days after he moved to Alabama in May 1972.

The Air Force quickly rejected Bush's request, saying the fighter pilot was "ineligible" to move to the Alabama unit Bush wanted - a squadron of postal handlers.

Nevertheless, Bush stayed in Alabama until his Texas commanders finally gave him written authorization five months later to train there."

Thats 5 months of being absent without leave.

Posted by: Poz at February 13, 2004 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Hey: Spirit of Howard Beale

Sorry, this bio just says, "management trainee at an agricultural firm."

http://www.aboutfamouspeople.com/
========================

This is not much help in IDing the company either:

In the fall of 1971, Bush became a management trainee with a firm that acquired tropical plants. "We traveled to all kinds of peculiar places, like Apopka, Florida, which was named the foliage capital of the world," the Washington Post quoted his boss as saying. Once or twice a month, Bush would announce that he had flight duty and off he would go, sometimes taking his F-102 from Houston to Orlando and back. "It was really quite amazing," the boss said. "Here was this young guy making acquisitions of tropical plants and then up and leaving to fly fighter planes."
=====================

Posted by: toogoofy at February 13, 2004 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

I must admit I am intrigued.

What if he left the scene of an accident while intoxicated? What if the young lady in question didn't die but had her medical bills paid by the Bush family, to hush her up? Or if she died and that was hushed up, somehow?

The possibilities suggested by American History have a great variety.

I suppose that if there is a story, I'll read it on Calpundit first.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler at February 13, 2004 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

From the Washington Post (my italics):

"A Republican close to Bush supplied phone numbers yesterday for the owner of an insulated-coating business in the Atlanta area, John B. "Bill" Calhoun, 69, who was an officer with the Alabama Air National Guard. Calhoun said in a telephone interview that Bush used to sit in his office and read magazines and flight manuals as he performed weekend duty at Dannelly Field in Montgomery during 1972."

Think Bush and his cronies aren't scared shitless over this issue? Heh....believe me, it's reached all the way up.

Posted by: Bobo at February 13, 2004 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

To me, what is curious to me about Bush's past, and I loathe his policies, is that if he was afraid to take a drug test because he was using cocaine/or he had gotten into legal trouble because of drug use, I wouldn't care. That would not make any difference to me. What he did 30 years ago shouldn't matter. Except, if he really is hiding something (which seems likely based on the hide-n-seek being played by his administration) then it matters, because he's afraid to be truthful. That does matter to me.
It's always the coverup!

Posted by: nashvegasdawg at February 13, 2004 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Al:

Shoot, I haven't seen Gweneth Paltrow, even though I've been looking for her for YEARS now! Guess that means she was never in New York City!

Hell, Al...easy explanation for that...I saw you first!

Posted by: Gwyneth at February 13, 2004 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

It seems Burkett has been careful to say what was fact vs what "he thought" or "he believed". For instance, Conn confirms they went to the museum bldg. but he saw no evidence of "cleansing" or files in a trash can. BURKETT NEVER SAID HE (Conn) DID. Burkett claims he saw evidence of "cleansing" and expressed concern to 3 people -- all have confirmed.

Burkett's statements as fact have not been factually disputed and/or discredited. The jury is still out on his allegations and his credibility is not yet questionable because we don't know if the files are complete or not.

Regarding these witnesses to W's service in Alabama -- the dentist & Calhoun: their statements of fact DO NOT match previously issued WH statements of fact about W's service!!

THERE is the credibility gap !

A bit of advice to W's supporters from a Clinton supporter: Pick your fights carefully.

Virtually all the other so-called scandals turned out to be a bust for you. But you rightly nailed us on Clinton/Monica. I was embarrassed & ashamed of my Prez who flatout told a lie about cheating on his wife (to me the BJ was sex). It was not an impeachable offense but he was stupid to give his enemies the ammo.

Here's the advice on your problem: W said he would release ALL the records and he's trying to weasel out. If you really believe W has nothing to hide regarding the 72-73 period, then get the records released NOW, take whatever hits now and turn the debate back to issues where you think you can win. Otherwise, the Dem's are going to run the Russert clip again & again to attack W's character. Hint: I still cringe when I see that Clinton clip "Listen to me carefully: I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, ...."

W is not an evil bastard like Nixon, but this NG issue is serious and will not go away. You know W's already vulnerable and IF there is a bombshell there, it WILL come out and you're really screwed.

Posted by: longshot at February 13, 2004 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Al channelling Brit Hume: "The murder rate in Iraq is the same as that in California... Well, they might not have the same population, but they have about the same geographical size!"

Al tried to argue yesterday that the U.S. was not justified in waging war on Hitler because the U.N. Charter does not sanction going to war against another country simply because they have declared war on you.

Nuff said, I think.

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

"Well... in the first place, I believe that character is a part of being president. I think you have to look at it. I think that has to be a part of a candidate for president or being president."
Presidential Debate Oct.15 1992
PRES. GEORGE BUSH

(pass the cigars...)

Posted by: tescht at February 13, 2004 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

"W is not an evil bastard like Nixon"
Gotta agree with you there---he's 10 times worse.

Posted by: marky at February 13, 2004 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, here's an idea:

Get the 990 form for the PULL organization for that year, it's mission statement, and list of Board members.

All this stuff should be available, unless all the non-profit paperwok was less complicated than it is today. Also it might be useful to know if the 501c3 4 or 5 designations existed in 1972. If so, PULL's classification.

Posted by: forgetting at February 13, 2004 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

I did a google search to find out what the heck "safety magazines" are and found this helpful page.

http://magazines.ronniebou.net/magazines/safety.html

If you'd like to emulate the heroic service of a young President-to-be, just grab one of these fine publications, go sit in some guy's office, and maybe grab some flight manuals for extra-authentic atmosphere:

Children's Digest
Children's Digest Magazine is edited to inform and entertain preteens aged 6 to 12. Each issue includes fun activities to teach readers about science, health, fitness, and safety.

Motorcyclist
Motorcyclist Magazine covers every aspect of street motorcycling: cruising, sport riding, touring and commuting as well as road tests, how-to articles, project-bike hop-ups, safety pieces, race coverage and legislative updates.

Ferrets
Ferrets Magazine is the only publication where ferret owners can find accurate, in-depth information, get advice, and interact with other ferret owners. Each issue features tips about medical care, toy safety, legal updates, nutritional news and care requirements.

Air Traffic Management
Air Traffic Management Magazine provides impartial reporting on topical air traffic management and ATC developments, airspace safety, technology, regional operations, global politics and corporate strategy.

Turtle
Turtle Magazine is written for pre-schoolers, each issue focuses on health, nutrition, safety, and exercise with a fun, educational style. An entertaining way for kids to develop reading and comprehension skills.

Rodale's Scuba Diving
Rodale's Scuba Diving Magazine is written for active scuba divers, snorkelers and marine enthusiasts with coverage of travel, health, fitness, the environment, as well as reviews of new equipment, training and safety tips, investigative features, and interviews.

Posted by: UnsafeMagazineAddict at February 13, 2004 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

"Al tried to argue yesterday that the U.S. was not justified in waging war on Hitler because the U.N. Charter does not sanction going to war against another country simply because they have declared war on you."

That's especially funny, since the UN was founded *after* Hitler was long dead.

What's next? Applying current federal statutes to Henry VIII? :)

Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas, exactly. He came back with the fact the the UN Charter only enshrined international legal principles which were already in circulation before the war. I mean, how can you possibly debate with these people?

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Now its not, Bush was AWOL, but that he missed a physical.

Reg, if Bush was supposed to have a flight physical, then missing it was an AWOL.

Posted by: Californian at February 13, 2004 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Possible trail, if any of the relevent Board members from PULL are still alive, they may be able to go on member one of their own's sons serving for the organization.

It is probably unlikely that they'd be too willing to throw any kerosene on this fire, but who knows?

Posted by: forgetting at February 13, 2004 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Possible trail, if any of the relevent Board members from PULL are still alive, they may be able to remember one of their own's sons serving for the organization.

It is probably unlikely that they'd be too willing to throw any kerosene on this fire, but who knows?

Posted by: forgetting at February 13, 2004 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

I've been reading Kevin's stuff since the recall campaign, and most of the time, I can correct for the bias and still come out of it with some useful information. Same as I do some of the right wing blogs. This whole thing with the National Guard service has blown my mind. Obsession is too kind a word for this stuff. I think the war on terror is the only real issue in this campaign, and that Bush has done a decent enough job to deserve re-election. (If Lieberman had won the nomination, I would not in any way say he was soft on terror, but I would question how he could govern since his party wants it to be over.) OK, you might disagree with that, that means the country could have a healthy debate. But no, it is the national guard, Bush's being a coke addict when he wasn't too drunk to go out and buy any, Karl Rove smears Kerry (when the bimbo charge was actually first reported on Feb. 6 on a web blog of the guy who designed CLARK's web site.) So, instead of a decent debate about issues that just might be important, we are going to get garbage from both sides. I have spent a lot of time over the last 20 years in D.C., most of that on Capitol Hill, and while most of my contacts are on the House side, I know a few Senate staffers very well, and I can confidently say Kerry is no choir boy. That is nothing at all new, and the press won't ignore it all the way to November. I have never posted a comment to a blog before this week. Well, that has changed, and I have done a sort of my email directory and sent copies of the London Sun article on Kerry to 23 people in Wisconsin. BRING IT ON!!! If you wanted the right wing just as mad as the left, you have achieved your goal.

Posted by: Dan at February 13, 2004 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry bout the double send

Posted by: forgetting at February 13, 2004 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

The bias by many of the anti-Bush commentators is
so visible. It is reaching for straws. Spreading rumors about activities 30 years ago and ignoring increasing available evidence is pathetic.

But since its now the standard:

John Kerry says he never supported Jane Fonda's trip to Vietnam. Can John produce any witnesses and documentary evidence to show he condemmed her course of action? Given his lending of credibility to the anti-war movement, didn't he have an obligation to
speak up when Jane Fonda crossed the line?

Posted by: researcher8848 at February 13, 2004 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Does anybody who voted for Clinton really care about sex, drugs, and military service in 1972?

I don't care if he had sex.
I don't care if he was AWOL.
I don't even CARE if he got busted for coke.

But I think a lot of other people would. A lot of reasonable people out there might care if he got arrested and then lied about if for 30 years, signing his name at various times under penalty of perjury.

Reasonable people who would otherwise vote for him.

In other words, Republicans.

Sex? No problem.
Drugs? No problem, from me anyway.
AWOL? He "joined" the guard (via line jumping)while 58K Americans died. 'Nuff said.

But 30 years of perjury? I think that's relevant, sorry.

Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Is there a way to edit down some of these comments? For example, when the Terry Lenzner bozo quotes the entirety of the Boston Globe story multiple times, you could edit it by simply typing [deleted: transcription of entire Boston Globe story, which can be read in full here]. This would make it easier for us to read your blog, & it also would avoid violation of the Globe's copyright.

Just discovered your blog recently, and have been reading with interest. Good job.

Posted by: rolldown at February 13, 2004 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Monkey,

Still doesn't answer shit about why Bush didn't take his physical when ordered to.

This was answered some days ago:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm

Money quote:

"First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly — the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user."

End of discussion.

Posted by: * at February 13, 2004 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Oh shit, the media's getting their teeth into this one, and they understand the real issues here:

The Scottie McClellan/George Bush tap dance:

Q: Did the President ever have to take time off from Guard duty to do community service?

Scott McClellan: To do community service? I haven't looked into everything he did 30 years ago, Helen. Obviously, there is different community service he has performed in the past, including going back to that time period --

Q: Can you find out if he actually had --

Scott McClellan: Helen, I don't think we remember every single activity he was involved in 30 years ago.

Q: No, this isn't an activity. Was he forced to do community service at any time while he was on --

Scott McClellan: What's your interest in that question? I'm sorry, I just --

Q: Lots of rumors. I'm just trying to clear up something.

Scott McClellan: Rumors about what?

Q: Pardon?

Scott McClellan: Rumors about what?

Q: About the President having to do community service while he was in the National Guard, take time out for that.

Scott McClellan: I'm not aware of those rumors. But if you want to --

Q: Could you look it up? Would you mind asking him?

Scott McClellan: That's why I'm asking what's your interest in that? I just don't understand your interest in that.

Q: It's what everybody is interested in, whether we're getting the true story on his Guard duty.

Scott McClellan: Well, you have the documents that show the facts.

Q: I'm asking you to try to find out from the President of the United States.

Scott McClellan: Like I said, it's well known the different jobs he had and what he was doing previously, that we know. That goes back to --

Q: I didn't say "previously." I said, while he was on Guard duty.

Scott McClellan: But you're asking me about 30 years ago. I don't think there's a recollection of everything he was doing 30 years ago.

Q: Well, he would know if he had to take time out.

Scott McClellan: Again, I mean, the issue that was raised was whether or not the President was serving while he was in Alabama. Documents reflect that he
was --

Q: Well, this is another issue.

Scott McClellan: -- hold on -- that he was serving in Alabama. That was the issue that was raised. We went through, four years ago, other issues related to this.

Q: So you won't answer the question or you won't try to find out?

Scott McClellan: Well, I'm asking you, what's your interest in that question? I'm just curious, because rumors --

Q: Did he have to do any community service while he was in the National Guard?

Scott McClellan: Look, Helen, I think the issue here was whether or not the President served in Alabama. Records have documented --

Q: I'm asking you a different question. That's permissible.

Scott McClellan: Can I answer your question? Sure it is. Can I ask you why you're asking it? I'm just -- out of curiosity myself, is that permissible?

Q: Well, I'm interested, of course, in what everybody is interested in. And we have a very --

Scott McClellan: Let me just point out that we've released all the information we have related to this issue, the issue of whether or not he served while in Alabama. Records have documented as false the outrageous --

Q: I asked you whether he had to do any community service while he was in the National Guard.

Scott McClellan: Can I walk through this?

Q: It's a very legitimate question.

Scott McClellan: And I want to back up and walk through this a little bit. Let's talk about the issue that came up, because this issue came up four years ago, it came up four years before that -- or two years before that, it came up four years before that --

Q: Did my question come up four years ago, and was it handled?

Scott McClellan: Helen, if you'll let me finish, I want to back up and talk about this --

Q: Don't dance around, just give us --

Q: It's a straightforward question.

Q: Let's not put too fine a point on it. If I'm not mistaken, you're implying that he had to do community service for criminal action, as a punishment for some crime?

Q: There are rumors around, and I didn't put it in that way. I just --

Q: Could you take that question? I guess apparently that's the question, that he had to take time out to perform community service --

Scott McClellan: That's why I wanted to get to this because --

Q: -- as a sentence for a crime.

Scott McClellan: No, that's why I wanted to get to this because I want to step back for a second. I want to go back through a few things. Look, the -- I think we've really exhausted the issue that came up. The issue that came up was related to whether or not he had served while he was in Alabama. Records have documented as false the outrageous, baseless accusation that he did not serve while in Alabama. The conspiracy theory of one individual, that the National Guard cleansed documents, has been discredited.

Q: How so?

Scott McClellan: Read The Boston Globe today.

Q: Well, we want answers from you, not --

Scott McClellan: Read the Boston Globe. No, the answers are from the people that would have knowledge of that. But read --

Q: Why do you think this person made those allegations?

Scott McClellan: Hang on, hang on.

Q: What? Just read The Boston Globe --

Scott McClellan: Just read The Boston Globe. Read The Boston Globe. I would draw your attention to that. What I think we're seeing now is just politics. And we're not going to engage in it, because there are great challenges facing our nation, and there should be an honest discussion of the actions the President is taking to make our world safer and better and make America more prosperous and secure.

You want me to go --

Q: -- the personal record of a President is --

Scott McClellan: No, hang on, Helen, hang on. I've said from this podium, if we have new information that comes to our attention that relates to this issue, we have made it clear we will share that information. You're asking me to go and chase rumors. There was a conspiracy theory --

Q: I think --

Scott McClellan: Hold on, hold on, Helen. There was a conspiracy theory made by one individual, when everybody he accused of being involved in that said, it's ridiculous, didn't happen.

Q: This is not based on a conspiracy theory.

Scott McClellan: And there was a lot of attention given to this individual, and he's been discredited. There's a Boston Globe article on it this morning. And there are some --

Q: That says what? Your point --

Scott McClellan: You can go read it. I mean, we've got other things to move on to. I mean, you can go read it. But there are some, unfortunately, who simply are not interested in the facts. Again, the documents -- the records document that he did serve while in Alabama. And now there are people that are bringing up issues that were addressed four years ago.

Q: But you still haven't answered Helen's question. She asked you a simple question.

Scott McClellan: There are people that want to replay the 2000 campaign all over again, Bill, and --

Q: You still haven't answered her question about community service.

Scott McClellan: -- there are too many important -- there are too many important policies and decisions that are being made that we need to discuss.

Q: Why does a "yes" or "no" elude you on this?

Scott McClellan: I didn't say that. I said that these were all issues addressed four years ago. If there's additional information --

Q: This issue quite obviously wasn't addressed four years ago.

Scott McClellan: Oh, issues -- these issues were addressed four years ago.

Q: This issue was? The community service issue was addressed four years ago?

Scott McClellan: The issues -- the issues that we're going to here --

Q: I don't recall --

Scott McClellan: This is called chasing a rumor. And I'm not going to engage in this kind of politics, Bill.

Q: -- finding out whether a rumor is true or false.

Scott McClellan: No, this issue, absolutely --

Q: Why can't you say whether or not he performed community service?

Scott McClellan: Absolutely, this issue came up four years ago. And if you all want to play politics, then go call the RNC, call the campaign.

Q: The best defense is offense. We know that. Just, all you've got to say is you don't know.

Scott McClellan: Helen, it was -- this issue was addressed four years ago. I think people that were involved in the campaign will know --

Q: -- if they know --

Scott McClellan: -- that the issue that you're trying to bring up was addressed four years ago. It's about chasing rumors.

Q: It isn't a question of four years ago. The issue has come up now, very large.

Scott McClellan: I'm not going to get into chasing rumors.

Q: Headlines.

Scott McClellan: I'm not going to get into chasing rumors.

Q: So you refuse to answer the question?

Scott McClellan: You're saying that people said he was forced to do something, and you're asking me to chase a rumor.

Q: Everything is politics today, of course.

Q: She asked you a "yes" or "no" question.

Scott McClellan: Look, if you all want to -- this is just politics. That's what this is. And if there's any more information I have to share with you all, I will always -- I will do that.

Q: Scott, I have a question of this individual, and I confess, I haven't read the Boston article. But who -- what do you believe was this person's motivation, that if they have been discredited, for making these allegations?

Scott McClellan: Just -- I would read The Boston Globe. Everybody that he accused of being involved in this has said it was totally ridiculous. And there are others that --

Q: So are you saying -- was it politically motivated?

Scott McClellan: There are others that are quoted in The Boston Globe today, that you might want to see what they said.

Q: Speaking of politics, has the President authorized his campaign --

Scott McClellan: And we've got to --

Q: -- to release a video attacking Senator Kerry?

Scott McClellan: You need to talk -- you need to talk to the campaign. But let me go to the week ahead because we've used up more than 15 minutes.

Q: So the President did authorize --

Q: Scott, I've got --

Scott McClellan: I'm going to go to the week ahead.

Posted by: Sticky at February 13, 2004 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Buried in the 2/11 issue of the Birmingham News:

Joe LeFevers, a member of the 187th in 1972, said he remembers seeing Bush in unit offices and being told that Bush was in Montgomery to work on Blount's campaign.

"I was going in the orderly room over there one day, and they said, `This is Lt. Bush,'" LeFevers said Tuesday. "They pointed him out to me ... the reason I remember it is because I associate him with Red Blount."

That's two people independent of each other remembering Bush in Alabama.

On to the next scandal, gentlemen...

Posted by: appalled moderate at February 13, 2004 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Try this: prove that you attended class sessions during your 4th grade school year. The mere fact that you passed the 4th grade and weren't held back should be sufficient evidence that you performed what you needed to do. Shouldn't it?

That is an apt comparison out4bllod because the answer is that if I had to, if my life or political career depended upon it, I could certainly prove, with a great amount of detail, that I satisfactorily completed fourth grade. Schools, even elementary schools, keep relatively extensive attendance records. They also keep many other sorts of records including various grades, teacher comments on students, class rosters etc, that would allow anyone to investigate and form a very complete picture of my fourth grade performance. I could uncover many of these details myself with a few phone calls, and I certainly do not have the resources of the POTUS. I suppose we are to believe that the National Guard has less precise records... well perhaps.

AS far as having passed being some sort of indication, I can assure you that there are many many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in this country who received passing grades and were sent on repeatedly despite not having deserved it. This may not be true of Bush's National Guard status but it certainly characterizes many other aspects of his life and career as both politician and business person.

Posted by: brent at February 13, 2004 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Someone yesterday asked if anyone could name a positive thing Bush has done?

Did I miss a reply???

Bush thinks sending jobs overseas is good for America. He signed off on it. Can any Republican stand up and agree with Bush on this?

If Bush had acted with character over the last 3 years we wouldn't be questioning his character. The fact that he has been a liar since his TANG years shows he has never changed.

Posted by: Poz at February 13, 2004 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

What's really interesting here is the missed medical exam and flying suspension, shared with James R. Bath.

The questions should be:

Why did Bush miss his medical exam in 1972?

What was Bath's relationship with Bush in 1972? What was their connection in the late '70s?

Where is Bath now? Could somebody talk to him about his and his buddy's Guard days?

Posted by: BatGuano at February 13, 2004 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

And to the fellow who claims Bush was still AWOL, this is also from the Birmingham News:

However, Turnipseed said Bush was not under an obligation to report and could miss drills with the 187th as long as he made up enough points in the year to fulfill his obligation.

"You know, probably, rules were a little looser back then than they are now. If you go in the Guard now, you are going to end up in Iraq," Turnipseed said.

Posted by: appalled moderate at February 13, 2004 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

This is all soooo boring!

You all can go on and on about this all day long and yet, there still isn't any proof that Bush did anything wrong.

Let's talk about Kerry's adultrey instead.

Oh, right, I forgot. That's just a slanderous theory being spread by a bunch of political partisans with an axe to grind.

Never mind.

Posted by: jay at February 13, 2004 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Someone comparing 4th grade to NG duty??? Apples and oranges.

I didn't get paid whilst completing 4th grade but I did manage to make many friends.

Posted by: Poz at February 13, 2004 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I agree with Jay. Let's talk about Kerry's adultery.

(if enough people say it, it might happen. we are all very very interested in where jfk has stuck his dick. shhhhhh.)

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

End of discussion.

Hardly.

Bush was ORDERED to take a physical ON PAPER. He was GROUNDED for failing to, and then decided not to retake it. I want to know why, from him, not some hack from the Moonie Times.

Also, I don't CARE what the exact procedure was for how they did drug tests during this period.

All a drug user needs to hear is that "They're gonna test pilots? Oh. Shit." He isn't going to even get a chance to find out the exact details of how it's going to happen, etc. He's going to freak out and avoid his test, most likely.

So spare me the Rev. Moon's Times "explanation" of why he missed his physical and how he wouldn't have cared about the drug test, because if he was doing drugs, I can tell you, he'd have cared.

Anyone know the number of pilots kicked out the Guard in those years for failing their drug tests? That would be an interesting bit of information to know.

Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

I've said this once before but it bears repeating:

Don't you dare bring the Holy Rev. Moon's journalistic integrity into question!

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

In the fall of 1971, Bush became a management trainee with a firm that acquired tropical plants. "We traveled to all kinds of peculiar places, like Apopka, Florida, which was named the foliage capital of the world," the Washington Post quoted his boss as saying. Once or twice a month, Bush would announce that he had flight duty and off he would go, sometimes taking his F-102 from Houston to Orlando and back. "It was really quite amazing," the boss said. "Here was this young guy making acquisitions of tropical plants and then up and leaving to fly fighter planes."
=====================
Posted by toogoofy at February 13, 2004 12:07 PM

Pure Speculation.

How about a scenario of trafficing. Got caught or cohort in organization got caught. Had to get out of town to avoid arrest, let fixers go to work, just a "mule", didn't know it was part of cargo, rolled on higher ups... Could not go back til something was worked out. Went to Alabama. Found work on Blount's campaign. Then wrote back for permission.

If Bush had planned all along to work on the Blount campaign, he would have requested permission long in advance.

Posted by: The Spirit of Howard Beale at February 13, 2004 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

I sent this to Helen Thomas this morning:

Dear Ms. Thomas -

Thank you for your questions this morning to Scott McClellan regarding GWB's community service work in early 1973 for the PUSH project in Houston. You are the first reporter to IMO get to what this story is really about. What is the crux of what Rove wants to hide about GWB's life in the period mid-1972 to mid-1973?

As a native Houstonian, community service by the son of a prominent Houston family in 1973 meant you probably got busted for something more than a DUI (then a DWI) - DWI's in 1973 Houston could be made to disappear if you knew the right judge, DA, or policemen. Drug charges were different. The best you could hope for was community service, which is what appears GWB received by working with PUSH. Rove is not worried about DWI's, we all know GWB liked his liquor. This has always smelled of Rove being worried about something much bigger, like a cocaine charge which would be devastating to his religious right base.

Thanks again and keep up the good work. As many have said in blogs, "The first thing Kerry should do when he becomes president is put Helen Thomas back on the front row at press briefings". My sentiments exactly!

Just received her reply thanking me for my kind words.

PS: Oh, and DAN up thread - We are bringing it on. This is going to be the dirtiest campaign in history, and I welcome that with open arms. Send out your 23 emails, I got 10 people voting ABB that did not vote in 2000 or voted for bush boy and its only February. If you want that piece of shit for your president go for it, but we are going to fight you and your ilk every inch of the way.

Posted by: chris/tx at February 13, 2004 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Civility has gone on long enough. It's time now for the Democrats to take off the gloves. Unleash Ickes, Untie Carville, prove Gillespie right. Run the dirtiest campaign in American history. Vindicate the principles that made Rutherford B Hayes the sweetheart of 1876. Get even with the traditions of McCarthy and Nixon and poor Ronnie Reagan and Bush the Elder and his idiot son. Make this a year to remember. Do what common sense demands. Throw history a kiss. But get rid of these people.

Posted by: Sam Spade at February 13, 2004 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

It was at first amusing, to see the right wingers decry the "scandal mongering", now it is getting plain annoying.

You folks are bullies. You expected the democrats to sit back and take it in the 90's, and now are shocked, shocked when there is some blowback.

Well, sit back and enjoy it. Learn from it. Next time a democrat is in the White House, maybe you will quit acting like frothing at the mouth lunatics.

You know, Chelsea Clinton, "The white house dog", who was the lovechild of Web Hubbell, and that Hillary gal who rubbed out Vince Foster might be especially amused at your calls for decency and decorum.

Pound sand folks, and keep up the work Kevin. Just the truth. No point in making crap up like the wing nuts do.

Posted by: Trifecta at February 13, 2004 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Did Bush do community service in 1972-1973? Was he sentenced to community service?

Was Bush's reason to not undergo a medial exam the same reason as James R. Bath's reason to not undergo a medial exam?

Did James R. Bath have to also do community service at this time?

Do the trolls really think that this is just an AWOL issue?

Posted by: BatGuano at February 13, 2004 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Reg wrote: "What exactly is interesting about this? How Libs have convinced themselves that Bush was AWOL based on little evidence, and now that what there was has dried up,"

a) The reason there is so "little evidence" is that Bush won't sign a release allowing the full disclosure of his records. It's a simple thing to do, Reg. Why hasn't he done it?

b) The evidence has not "dried up." If anything, it's gotten more bizarre and more contradictory. If you'd actually bothered to read the messages in this thread, you'd have seen that Calhoun's testimony contradicts other items of evidence that have been released.

c) We still don't know where Bush was or what he did between May, 1972 and his release from the guard. And the little dribs and drabs that the Bush administration has released simply raise more questions.

"Now its not, Bush was AWOL, but that he missed a physical."

A physical he was ordered to take. And missing it cost him his flight status. Why didn't he take the physical, Reg? Why was there no inquiry?

"Bush didn't fulfill every single obligation in his National Guard service? We knew that already."

Maybe you should talk to the Bush administration, Reg, since they're denying the claim that he didn't fulfill every single obligation in his National Guard service. Are they lying, Reg?

Posted by: PaulB at February 13, 2004 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

If Bush and Bath were arrested at the same time for possession (as some speculate), Bath's public arrest file may have info about this even if Bush's file was sealed by a judge. Of couse, this is just wild speculation...

=============

Posted by: toogoofy at February 13, 2004 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

You all can go on and on about this all day long and yet, there still isn't any proof that Bush did anything wrong.

No comparison, though I understand if this is the only talking point you've got left.

Bush made this an issue, and the records don't back up what he's claimed. He has also reneged on releasing things, and then claimed to have released things he hasn't. That's three levels of contradiction, in case you're keeping track, and a failure to prove a positive.

Kerry, on the other hand, has been challenged to prove a negative.

The difference? Bush is losing his own argument, while the second is a logical fallacy. How do I document that a blowjob didn't happen?

Not that I expect freepers to be able to grasp that one is the opposite of the other, that's why they're freepers, after all, and the image of Dear Leader that gives them a hardon is being exposed for the joke we already knew it was. So they'll insist the cases are exactly the same and call us all hypocrites.

Yawn.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

If the trolls find this so dull and pointless, why are they here, trollin' away?

Did Bush get any preferential treatment in the Gaurd, since he was the son of a Friend of Nixon just appointed UN ambassador?

Are there records missing? If not, why hasn't Bush shown us all the records?

Posted by: BatGuano at February 13, 2004 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Old Convention film:

George W. Bush: The Sky's the Limit
Transcript--Running time about 9 1/2 minutes.

pickup truck footage GWB [Music swells]: This country is so...the values are so strong and the concept of entrepreneurship or family, freedom...such a powerful, powerful part of the American experience that somebody who's newly arrived to this country can be just as an American as somebody who's been here for generations.

outside footage
compassionate conservatism GWB: Well, a wonderful man named John White asked me to come and work with him in a project in the 3rd Ward of Houston called Project P.U.L.L.; it was a mentoring program.

Ernie Ladd, Co-founder P.U.L.L.: The meaning of P.U.L.L. was Professionals United Leadership League. We had professional people who were school teachers, football players, basketball players, lawyers and doctors involved in helping go into the community and help minority kids.

GWB: I realized then that a society can change and must change one person at a time and, but it was a place that was full of activity and energy and kids were, you know kids were coming from tough circumstances. I saw that first hand one night when I took a little boy who I took a shining to, named Jimmy Dean, I took him home and situation I had never seen before. It was a living room with his mom, looked like she was on drugs and there was a bunch of hanger on-ers and smoke-filled and this was this boys home, and it was tragic and sad that he was growing up in such a tough environment, an environment that where the love that I had known as a child--it seemed like the drugs and alcohol abuse had replaced that love. And unfortunately the story ends on a sad note. My little friend was shot when he became a teenager and died.

God Ernie Ladd: We are all made in the image of God regardless of the color of skin and George Bush was a part of our working in the south of the city of Houston. The city of Houston can be very well thankful for George Bush and John White.

in study

voice over

in study
GWB: One of the great challenges of our generation is to assume responsibility and lead.
We started as the if it feels good do it generation. But now we're moms and dads and business leaders and teachers. If we don't help others, if we don't step up and lead, who will?

It's one of the reasons I ran for governor of Texas.

Maybe this can help refresh Scottie's memory so he can answer Helen Thomas' question.

Posted by: IneedaP.U.L.L. at February 13, 2004 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Hey so-called 'Appalled Moderate'...

you mean the same Birmingham news that also said this:

BY MARY ORNDORFF AND BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE
BIRMINGHAM NEWS

A White House spokesman said yesterday that President Bush worked enough days as a member of the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973 to fulfill his annual training requirements, but new payroll records he released also show a five-month gap while Bush was assigned to a small reserve unit in Montgomery, Ala.

Bush did not receive military pay from May to September of 1972, according to the documents, and the former commander of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron said yesterday that Bush didn't show up during those months.

"He never did come to my squad," said retired Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, who lives in Montgomery. "He was never at my unit."

I would believe you about being an appalled moderate if you weren't so selective about the info you 'report' to us.

Posted by: whynot at February 13, 2004 01:00 PM | PERMALINK

Sticky-"Oh shit, the media's getting their teeth into this one, and they understand the real issues here:The Scottie McClellan/George Bush tap dance:"

Is this an actual transcript?

Posted by: forgetting at February 13, 2004 01:01 PM | PERMALINK

Lies, and the lying liars who lie:

Russert: But you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

President Bush: Yes, absolutely.

White House backs off pledge to release all Bush Guard records

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the administration would not necessarily make public additional records of Bush's tenure in the National Guard unless the president's aides determine that they are "relevant to this issue." Specifically, McClellan refused to commit to releasing medical or disciplinary records that become available to the White House. Bush's aides had released payroll records and other documents on Tuesday that they thought would douse the controversy, but instead they inflamed it by raising new questions both about Bush's service records and the White House's current claims.

Posted by: Sticky at February 13, 2004 01:01 PM | PERMALINK

Upthread

Chris, It's Project P.U.L.L. that he, uh, 'volunteered' at not PUSH. Poppy was a donor and chairman. /pedant

Good job on the fanmail to Helen. I think she'll be getting a lot today.

Posted by: nathaniel at February 13, 2004 01:03 PM | PERMALINK

What is a "freeper"?

Posted by: MatthewRMarler at February 13, 2004 01:04 PM | PERMALINK

BatGuano ("if that is your name"):

The WH said today it's gone through medical records "an inch thick" and won't release any of them. So much for the promise Bush made to release everything, after claiming to have already done so.

Of course, since someone's cut-and-pasted an instapundit rectal confection here that someone said he knows it didn't happen even though he wasn't there I guess we can go back to sleep.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 01:04 PM | PERMALINK

If the trolls find this so dull and pointless, why are they here, trollin' away?

They're scared shitless.

Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 01:04 PM | PERMALINK

Do the trolls really think that this is just an AWOL issue?

Do inveterate political bigots understand that serial conspiracy mongering is a sign of lack of intelligence?

This isn't an AWOL issue. It isn't an issue at all. If you can't see it then you're unserious. A fanatic.

End of discussion.

Posted by: * at February 13, 2004 01:04 PM | PERMALINK

HEY: Spirit of Howard Beale

Agree, wild speculation... I do think it is weird that his boss at the time stated that Bush flew "his F-102 from Houston to Orlando and back." Since when do NG pilots use jets as private transport?

Anyway, I doubt if Bush's Military Record will ever be released depite his multiple reassurances to Russert. Thus we will never know... maybe this whole thing is about Bush getting caught with a small amount of hash on board his plane (dunno - nobody knows).
=====================

Posted by: toogoofy at February 13, 2004 01:06 PM | PERMALINK

* says:
"This isn't an AWOL issue. It isn't an issue at all. If you can't see it then you're unserious. A fanatic."

As the interest builds while the inconsistencies mount fanatically.

Posted by: fanaticboy at February 13, 2004 01:09 PM | PERMALINK

*/ervin_pubs@yahoo.com wrote: "First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given.

And yet, Bush never showed up for a physical. If it was okay to delay it for a month or so, that would explain why it took the authorities FIVE months (maybe in those records Bush doesn't want to release there are copies of letters reminding Bush to show) to formally ground Bush for failing to take his physical. (The idea that just because there's no specific order to do it, only a regularly scheduled date, that it doesn't count as "disobeying an order" to avoid taking a pilot's physical for two years... is extraordinarily weaselly.)

The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc. If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical.

Or in Bush's case, grounded permanently, since he never took the physical. (He did have his teeth checked, though. In Alabama, when he was supposed to be in Texas.)

End of discussion.

Not exactly. Bush wasn't "grounded temporarily", remember: he was grounded permanently. He didn't miss the physical by a month or so: he never took a physical for the rest of his enlistment.

Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 13, 2004 01:09 PM | PERMALINK

End of discussion.

You wish.

Posted by: Californian at February 13, 2004 01:10 PM | PERMALINK

*/ervin_pubs claimed: This isn't an AWOL issue. It isn't an issue at all. If you can't see it then you're unserious. A fanatic.

Ervin, you may wish that Bush going AWOL wasn't an issue. But it appears that Bush is determined to make it an issue, by trying to cover up just what did happen in the last two or three years of his "military service".

Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 13, 2004 01:11 PM | PERMALINK

Hehe. Political bigots. Hehe. Does language not carry any meaning anymore?

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 01:12 PM | PERMALINK

Nathaniel - Thanks for the correction. Poppy was my family's Congressman, and had read something about him being part of this project. Got dyslexic their with PUSH vs PULL (antonyms?)

Posted by: chris/tx at February 13, 2004 01:13 PM | PERMALINK

Anon says:
I've also often wondered how people can come to the conclusion that the absence of evidence that corroborates their beliefs is evidence that those beliefs are true. You'd think it would be the other way around. You might want to call it faith; but the whole point of faith is that you cannot prove it's conclusions.

Good point - it caused me to wonder why more of the regulars on here aren't in favor of Bush's religion policies, because they clearly don't have any problems with this faith-based initiative.

Posted by: Freezer at February 13, 2004 01:17 PM | PERMALINK

Hey *....
Are you the same genius who posted above (February 13, 2004 12:31 PM) a letter to the editor (Wash. Times, no less) as proof of your claim that this is a non-issue?

Posted by: whynot at February 13, 2004 01:17 PM | PERMALINK

Yo, why not...

The quotations are not "selective",as they fairly represent the people quoted. If I were trying to represent that the writer of the article was pro-Bush, then you'd have a case.

The article itself was a bit bizarre as it appeared to combine Wire Service material with locally reported stuff. It read like the editor did not realize he had the holy grail of this scandal, somebody who saw and remembered Bush in Alabama.

Posted by: appalled moderate at February 13, 2004 01:18 PM | PERMALINK

Do inveterate political bigots understand that serial conspiracy mongering is a sign of lack of intelligence? This isn't an AWOL issue. It isn't an issue at all. If you can't see it then you're unserious. A fanatic.

Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?

Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 01:20 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, publishing my e-mail. Classy. I should have known better than to challenge bigots. Hatred is the most viscious of emotions, no?

And decidedly unliberal.

In all seriousness, what the hell is wrong with everybody here? Drum's site is turning in a borderline hate site, an exercise in politics being used as a substitute for psycho-therapy. And a demonstration of what's wrong with liberalism and the Democratic party. But y'all keep haunting echo chambers and convince yourselves this is how the rest of the nation approaches this 'issue'. Your behavior is the very reason why people are turned off by politics, and turn off the TV when it becomes apparent the 'issue' is becoming too entangled to bother with. Good work.

Caveat: I'm an independent, not a Republican, my inveterate little conspiracy mongers. I simply have a morbid fascination with how Leftist hate expresses itself. Now I know where to come.

Posted by: * at February 13, 2004 01:20 PM | PERMALINK

Moderate,

Do you not understand that the questions have nothing to do with whether or not GWB was ever in Alabama?

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 01:20 PM | PERMALINK

It read like the editor did not realize he had the holy grail of this scandal, somebody who saw and remembered Bush in Alabama.

If this guy's duty dates correspond to Bush's claimed duty dates, yes. If not, well... then the holy grail is a poisoned chalice.

Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 13, 2004 01:21 PM | PERMALINK

*,

What is hateful about asking GWB to fulfill the promise that he made to Russert and release all of his service records?

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 01:22 PM | PERMALINK

Good point, Freezer: the Bush documents and witnesses so far exhibit as many contradictions and absurdities as the Bible itself.

No, wait, that's backwards. You see, we're the ones pointing out the inconsistancies. It's the true believers who continue to insist they don't exist. Welcome to the Church of CYA. We've got a father, a son, and some sort of ghost (but it's hard to tell).

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 01:23 PM | PERMALINK

In all seriousness, what the hell is wrong with everybody here? Drum's site is turning in a borderline hate site, an exercise in politics being used as a substitute for psycho-therapy.

Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?

Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 01:23 PM | PERMALINK

End of discussion.

Translation: STOP DISCUSSING THIS! I'M GETTING SCARED YOU'RE CLOSE TO THE TRUTH ABOUT DEAR LEADER!

Why do you care what we discuss? I've never seen you around here before..., and I've been lurking on and off since Cat Blogging Fridays.

So, if you don't like the smell in the kitchen, the door is right behind you.

Just like a Republican. Trying to shout down people who disagree with them.

I'll bet your were a precious schoolyard bully. Or worse, a bully's toady.

Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 01:24 PM | PERMALINK

This is really starting to remind me of that ad for "Beggin' Strips" ("Dogs don't know it's not bacon!").

Call it "'Ennis Shoe" -- Dems don't know it's not an issue!

And another thing, since when did "troll" come to mean "someone who doesn't agree with the current leftist frothing at the mouth"? In fact, this is the only site that I know where the definition has been changed.

Y'all are so far down a path to nowhere you may never get back in time for November.

My advice? Keep on diggin'! There MUST be some dirt in this hole somewhere! I expect that y'all will bury yourselves with it eventually.

Posted by: MichaelW at February 13, 2004 01:24 PM | PERMALINK

Note to all the "Look at how crazy the freepers are getting - we must be onto something!" geniuses: if there really is a coverup here (and the current balance of evidence certainly doesn't point to this being the case), the "freepers" are just as ignorant of it as you are. They're just mocking your blatant evasions and wishful thinking. The idea that they know there's a coverup, and are here to try to deflect attention, is hilarious.

Posted by: Freezer at February 13, 2004 01:24 PM | PERMALINK

My advice? Keep on diggin'! There MUST be some dirt in this hole somewhere! I expect that y'all will bury yourselves with it eventually.

Translation: Oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck, ohfuckohfuckohfuck...

Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 01:26 PM | PERMALINK

if there really is a coverup here (and the current balance of evidence certainly doesn't point to this being the case)

Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?

Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 01:27 PM | PERMALINK

Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?

Perhaps Democrats making such a gigantic deal of a non-issue will turn off moderates, ala judical obstructionism. I don't know if there is anything to hide, and neither do you, but witholding the records could be used to gain a little political capital.

If I were Bush I'd be doing exactly as he is doing. Making the Democrats and Helen Thomas look petty and partisan. We'll see how it plays out.

Posted by: * at February 13, 2004 01:27 PM | PERMALINK

MichaelW,

Shouldn't you be happy that we're burying ourselves? Why warn us? Aren't we playing right into your hands? Or are you just a good Samaritan?

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 01:28 PM | PERMALINK

So how long will this story stick in the public eye? Is it short-lived, or will it have staying power?

Posted by: reportthetruth at February 13, 2004 01:28 PM | PERMALINK

Monkey said:
Translation: STOP DISCUSSING THIS! I'M GETTING SCARED YOU'RE CLOSE TO THE TRUTH ABOUT DEAR LEADER!

Case in point. I'm sure GWB personally filled him in on the details of the coverup, and now he's crapping his pants because you're so close to the truth. LMAO!!!!!!! You can't make this stuff up.

Posted by: Freezer at February 13, 2004 01:29 PM | PERMALINK

*,

Can we make some kind of internet bet about who will win in November? Please?

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 01:30 PM | PERMALINK

Why do they always write "end of discussion."?

It's one of the most innane phrases of the Right Wing, up there with "The fact of the matter is..."

Posted by: winsome at February 13, 2004 01:30 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps Democrats making such a gigantic deal of a non-issue will turn off moderates, ala judical obstructionism.

Ha, good one!

Hey, can you answer the question though? Bush could end all of this in five minutes and prove me wrong. Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?

Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 01:30 PM | PERMALINK

An interesting article from the Montgomery (AL) Independent newspaper:

http://www.al.com/news/independent/index.ssf?/base/columnists/1076703324239210.xml

Posted by: Burger at February 13, 2004 01:31 PM | PERMALINK

Yes please liberals stop discussing this. The Bush fans here are telling us to lay off for our own good. Heck, they want George Bush to lose, so obviously they want to give us pointers, such as ignoring the fact that he was born with a silver spoon up his nose.

Posted by: Trifecta at February 13, 2004 01:31 PM | PERMALINK

Case in point. I'm sure GWB personally filled him in on the details of the coverup, and now he's crapping his pants because you're so close to the truth. LMAO!!!!!!! You can't make this stuff up.

Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?

Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 01:31 PM | PERMALINK

Old Hat:

Just because you were incapable of understanding what I wrote doesn't mean that anybody else was. Translation: your not a very good translator.

Greg:

I'd be happier if the Dems would concentrate a coming up with a worthwhile candidate instead of inventing things to hate Bush for.

Posted by: MichaelW at February 13, 2004 01:32 PM | PERMALINK

J --

Decent point. Unfortunately, the article just says he remembers seeing him there in 1972. It does not say exactly when.

But I will say you can go too far on obsessing on specific dates. Unless something happened to you on x day in 1972 that is very important, it's unlikely you will remember the exact date you saw somebody that long ago.

Posted by: appalled moderate at February 13, 2004 01:32 PM | PERMALINK

MichaelW:

Like who? Holy Joe?

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 01:33 PM | PERMALINK

MatthewRMarler.
a "freeper" is a reader of the über-rag "Free Repüblic". They read GOPel's propaganda and talking points and then fan out to the blogosphere to sheepishly blather the points back out.

Can't you hear them here ?
BAAAA, BAAA, BAAAA.

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 01:33 PM | PERMALINK

Just like a Republican. Trying to shout down people who disagree with them.

I told you I'm an Independent, professor. I just think Bush hatred is a fascinating study of sociological and psychological pathology manifesting itself through political posturing. This is serious stuff to you, but to me it's a laboratory. That's no bullshit. If there weren't so many partisans rampaging through this blog I'd have some more fun with you, but alas I'm hopelessly outnumbered (and I've posted here before)..

Posted by: # at February 13, 2004 01:34 PM | PERMALINK

Greg:

Lieberman is certainly tolerable, although not inspiring. A candidate who is truly a fiscal conservative and would reign in the profligate Congress would win in Nov. hands down. I honestly don't know who that would be ... some have suggested Edwards.

Posted by: MichaelW at February 13, 2004 01:36 PM | PERMALINK

Not exactly. Bush wasn't "grounded temporarily", remember: he was grounded permanently. He didn't miss the physical by a month or so: he never took a physical for the rest of his enlistment.

Or, at least, he says he didn't feel he needed to take one and therefore didn't. All the evidence says is that he "failed to complete".

Had he not met the standards in the physical, would the record state "failed to complete"? I've seen some people claim that...

Posted by: cmdicely at February 13, 2004 01:36 PM | PERMALINK

inventing things to hate Bush for
that's funny on so many levels...

I don't hate Bush, just so you know, he's been a vacant, surname-bearing entity his whole life and now is no different. But I think the people pulling his strings should be swinging from a tree. If you want to know why, look out a window.

And in other news:
Translation: your [sic] not a very good translator.

LOL!

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 01:37 PM | PERMALINK

#,

I too am an Independent. I think, however, that GWB's administration has come close to destroying this country in only three years, and I'm terrified of what will happen if they're in power for five more.

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 01:37 PM | PERMALINK

Right, an "independent" is peddling the "Bush hatred" meme.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 01:39 PM | PERMALINK

So MichaelW,

If we on this site spent less time trying to find out why GWB won't fulfill the promise he made to Russert and instead dedicate ourselves to helping Edwards beat JFK, you'll be happy? I'm having trouble figuring you out.

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 01:39 PM | PERMALINK

One thing I don't understand is the idea that some piece of evidence that corraborates Bush's story ought to shut Kevin up. Kevin isn't a judge, he's not on a jury, he's essentially a reporter. What reporters do is ask questions and dig for answers. The answers often raise new questions, and so on. If a particular line is juicy, Kevin gets play. If the line dries up, nobody pays attention anymore. Right now, this line is hella juicy.

On second thought, it is understandable if after the last 12 years, real reporting comes as a shock.

Posted by: Boronx at February 13, 2004 01:39 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, this is now past the point of a good try to ferret out information and is into "Clinton Chronicles" territory. Time to quit chasing something that isn't there and get back to policy. I had a chuckle looking at the number of comments on serious issues and those on this will o'the wisp. You have some serious conspiracy looney tunes reading your blog and commenting. I think you are more realistic and serious. Time to move on, as someone used to say.

Posted by: Mike K at February 13, 2004 01:39 PM | PERMALINK

gregg,

you wrote that the questions have nothing to do with whether Bush was in Alabama.

That was the big question for a while. Yesterday and day before. Now that we know his teeth were in Alabama, and that he read magazines in Alabama, it no longer is the question.

Similarly with pay and service credits. A few days ago, they were the big question.

Similarly with AWOL and missing a physical, which were very important for a while. It seems that there was no actual order to take a physical (perhaps someone has posted this order, the testimonies from those who were in the NG are not exactly unanimous), and that the NG was exceedingly lax in not requiring rigid adherence to schedules. (That was a flaw, to say the least, in the way the war was fought.)

The most intriguing idea left is that Bush committed a crime.

Does anybody know what a "freeper" is? I get the idea that I might be one.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler at February 13, 2004 01:40 PM | PERMALINK

Hey *...

Go back and read this blogsite's archives. All this 'hateful' speech you are so concerned about didn't start until the freeper brigade came by en masse mucking up the place.

If you have been here prior to the last few days you would know that Kevin is one of the fairest, most even-handed, of ALL the bloggers, so put the blame where it belongs...at the freeper's doorstep.

And...just curious... what was so despicable about someone posting your address if anyone could have just clicked on your name and gotten it anyway? The only people that would send you hate mail here would be the freeper posters.

Posted by: whynot at February 13, 2004 01:41 PM | PERMALINK

Just to be clear, I do not hate GWB as a person. Frankly, I don't think he's intelligent or involved enough to be held responsible for what's being done in his name. It's kind of like blaming a retarded two year old for dropping the hair dryer into the bathtub and electrocuting his older brother. I hate what is happening to this country, and want it to STOP.

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 01:42 PM | PERMALINK

Old Hat wrote:
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?

So true. Then we can move on to "Why did he take so long to release the records? He must've been doctoring them (again - of course)." So predictable.

For what it's worth, I hope the records do come out. But I have no problem with it being a low priority - there's only so much attention that an issue that amounts basically to a conspiracy theory deserves.

Posted by: Freezer at February 13, 2004 01:42 PM | PERMALINK

Time to move on, as someone used to say.

Don't you just love all this helpful advice?

Posted by: Californian at February 13, 2004 01:42 PM | PERMALINK

I too am an Independent. I think, however, that GWB's administration has come close to destroying this country in only three years, and I'm terrified of what will happen if they're in power for five more.

Fair enough. I, too, have my concerns. If I vote for Bush it will be while holding my nose.

Nice to see somebody else doesn't engage in political tribalism. It's a poor substitute for meaning in one's life. Take it from one who knows.

Posted by: * at February 13, 2004 01:44 PM | PERMALINK

Now we're conspiracy theorists ?

I WANT the public records public, not theories.

One million of MY tax money was spent to train sock-in-crotch. I want to know whether he just blew it off !

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 01:45 PM | PERMALINK

"I just think Bush hatred is a fascinating study of sociological and psychological pathology manifesting itself through political posturing. "

Man, I love this guy!

I repeat my prediction - if the reason aWol refused to take his flight physical & why he did hid community service at P.U.L.L. are ever truthfully answered Georgie won't be elected in November

Posted by: busymanifestinghere at February 13, 2004 01:46 PM | PERMALINK

Monkey said:
I want to know if he was ever arrested and had to do Community Service for it.
And I think THAT is what they're hiding here.
I could be wrong, but they certainly didn't want to answer a very simple Yes/No question this morning.

Hey Monkey, let me give you a hand with those goalposts...it must be tiring moving them every 12 hours...

Posted by: Freezer at February 13, 2004 01:48 PM | PERMALINK

No, Greg, I don't particularly care what KD writes about on his site, nor really care about what commenters want to say here. I just find it lamentably pathetic the level of mendacity that most poster go to here just to make themselves feel better.

The AWOL issue, or whatever you all think it is now, has gone nowhere and isn't coming back.

This chamois is rung.

This horse is dead.

Why on earth is the level of frothiness about actually RISING?

Whatever. I used to like this site because I could find a reasonable discussion of relevant issues from a liberal point of view. There is no such discussion here anymore. Now I just come to watch the maddogs play and froth.

Posted by: MichaelW at February 13, 2004 01:48 PM | PERMALINK

*,

Do you see that when one is so terrified of Bush, one has no choice but to engage in at least a bit of political tribalism? It is, after all, a zero sum game. There are only two choices.

For the record, I think Kerry is a slimy character. The consummate Washington insider. Bush is doing so much damage, though, that I will crawl through a snowstorm with both legs and both arms broken to vote for JFK in November, though.

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 01:48 PM | PERMALINK

Matthew, if you don't know what a freeper is, then you likely aren't one.

Posted by: Boronx at February 13, 2004 01:48 PM | PERMALINK

Does anybody know what a "freeper" is? I get the idea that I might be one.

It's a reference to readers and posters at Freerepublic.com, I believe.

The only cure is to find knitting needles and repeatedly jam them into your eyes until you black out. Then come back here.

.

Posted by: winsome at February 13, 2004 01:49 PM | PERMALINK

Given his lending of credibility to the anti-war movement, didn't he have an obligation to
speak up when Jane Fonda crossed the line?

No. Nobody considered Kerry ro be responsible for Fonda's behavior.

The antiwar movement didn't need Kerry to lend it credibility.

Posted by: No Preference at February 13, 2004 01:49 PM | PERMALINK

MichaelW,

We get it !
You are revulsed, yet you cannot take your eyes off the spectacle.
But please, SPARE us your righteous tsk, tsk.

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 01:50 PM | PERMALINK

So true. Then we can move on to "Why did he take so long to release the records? He must've been doctoring them (again - of course)." So predictable.

you skipped a step...

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 01:51 PM | PERMALINK

When any White House wants to release something damaging, they do it late Friday afternoon, when it is too late to make the Friday evening news.

If the White House is prepared to admit anything funny, wait for it to come out in about 2-4 hours.
People do not watch the news on week-ends, so the story loses momentum from the get go.

After Helen Thomas smoked Scottie today, I am sure there may be some discussion going on right now about doing a Friday night document dump. Nah, these folks are arrogant. They are going to wait til Monday, see Scott M get slapped around some more, til it finally dawns on them, that the press isn't going to let this one go.

Posted by: Trifecta at February 13, 2004 01:51 PM | PERMALINK

ch2

thank you. I never heard of "Free Republic" but I do read some other non-leftist writing.

I'm probably a "Freeper sympathiser".

Posted by: MatthewRMarler at February 13, 2004 01:51 PM | PERMALINK

70% of americans believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11 even AFTER the WH finally came out and said they had no evidence of that.

It was just that they continued to mention Saddam in the same sentence as 9/11 references.

So, if you throw enough mud some of it will stick.

I would suggest in those 70% there are some independents.

By the way, we are not throwing mud. but we are pointing out the mud the WH are trying to hide.

Posted by: Poz at February 13, 2004 01:53 PM | PERMALINK

didn't he have an obligation to speak up when Jane Fonda crossed the line?
What line?

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 01:55 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, the consensus seems to be to choose unmitigated scandal mongering.

Those who think Bush's presence for a National Guard physical 30 years ago is more relevant than a sitting presidents perjury in an investigation into sexual harassment charges (brought under a bill he signed) are transparently partisan.
If Clinton's testimony wasn't relevant, Bush's service surely is not. If you want to set the bar this low for what sort of scandals are relevant, that is fine. No whining when we get 20 years of stories dealing with Kerry and interns, or Jane Fonda connections, or Johnny Chung and Chinese money, or whatever.

Those that think Republicans actions in the 90s justify anything in retaliation, ask yourself if you want this to be the status quo into the future. So far, there has been no personal attacks by Bush against Kerry. Kerry fired the first shot on Bush commenting on the AWOL story. Bush hasn't yet responded with any personal attacks. I'd stop now, unless you want to see commercials featuring peacenik Kerry marching alongside commies and Jane Fonda.

Posted by: Reg at February 13, 2004 01:56 PM | PERMALINK

Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Vince Fostergate, Clinton "draft dodging", were all non-issues, except to all the rightwing fanatics and the national press, fueled by Scaife and Murdoch. Those were non-issues.

Posted by: nashvegasdawg at February 13, 2004 01:56 PM | PERMALINK

Go back and read this blogsite's archives. All this 'hateful' speech you are so concerned about didn't start until the freeper brigade came by en masse mucking up the place.

Kevin himself doesn't espouse hate, but he attracts Leftist haters because Calpundit's 'editorial' angle is essentially anti-Republican (code word for non-liberal bigot, in the parlance of Baby Boomer protest liberals). I have no problem with challenges to Republican shibboleths -- it's why I visit. But don't pretend that Bush hatred isn't a sign of deeper pathologies. That would be astoudningly obtuse

If you have been here prior to the last few days you would know that Kevin is one of the fairest, most even-handed, of ALL the bloggers, so put the blame where it belongs...at the freeper's doorstep.

What's with the Freeper thing? Those guys can post anywhere at anytime, why is this particular issue any different. The problem, I believe, is the astoundingly transparent partisanship of this issue. (I also think you're paranoid. Do you always think in conspiracy?)

And...just curious... what was so despicable about someone posting your address if anyone could have just clicked on your name and gotten it anyway?

Because by posting it more visibly it makes it easier to send abusive e-mail. Why else do so? It's a childish maneuver. Not surprising, though, considering some consider echo chambers a refuge, and thus any disruption of it is equivalent to a disruption of their daily therapy.

Posted by: * at February 13, 2004 01:56 PM | PERMALINK

MatthewRMarler,

"I'm probably a "Freeper sympathiser"."

Despite my limited data from your writing, I seriously doubt it. You're too polite, civilized and actually interested in a dialogue, not a monologue. Most freepers come in, dump or copy/paste stuff but then are incapable of independent thought or of defending their points further.

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 01:56 PM | PERMALINK

Brave Sir Robin, ran away...

Delivering tropical plants, sitting on the couch reading "training manuals and accident reports and stuff like that", working on one of the last pro-segregation campaigns in US history, let's give credit where due for the valorous deeds of our War President(TM), CINC Runnynose Bunnypants.

The most telling piece to me was the Mother Jones timeline, which interspersed dates and events from Kerry's 1972 stint in Vietnam (...swam to take out a machine gun nest... pulled a wounded crewman from the river...) with Chimpy's simultaneous adventures hitting on chicks in the Champagne Unit. I can't wait for the TV version.

It's all about character, indeed.

Posted by: melior at February 13, 2004 01:57 PM | PERMALINK

From Bill Hobbs:

In the bizzaro world of Drum and his fellow-travelers in anti-Bush slander, it is missing documents and lack of memories that they claim proves their case - while existing documents and people who remember are dismissed or ignored.

Missing documents are claimed as "proof" that Bush was AWOL - though the only thing it really proves is some records are missing. And people who don't recall Bush being on the base are offered up as proof that Bush was not on the base - though all it really proves is that they don't recall seeing Bush. And though the chief of the "do not recall" witnesses now says his own lack of recollection proves nothing since he doesn't recall himself being on the post much in 1972, and wouldn't have remembered Bush at an rate because Bush "wasn't famous" in 1972.

Well, existing documents and eyewitnesses may prove nothing to the liars, but they do prove something. They prove the liars of the rabid-dog Left don't care about the truth.

Keep up the witch hunting, Kevin, it continues to be entertaining.

Posted by: Bird Dog at February 13, 2004 01:57 PM | PERMALINK

Can we please not get sucked into the whole Hanoi Jane thing. It's all leading to the fact that Vietnam was a Great and Glorious War and that those who opposed it were traitors. Next thing you know we'll have to start debating whether McCarthy was a hero with Ann Coulter.

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 01:58 PM | PERMALINK

For all the regulars...
a brief, off-topic respite from all the muck we've had to wade thru today....a funny from 'The Progress Report':

EDITOR’S NOTE: After publishing the Progress Report this morning, Fox News called to protest our description of Ann Coulter as a “Fox News contributor." Fox News said Ann Coulter "is not a contributor to this network" and "has not been a contributor the last couple of years." Though Fox News’ Sean Hannity described Ms. Coulter in December of 2002 as "a Fox News contributor," and despite Coulter appearing 50 times on Fox News since 2002, we regret any confusion this may have caused.

Posted by: whynot at February 13, 2004 01:58 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, this is now past the point of a good try to ferret out information and is into "Clinton Chronicles" territory.

This question is finally being dealt with for what? A week? And it's approaching the eight-year assault on Clinton?

Right.

Posted by: winsome at February 13, 2004 01:58 PM | PERMALINK

"Kerry fired the first shot on Bush commenting on the AWOL story."

That's news to me. Kerry did ? Where did you read that ? Please link.

"Bush hasn't yet responded with any personal attacks."

Kerry hasn't made any either, so ?

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 02:00 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Monkey, let me give you a hand with those goalposts...it must be tiring moving them every 12 hours...

That's funny, because I've wanted an answer to the Community Service question for a few years now.

What's really funny...and it's a real laugh guys, ha ha, is that Republicans, who one would THINK would be incredibly upset at any Democrat who got into the Guard to avoid Vietnam, think nothing of defending Bush's spotty (at best) performance in it.

I find that amazing. I mean, I know you guys like the guy, but come on. I thought Bill Clinton was the best postwar President we've ever had, but I can accept that he has faults, and that he avoided the draft like the plague it was.

But Bush? The son of a decorated fighter pilot? Line jumping into the Guard while the country is at war? And not one of you cares about that? It's one thing to dodge the draft it you're against the war, and to protest it. It's quite another to slink away into the Guard while the less fortunate are getting killed and maimed in SEAsia, and then claim to support the war!

GB I must have been ashamed of his son. I know I would have been.

What were the other Bush boys doing in Vietnam? Did they serve?

Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 02:00 PM | PERMALINK

I'm kind of curious about the press conference that was transcribed above, the one where Scotty keeps getting dogged on the question of whether Bush was doing community service during that period.

Was this taken from a press conference other than the 12:30-1:02 press briefing that is documented on the official White House website? Surely they wouldn't be so remiss as to leave out the sections Sticky posted above...

Anyway, I'm not suggesting anything, just asking when was the exact date and time of these quotes:

Q: This issue was? The community service issue was addressed four years ago?

Scott McClellan: The issues -- the issues that we're going to here --

Q: I don't recall --

Scott McClellan: This is called chasing a rumor. And I'm not going to engage in this kind of politics, Bill.

Q: -- finding out whether a rumor is true or false

Posted by: forgetting at February 13, 2004 02:00 PM | PERMALINK

Without the antiwar movement, U.S. boys would still be getting killed in Vietnam.

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 02:01 PM | PERMALINK

an investigation into sexual harassment charges
which one of Paula Jones' three stories are you citing here? Oh, wait, they actually dropped her before the Senate trial. Even they couldn't sell that one anymore.

Another non-analogous analogy, another charge of hypocrisy.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 02:01 PM | PERMALINK

Those that think Republicans actions in the 90s justify anything in retaliation, ask yourself if you want this to be the status quo into the future.

It's the status quo now.

Unless you're suggesting that the GOP tactics of the 90s will be abandoned by the new, kinder, gentler Republican Party should John Kerry win in November.

Posted by: Californian at February 13, 2004 02:01 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know why you all keep harping on this. The President has provided incontrovertable documentation that proves he was involved in ANG-related program activities.

Can't you just accept that?

Posted by: idahogie at February 13, 2004 02:01 PM | PERMALINK

Bird Dog wrote: "Keep up the witch hunting, Kevin, it continues to be entertaining."

Keep up the denial, Bird Dog; it continues to be entertaining.

For the record, Kevin has been quite careful to not claim that Bush was AWOL, just as he has been quite careful in pointing out that the AWOL issue is not the only question worth asking. To date, the questions have not been answered.

So Bill Hobbs rant is not only factually incorrect, it's dishonest.

Posted by: PaulB at February 13, 2004 02:03 PM | PERMALINK

"...They prove the liars of the rabid-dog Left don't care about the truth.
Keep up the witch hunting,...
Posted by Bird Dog..."

What's with the unhealthy hunting/dog obsession ? And you want to psychoanalyze us ? LOL !

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 02:03 PM | PERMALINK

it is missing documents and lack of memories that they claim proves their case - while existing documents and people who remember are dismissed or ignored.
Sadly, no, in case you haven't been paying attention. It's the revealed documents and very clear memories that are causing problems, each round tightening the noose as McClellan struggles.

Glad to see you haven't changed, Bird Dog, waving around someone else's contrafactual content since you can't even produce your own. Sad upon sad.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 02:05 PM | PERMALINK

The Senate Intelligence Committee said Thursday that it planned to investigate whether White House officials exaggerated the Iraq threat or pressured analysts to tailor their assessments of Baghdad's weapons programs to bolster the case for war.

The Senate voted unanimously Thursday to expand the probe after some GOP members appeared ready to break from the Republican position.

Uh-Oh aWol & unka dick's gonna wish they both wuz at Project P.U.L.L. now. This summer's hearings will be such fun!

Posted by: Ithinkswewuzliedto! at February 13, 2004 02:09 PM | PERMALINK

greg,

OK. I have already recorded a bet I made (no money, just a prediction) that Bush would win against any Dem candidate with 52% of the major party vote (that is, excluding Independents, Greens, and all the lesser-known candidates.)

No doubt, this National Guard investigation could torpedo his administration if something turns up, but so far I haven't seen anything at Calpundit that alters my prediction.

Kerry is a good candidate. Even though I tend to favor Bush, I am glad that Dean seems to have lost. But even good candidates have weaknesses. He affiliated with some of the least respectable of the anti-war movement ("Winter Soldier", N. VietNam flag carriers, "Hanoi Jane") and I think most people will be turned off by his Congressional testimony of 1971. He voted against Desert Storm: if he had prevailed, Iraqi troops would still be in Kuwait, and probably in Riyadh. Right or wrong, I think most Americans wouldn't support that outcome.

I could be wrong. I kept a copy of my prediction, so there won't be any ambiguous outcome or "moving goalposts". And now you can print my prediction and tell me I'm wrong (or whatever) in November.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler at February 13, 2004 02:09 PM | PERMALINK

For the record, Kevin has been quite careful to not claim that Bush was AWOL, just as he has been quite careful in pointing out that the AWOL issue is not the only question worth asking. To date, the questions have not been answered.

The fundamental questions have been answered. Bush served sufficient hours during the periods in question, and he was honorably discharged. The documents back up his attendance. Everything else is chaff. But, hey, don't let me stand in the way of you guys whizzing out on inconsequential minutiae.

Posted by: Bird Dog at February 13, 2004 02:10 PM | PERMALINK

NEVERMIND

I found this on the 'net:

[Bath]... after serving in the Texas Air National Guard as the buddy of George Bush, Jr. (in 1972, the two young men narrowly escaped arrest for cocaine possession).

I don't know what "narrowly escaped arrest" means other than running out the back door of the pub or flushing something down the toilet. I assume the author actually means "narrowly escaped conviction" by being given community service and having their records expunged.

This is not going to go anywhere. The Project PULL people are prohibited by ethics (and maybe law) from revealing the names of those refered to their program. Bush will NOT release his military record even though he repeatedly assured Russert that he would. It is most likely that both the Bath and Bush arrest files are sealed by a judge.

I think this is over.
======================

Posted by: toogoofy at February 13, 2004 02:13 PM | PERMALINK

What's really amazing is how the Bushies are the ones who keep moving the goalposts.

Posted by: Steve Snyder at February 13, 2004 02:13 PM | PERMALINK

But Bird Dog, you seem to want to stand in the way of us"guys whizzing out on inconsequential minutiae".

To continue the dog analogy: Why do I smell fear.

Where my dogs at !?

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 02:15 PM | PERMALINK

The Scottie-Helen Thomas exchange was early today. Josh Marshall has it. Scottie is covering up something.

Posted by: ish at February 13, 2004 02:16 PM | PERMALINK

This is not over by a long shot. Bush is going to have to release the records, admit what he did, or it isn't going to die that quietly.

Scandal is in the air, and the press smells blood. If an indictment comes down soon for Scooter Libby, all bets are off.

The White House is about to enter crisis mode with the Plame investigation. The DC press pack isn't going to take bumbling platitudes as an answer from Scott McClellan any more.

Posted by: Trifecta at February 13, 2004 02:17 PM | PERMALINK

"Kerry fired the first shot on Bush commenting on the AWOL story."

My bad, I meant to say between Bush and Kerry, Kerry was the first to make a personal attack by commenting on a irrelevant issue having nothing to do with the race.

Posted by: Reg at February 13, 2004 02:21 PM | PERMALINK

Here's how to tell when a dittohead is crapping his jammies:

Dittohead sez, "This issue is closed," then keeps yapping.

Dittohead scared.

Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 02:25 PM | PERMALINK

Wow! the bush apologists are holding their noses and typing as fast as they can. Cool. Frankly, the stench of corruption (halliburton, scalia, cheney, et al) and the stink of fear (what is the big deal about these records? probably nothing but Bush's desire to keep pretending he is other than a weak shadow of his own slightly more heroic father) is such that I'd think anything short of a nasalectomy wouldn't do. But hey, I"m not a republican and I don't have their blind loyalty to tax cuts, bigotry, and warfare for its own sake.

Call it bush hatred if you want. Its the policies not the personalities that I, and anyone else who is paying attention, can't stand. I encourage everyone of my fellow citizens to vote purely on policy issues and on the wellbeing of the country as a whole. That should be enough to get rid of Bush.

aimai

Posted by: aimai at February 13, 2004 02:26 PM | PERMALINK

"The reason Bush got retirement credit and pay for service in 1972 despite the fact that his superiors on the military bases to which he was assigned never saw him is because he was not training at an Air Force Base but spending time in a community center with underprivileged children, working off his coke arrrest. And the story of Bill Beckett, who saw the trashed remains of Lieutenant Bush's service record in a military trash can, confirms the purge was the work of Bush staffers, working with the complicity of high-ranking Guard officers."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/02/13_guard.html

Posted by: Scrappy Doo at February 13, 2004 02:26 PM | PERMALINK

Bird Dog wrote: "The fundamental questions have been answered."

Nice try, Bird Dog, but you're still in denial. Free clue: you don't get to decide what questions we, or the national press, would like answered.

"The documents back up his attendance."

Actually, they don't, but thanks for playing.

"Everything else is chaff."

Not based on the information we have thus far, B.D., but don't let our search for facts bother you. You can continue to remain in that isolated little world of yours.

Bush could end this in a heartbeat; he has chosen to not do so; we will continue to ask questions.

Posted by: PaulB at February 13, 2004 02:27 PM | PERMALINK

For anyone to whom it's not abundantly obvious, the above is what Helen Thomas's much-quoted exchange with McClellan was about... "Community service", y'know?

Posted by: Scrappy Doo at February 13, 2004 02:29 PM | PERMALINK

This is what I've decided to do: keep the evidence that Bush was AWOL from the ANG in the same manila folder with the evidence that Kerry had an extramarital affair with an intern.

Now, let me see.... hmmm, what's this! The folder appears to be empty!

Posted by: steve at February 13, 2004 02:29 PM | PERMALINK

Req,
It would really help if you were just plain clearer.

"Kerry was the first to make a personal attack by commenting on a irrelevant issue having nothing to do with the race."

Again, Huh ? Link please. Which personal attack, and exactly how did that attack have "nothing to do with the race". What do you think the race is about ? Does character not count all of the sudden ?

Looking forward to hear from you. Please, link to a story about it.

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 02:32 PM | PERMALINK

personal attack by commenting on a[n] irrelevant issue having nothing to do with the race
both "irrelevant" and has "nothing to do".

I guess mentioning absent wmd and phony AQ connections would be "political hate speech."

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 02:32 PM | PERMALINK

"a irrelevant issue having nothing to do with the race."

This, of course, is the "talking point" du jour, as evidenced by its verbatim or near-verbatim repetition.

I predict something almost exactly the same is to be found on Limbaugh's website. Let's go have a looksee...

Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 02:35 PM | PERMALINK

Does anybody know what a "freeper" is? I get the idea that I might be one.
It's not hard to be a Freeper. You just go to Free Republic and sign up. Scroll thru the topics, read thru the comments, and post a logical and well reasoned reply. Then all hell breaks loose ;-)
Bush served sufficient hours during the periods in question, and he was honorably discharged. John Allen Muhamed served in the National Guard, was put in the the brig twice for assaulting an officer, and also got an honorable discharge. Kinda puts the bar for honorable discharge real high. However, I'm not accusing Bush of any involvement in DC sniper killings.
Sorry I have to post with a pseudonym, don't want to bombed at home.

Posted by: Igneous Slag at February 13, 2004 02:35 PM | PERMALINK

Bingo, WH announces release of "entire military record".

Posted by: Chuck at February 13, 2004 02:36 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, the conservitard fleas are a-hoppin' today.

Cut-n-and-a-pastin' and foamin' at the mouth.

Fun?

Absolutely.

Posted by: Ras_Nesta at February 13, 2004 02:39 PM | PERMALINK

Just announced.

WH to release ALL GWB's National Guard files. Will happen today, soon.

Posted by: John Smith at February 13, 2004 02:41 PM | PERMALINK

Steve:

more accurately: there is about as much evidence that Bush did his duty as there is that Kerry did an intern.

Of course, we already know what Kerry was doing during Vietnam...

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 02:41 PM | PERMALINK

Reg wrote: "Those that think Republicans actions in the 90s justify anything in retaliation, ask yourself if you want this to be the status quo into the future."

As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, attacks without end, amen.

Look, Reg, this isn't exactly new and neither side comes to the table with clean hands. From what I've seen, most people believe that this will be one of the ugliest elections we've seen in modern times. Elections have always been ugly; they will almost certainly continue to be ugly. The only question is which side's attacks will stick.

"So far, there has been no personal attacks by Bush against Kerry."

That's disingenuous for three reasons, Reg.

1. Bush hasn't formally started his campaign.

2. Bush didn't know whom the Democratic nominee would be.

3. The Republican Party has already begun the attacks. Bush will almost certainly remain "Presidential," leaving the attacks to the party.

Reg, please don't pretend that the Republican Party would not have attacked Kerry if we had just dropped this story. That's just dumb. Kerry's post-Vietnam record was always going to be on the table. And if Kerry really does have a "bimbo eruption," you can damn well bet that the Republican Party will push it.

Yes, some of these are partisan attacks, but that's just politics as usual. Deal with it.

Posted by: PaulB at February 13, 2004 02:41 PM | PERMALINK

WH to release ALL GWB's National Guard files. Will happen today, soon.

Let's see how crazy they went with the black Magic Marker.

Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 02:41 PM | PERMALINK

WH to release ALL GWB's National Guard files. Will happen today, soon
It's Friday, natch!

Hell, the stuff we already have doesn't line up...

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 02:43 PM | PERMALINK

Ok... do I win a prize? I predicted the document dump after the network news went to bed!

Posted by: Trifecta at February 13, 2004 02:43 PM | PERMALINK

I have never posted a comment to a blog before this week. Well, that has changed, and I have done a sort of my email directory and sent copies of the London Sun article on Kerry to 23 people in Wisconsin. BRING IT ON!!! If you wanted the right wing just as mad as the left, you have achieved your goal.

Posted by Dan at February 13, 2004 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

That was pathetic.

Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 02:44 PM | PERMALINK

Ok... do I win a prize? I predicted the document dump after the network news went to bed!

Three day weekend to pour over the documents and attempt to make out what's printed under the redacted lines.

Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 02:45 PM | PERMALINK

Wait, do they mean All the documents or only the ones pertaining to his NG duty? You know... the issue.... you know...ummmm... what medical docs???

That was not the issue.

Lets hope they truely mean ALL the documents. I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Poz at February 13, 2004 02:49 PM | PERMALINK

LOL

Par for the course. Friday afternoon, releasing information?

Sad.

I still think they won't answer the question about whether or not he did community service.

They will NEVER give a straight answer to that question, unless they decide to come clean about some "incident" we don't know about yet.

Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 02:51 PM | PERMALINK

Both CNN and FOX have the breaking news headlines on this one. Is Kevin around? Time for a new thread.

Posted by: Trifecta at February 13, 2004 02:52 PM | PERMALINK

roflmfao!

Grand Moff Texan: and Kerry has yet to release a single document that proves, or even partially documents, that he wasn't boinking an intern!

Posted by: steve at February 13, 2004 02:54 PM | PERMALINK

Cnn just had it on. The redacted parts will be "social security numbers, and certain medical information."

Posted by: sTINGer at February 13, 2004 02:54 PM | PERMALINK

When any White House wants to release something damaging, they do it late Friday afternoon, when it is too late to make the Friday evening news.

If the White House is prepared to admit anything funny, wait for it to come out in about 2-4 hours.

Superb call.

http://tinyurl.com/2449p

Get the popcorn. I guess we're about to find out who's right!!!

Posted by: Anthony at February 13, 2004 02:54 PM | PERMALINK

I'm curious what the WH definition of all is.

Posted by: ftm at February 13, 2004 02:55 PM | PERMALINK

"Caveat: I'm an independent, not a Republican, my inveterate little conspiracy mongers. I simply have a morbid fascination with how Leftist hate expresses itself."

LOL! How many times has someone heard that b.s. line?

Be gone, dittobeast.

Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINK

OK, Let's cut to the chase:

The last year of W's "service" was spent at Project P.U.L.L. in Houston where he was working off his coke bust that Daddy set up with the local laws. That's how this story will end. Period. Remember you read it here.

Posted by: Ithinkswewuzliedto! at February 13, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINK

Faux News says its a 300+ page document dump.
Damn, I love it when I am right.

Posted by: Trifecta at February 13, 2004 03:03 PM | PERMALINK

Re: community service (see below)

FROM FOX NEWS WEB SITE
- 1971: Participates in drills and alerts at Ellington. Begins work for Houston-based agricultural company.

- May 1972: Bush asks for and receives permission to continue his duties in Alabama while he works as political director on the Senate campaign of Winton M. Blount, a friend of his father. Loses flight credentials after missing physical exam.

- Sept. 6, 1972: Bush's request for a three-month transfer to 187th TAC Recon Group, Montgomery, Ala. is approved so he can work as political director for a Senate campaign.

- November 1972: Bush returns to his unit at Ellington in Texas.

- May-July 1973: Participates in non-flying drills at Ellington. Works at inner-city poverty program earlier in the year.

========================

Posted by: toogoofy at February 13, 2004 03:05 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, publishing my e-mail. Classy.

Yes - that was a mistake. I meant to find your name from the oddly chosen pseud "*", but I cut-and-pasted the whole e-mail address. Apologies.

Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 13, 2004 03:06 PM | PERMALINK

News Hour reporting all Bush records to be released within a matter of hours!!!!!!!!

WashPo too!!!!!!!!

Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 03:09 PM | PERMALINK

I thought all these pompous ass encounters had slowed down. How old are these trolls anyway - twelve? All they're interested in is who got in Kerry's pants. What stupid crap.

You want issues? The one and over riding issue at the moment is Bush's credibility. This is what has galvanized the press, because Bushco's house of lies is crashing down all around them, from AWOL to WMD.

We don't have to prove anything. The whole world is saying it for us. That's why you bunch of blow hard trolls are boring us to tears here.

Posted by: sTINGer at February 13, 2004 03:11 PM | PERMALINK

Old Hat wrote:
Why doesn't Bush release all of his records as promised on national TV, he has nothing to hide, right?

Freezer replied:
So true. Then we can move on to "Why did he take so long to release the records? He must've been doctoring them (again - of course)." So predictable.

Less than 2 hrs later, Old Hat wrote in response to news that the files will be released today:
Let's see how crazy they went with the black Magic Marker.

Where can I claim my prize????? Although I'm a bit disappointed that Old Hat didn't tell us that the Bushies took all week to release the files because that's how long it took them to use the black Magic Marker.

Posted by: Freezer at February 13, 2004 03:11 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, Freezer -- could you tell us what Bush did to address the obvious terror threats we faced during his first 8 months in office?

Oh, and while you're at it, could you compare discretionary spending during the Clinton Administration versus Bush's first three years?

Just want to see where you are on things.

Thanks!

Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 03:16 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Freezer,

are you accusing Old_Hat of being skeptical of this administration?!?

LOL, we have learnt through experience that we have to take everything they say with a grain of salt.

Powell sat infront of the UN and said...these are FACTS... in regarsd to his evidence... well... evidently NOT!!!

Posted by: Poz at February 13, 2004 03:21 PM | PERMALINK

Jay writes: "This is all soooo boring!"

So what are you doing here?

Posted by: rolldown at February 13, 2004 03:22 PM | PERMALINK

Freezer: "[crickets]"

Thought so. Just thought I'd play the "predictability game" as well.

Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 03:27 PM | PERMALINK

Spin, Bushevik apparatchniks, spin! I see you got your marching orders from Pravda^wFox this morning and are cut and pasting like mad!

The fact remains that:

a) Bush skipped out for 6 months with nobody knowing where he was (he was not paid for that time)
b) thus the records PROVE that BUSH was AWOL, as in, absent without leave, even if he was not convicted of that because the Guard just wanted to get rid of him with the least hassle possible (much like they dismissed a former friend of mine honorably for bogus "medical" reasons after he mutinied and refused to report for duty to deploy to Saudi Arabia in 1991... his CO didn't want to admit that one of his own men committed an act of mutiny, it would have looked bad on his record and hurt his chances of promotion).

So spin all you want, you lying Party apparatchniks. But the very records you keep flapping about as "proving" that your Party's Great Leader "served honorably" say nothing of the sort if you look at them critically. All they say is that the Guard got rid of him as fast as possible when it became obvious that Lt. Bush was never going to fly again.

Posted by: BadTux at February 13, 2004 03:28 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas wrote:
Hey, Freezer -- could you tell us what Bush did to address the obvious terror threats we faced during his first 8 months in office?

Oh, and while you're at it, could you compare discretionary spending during the Clinton Administration versus Bush's first three years?

Be glad to. On the terror threats - I wouldn't characterize them as obvious, at least not to the extent that they were realized. My impression is that he didn't do too much, but I wasn't following too closely. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here, because I think he would've gotten alot of resistance had he tried to do more. But I can be swayed on this. I guess I'd rate him as "par for the course", which in my view, translates to "not very good".

On spending, I haven't examined the details of his spending as compared to Clinton's, but it's pretty clear from what he's said that he's about like Clinton. Which in my view, translates to "sucks". From what I see, there just aren't any fiscally conservative politicians out there. I credit the Dems for being more consistent on this, because they at least want to get tax money for their spending, as opposed to increasing the national debt. But this is a rock/hard place deal.

Posted by: Freezer at February 13, 2004 03:32 PM | PERMALINK

TooGoofy wrote: "Anyway, I doubt if Bush's Military Record will ever be released depite his multiple reassurances to Russert."

I think he only reassurred him a couple of times -- but the second reassurance of "Yes absolutely" was pretty damn unequivocal.

But since when have Bush's promises meant squat, anyway? He's often made promises, assurances, and reassurances in highly public venues, only to renege on them later.

The difference between those other times and now is that now the press is calling him on it. (Not just the blogs.)

Posted by: rolldown at February 13, 2004 03:36 PM | PERMALINK

So, Freezer, you just have "impressions" on these meaty subjects. You've just never bothered to actually get the facts straight, and your impressions don't match reality.

Thanks for playing!

Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 03:37 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas wrote (prematurely):
Freezer: "[crickets]"

Thought so. Just thought I'd play the "predictability game" as well.

Here I was poring over my positions, and you're already taking shots at me. Play nice!

Posted by: Freezer at February 13, 2004 03:38 PM | PERMALINK

* wrote:

"In all seriousness, what the hell is wrong with everybody here? Drum's site is turning in a borderline hate site, an exercise in politics being used as a substitute for psycho-therapy. And a demonstration of what's wrong with liberalism and the Democratic party. But y'all keep haunting echo chambers and convince yourselves this is how the rest of the nation approaches this 'issue'."

It's true, I have seen a lot of hate spewed here -- mostly by rightwing trolls and by anti-Bushies attacking the rightwing trolls. But that character of hatred is what (some) people commenting here have brought with them -- not characteristic of the site itself.

Kevin Drum is clearly partisan, but I've seen reason and honest questioning from him; and his work is taken seriously enough that I've now seen the Calpundit site linked numerous times from the mainstream press, recognizing the very creditable work he's done in bringing out some of the most important aspects of this story.

It's too bad that the hate-spewers on either side are too busy with the hate-spewing to actually read and reason as he's been doing. Fortunately, there are other commenters here, both pro- and anti-Bush -- and some in-between -- who can read and reason. And even write posts that have some ability to persuade and even change minds. Which is the only reason the comments are worth reading at all.

Too bad we can't get the hate-spewers on both sides to can it.

But in the meantime, thanks to those of you who are using intelligence, instead of just vitriol, to get your points across -- regardless of whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, or "other." And thanks also to Kevin Drum, who has put together a damn fine blog.

Posted by: rolldown at February 13, 2004 03:53 PM | PERMALINK

Bush was probably at his grandfather's funeral in New England for the October drill in 1972, I would think the family would have insisted.

He didn't fly after April, 1972 so he didn't serve. If you hire and pay a plumber to fix a leak and he comes and reads your magazines instead of fixing the leak, you wouldn't say he did his job.

I don't think he was draft dodging, because with his criminal record I don't think he would have been accepted. He had a theft charge and a disorderly conduct plus some traffic tickets.

He obviously did something the military didn't like, because they extended his Reserve commitment six months.

Posted by: Bryan at February 13, 2004 03:53 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas wrote:
So, Freezer, you just have "impressions" on these meaty subjects. You've just never bothered to actually get the facts straight, and your impressions don't match reality.

Thanks for playing!

This is an odd "rebuttal" - these are very broad topics, subsuming literally thousands of facts over the span of years. Now, since I'm not a professional in these areas, I'm going to be nice and call my positions "impressions", because I haven't spent hours and hours poring over them. But that doesn't mean that I don't have my facts straight - it just means that I have a higher likelihood of not integrating them properly, and that I might not have enough of them. But you didn't even attempt to address the statements I made. So here's a question for you - do you really want to discuss this? Because your reply doesn't indicate it.

So my impressions don't match reality? Well, then how are they wrong?

Posted by: Freezer at February 13, 2004 03:55 PM | PERMALINK

I gotta say, though I sit on the opposite side of the fence, that I thought that Freezer was trying to play fair, and maybe deserves a chance at an honest discussion.

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 04:07 PM | PERMALINK

This is an odd "rebuttal" - these are very broad topics, subsuming literally thousands of facts over the span of years.

Incorrect. Comparing discretionary federal spending over two different time periods is a straightforward factual exercise. Assessing specific, identifiable actions taken (or not taken) by an adminstration is also a straight-forward, factual matter.

You either know the facts or you don't, and I simply wanted to know if you knew what the facts are. Instead, your "impressions" matched the sort of images cultivated by the Republican Party. In the first case, that "Democrats are big spenders". In the second case, that "Bush was no different from Clinton".

The fact of the matter is that discretionary federal speding decreased by 12% during Clinton's 8 years in office, and during Bush's 3 years in office, it has increased by 26%. These are inflation-adjusted figures.

The other fact is that Bush did absolutely nothing to deal with terrorism prior to 9/11, even though the currently accepted notion among his supporters is that "Clinton gutted the intelligence services, let Osama go, did nothing, etc etc". So, my question to that is, if Clinton did such a horrible job, and this was so "obvious", why didn't Bush lift even one little finger to deal with it before the planes started hitting buildings?

How can one have any form of discussion on essential matters about the political economy if people party to a discussion don't even have a grasp of the basic facts in the subjects they're discussing?

You were the one who was congratulating himself about predicting the behavior of a specific poster, the implication being that his partisanship made his future actions inevitable.

So, I devised a standard test to see how partisan and predictable you might be, and lo and behold, I was correct in my prediction.

Tell me - what do you wish to accomplish by being here?

Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 04:11 PM | PERMALINK

Document dump

A quickie bulletin on National Public Radio just now says that even with the humongous number of pages of military records in the document dump, they still fail to answer two crucial questions:

(1) Did Bush show up and do the duty in Alabama he was supposed to do?

(2) Why did he not take his physical?

I'm sure we'll hear more later.

Also pretty sure that when the facts of these still missing facts are talked about again on this board, we'll still hear the complaints from the trolls that "no matter how much evidence [sic] is produced, you're never satisfied."

Nope, no matter how much lack of evidence is produced, I'd still really like the evidence. But doesn't seem like Bush & co. are ready even yet to provide it.

Posted by: rolldown at February 13, 2004 04:16 PM | PERMALINK

Wrong guy! Our George Duh-W doesn't read, he admitted as much. Next!

Posted by: Marine's Girl at February 13, 2004 04:31 PM | PERMALINK

This Calhoun guy - seems to have "memory problems" of just the sort favorable to Bush - with hilarious irony, he "remembers" Bush being there even when the records released by the Admin say Bush wasn't! NBC had a good time showing that off tonight. Maybe they have finally found a guy to send to Iraq, that can see WMD.

Here's a theory: Calhoun is the victim of a COINTELPRO/MKULTRA/... brainwashing experiment. "My sources" in the psychedelic underground tell me that sufficient doses of the same infamous "brown acid" that caused bad trips at Woodstock, will lead to multiple hallucinations of seeing George W. Bush. The same techniques may be also behind the Kerry affair story.

Developing...

Posted by: Neil at February 13, 2004 04:38 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas wrote:
Incorrect. Comparing discretionary federal spending over two different time periods is a straightforward factual exercise. Assessing specific, identifiable actions taken (or not taken) by an adminstration is also a straight-forward, factual matter.

You make it sound so simple. But the *facts* are that while comparing discretionary federal spending over two different time periods might be a straightforward factual exercise, it is anything but simple. I'm sorry, but this is comical. Yeah, you can line up a couple of numbers next to each other and say "this number is bigger than that one", but that says absolutely nothing, and you know it. You have to break down what the totals went to, include other related numbers (non-discretionary spending, GDP, etc), what the important domestic and international political issues are, etc. I could continue, but you get the point. My point is this: in summation, I find no substantiative difference between Clinton and Bush on discretionary spending - they both spend/spent way too much on things that I consider total crap. So, you can tell me that Clinton reduced discretionary spending and Bush increased it, but that means little to me in a vacuum.

Thomas wrote:
Instead, your "impressions" matched the sort of images cultivated by the Republican Party. In the first case, that "Democrats are big spenders". In the second case, that "Bush was no different from Clinton".

Are you proofreading this? "Bush was no different than Clinton" is an image cultivated by the Republican Party???? WTF???

Thomas wrote:
The other fact is that Bush did absolutely nothing to deal with terrorism prior to 9/11, even though the currently accepted notion among his supporters is that "Clinton gutted the intelligence services, let Osama go, did nothing, etc etc". So, my question to that is, if Clinton did such a horrible job, and this was so "obvious", why didn't Bush lift even one little finger to deal with it before the planes started hitting buildings?

Now, I'm going to guess that much of the work done in combatting terrorism is intelligence work, which is usually classified, ie secret, ie not known to the general public (like me). Call me silly and naive, but yes, I believe this. So I'm going to say that I don't really know much of what Bush, or Clinton, for that matter, did in combatting terrorism, at least behind the scenes. The places where I could have seen more were the terrorist attacks that did occur on Clinton's watch. And he did very little (at least that we all heard about). Bush has done much more - but then, the attack on his watch was much more severe. Comparing them (and this is including 9/11), I'd say Bush has done more. Bottom line: I don't accept your assertion that Bush "did nothing" to combat terrorism before 9/11, although I agree that whatever he did do wasn't enough. I guess if there's a difference here, it's that Bush woke up after an attack occurred on him, while Clinton never did. But then again, Clinton never had that kind of a wakeup call.

Thomas wrote:
How can one have any form of discussion on essential matters about the political economy if people party to a discussion don't even have a grasp of the basic facts in the subjects they're discussing?

Having a basic grasp on essential matters and having a bunch of numbers memorized are not the same thing. So far, my "impression" is that I've given far more analysis on the issues than you have, while you've spent your time jumping to false conclusions about me (and posting little to nothing about my analysis).

Thomas wrote:
So, I devised a standard test to see how partisan and predictable you might be, and lo and behold, I was correct in my prediction.

Looking back through our posts, I don't see your prediction. In fact, the only hint of a prediction that I see is that you thought I was going to go away after you asked me about a couple of big issues. And we both know where you ended up on that.

Thomas wrote:
Tell me - what do you wish to accomplish by being here?
I've spent a few months lurking around here and at Brad Delong's site, because my "impression" is that they're the place to get a read on the intelligent left. Today I decided to post because some of the arguments vis a vis the National Guard escapade are just way way out there.

Posted by: Freezer at February 13, 2004 04:58 PM | PERMALINK

CH2 wrote:
I gotta say, though I sit on the opposite side of the fence, that I thought that Freezer was trying to play fair, and maybe deserves a chance at an honest discussion.

Thanks CH2. Thomas gets some extra patience, because my posts earlier today were pretty snarky.

Posted by: Freezer at February 13, 2004 05:03 PM | PERMALINK

Look, Freezer -- I know you think that your long-winded reply is somehow going to make your incompetence on basic matters go away, but it doesn't.

I asked you two very straightforward questions, questions that go to the heart of competency in leadership, and your initial responses were standard Republican fare. In fact, depsite all your blathering, you still have yet to raise any points of substance, merely talking in general terms about "secret intelligence" and "numbers in a vacuum".

The fact of the matter is that on the two points I raised, the impression that is cultivated, which you parroted straight from the Republican line, is in total contradiction with established and clear fact. The test was to see if you were partisan or could get past partisanship to see that our preconceptions and stereotypes often are incorrect.

That's all. I have no desire to discuss the specific issues I raised -- it was merely illustrative in nature, and you have shown yourself to be as predictable, if not more so, than the individual you lambasted.

Be careful with casting those stones.

I mean, do you even know where to get the factual data to help change your "impressions" into "informed opinion"?

Doesn't matter - point made.

Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 05:12 PM | PERMALINK

Freezer,
we all get snarky,
sooometimes,
everybody snarks,
sooometimes,
sooometimes.

Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 05:14 PM | PERMALINK

Grand Moff Texan: and Kerry has yet to release a single document that proves, or even partially documents, that he wasn't boinking an intern!
Can you document that my dick isn't up your ass?

Didn't think so.

Anybody hear anything from the reporters' pool that has been allowed to look at some of the records and a summary (hereafter to be referred to as "all the documents")?

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 05:36 PM | PERMALINK

CBS coverage points out the contradiction in dates between Calhoun & Bush's pay records

Quote from CBS website:

"He sat in my office he would study his training manuals, read safety magazines. military type stuff," Calhoun told Roberts. Calhoun provided records to CBS News to prove he was on the base at the time. He says the President regularly drilled during the months of May through October 1972, when Mr. Bush was working on an election campaign.

"I know he was in there on drills, uh, four months. And it could have been five and it even could have been six."

But Calhoun's account appears to be at odds with records released by the White House. They show that President Bush logged no Guard duty -- anywhere -- from April 17th until October 28th.

And former Guard Pilot Bob Mintz -- who was with the Alabama unit at the time -- says the base was all abuzz about a politically-connected Lieutenant coming in. But Mintz claims he never saw Mr. Bush -- and expects the newcomer would have stood out.

"I just don't see how you could, ah, walk into a military squadron of people who are intimately familiar with each other and their jobs and things and not recognize him as a stranger, ya know?" said Mintz.

See the full story.

Posted by: rolldown at February 13, 2004 05:36 PM | PERMALINK

What possible purpose does it serve to discuss the sins of "W"? Even if a video tape of him haveing intimate relations with an under age male goat while snorting coke in the oval office was released the "W" supporters would say "So What" cause he da man. I mean apparently this guy can do no wrong. All he has to do is not fall down when he chews gum and the majority of "us" think he has walked on water.

I have nothing against him personally and I do think it was damn polite of him to stay out of the way prior to 9/11 by vacationing and golfing. What I do have a problem with is that he is allowing some pretty scarry people do some pretty scary stuff. Think about the ramifications of the inaptly named USA PATRIOT ACT, the enhanced powers of the FISA Courts.

Also of concern is the fate of those murdering scum sucking bastards languishing at Gitmo. I mean what the hell happened to "Truth Justice and the American way"? If they did participate in the atrocity of 9/11 then execute them. If they did not then send them home. Shit we at least gave the NAZI's a trial and then rightly hung the bastards. It seems wrong to keep prisoners indefinately. (I will refrain from mentioning the plight of Jose Padilla, an AMERICAN CITIZEN who has not been allowed to speak to an attorney, or been told what crime he is charged with[personally if I knew for a fact that he was involved with the perpetrators of 9/11, I would not hesitate to send him to allah))

But it is more heinous to invade Iraq because some SAUDI ARABIAN fanatics who may have possibly visited Afghanistan prior to embarking on their heinous attack against the innocent people working at the World trade Center and the Pentagon.

It is however more heinous that the "POILTICAL" hacks that our president has allowed to be appointed, use the attacks of 9/11 as an excuse to implement changes to the fundamental values of this country. No terrorist could take away our freedom the way we are throwing it away in the name of security.

Posted by: cogito,cogito ergo cogito sum at February 13, 2004 05:56 PM | PERMALINK

LOLOL
Bird Dog is such a funny bird.. or dog or whatever. There is nothing inconsequential about the fact that a man with $1 million of training behind him was grounded by the ANG.
Also, refusing to take a physical is a serious infraction.
Just a couple of minutiae the gaggle will be gaggling about on Tuesday.

Posted by: marky at February 13, 2004 09:42 PM | PERMALINK

Boy this is the first time the shit is really sticking to Bush. I mean all the exaggerations about the WMDs, lobbyists in each pocket, anti environment- close door polciy sessions and back room deals have all slid off Tipsy.

then he starts a war

Then it appears that when America needed HIM, he was slacking off.

The details and contradictions in all the materials won't exonerate Bush- all the countrerfire from the right will only embed the problem in everyone's head-

thiss is the same way the rigth wing conflated al quaeda and 9/11

oy

Posted by: Maccabee at February 14, 2004 05:10 AM | PERMALINK

People are exponentially funnier when they're in rant mode.

Posted by: Cooper Ria at May 3, 2004 09:19 AM | PERMALINK

Don't worry that other people don't know you; worry that you don't know other people.

Posted by: Bird Cindy at June 30, 2004 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Online 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 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

1427 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

Posted by: Viagra at August 8, 2004 03:04 AM | PERMALINK

3681 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

Posted by: texas holdem online at August 9, 2004 06:29 PM | PERMALINK

Best XXX Sites -
Teen Cash -
Gang Bang Squad -
Bang Boat -
Gang Bang -
Milf Rriders -
Oral Sex -
Anal Sex -
Group Sex -
Cum Shot -
Free Porn -
Free Sex

Posted by: Den at August 10, 2004 05:25 AM | PERMALINK

Best XXX Sites -
Teen Cash -
Gang Bang Squad -
Bang Boat -
Gang Bang -
Milf Rriders -
Oral Sex -
Anal Sex -
Group Sex -
Cum Shot -
Free Porn -
Free Sex
celebrity pics

Posted by: Den at August 10, 2004 06:24 AM | PERMALINK

6301 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 09:02 PM | PERMALINK

3823 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 09:04 PM | PERMALINK

5209 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com

Posted by: buy viagra at August 13, 2004 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

8408 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 09:22 PM | PERMALINK

8591 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com

Posted by: play blackjack at August 16, 2004 05:13 PM | PERMALINK

7637 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is
Krankenversicherung private and dont forget
Krankenversicherung gesetzlich and then again there is always beer

Posted by: Krankenversicherung at August 17, 2004 06:41 PM | PERMALINK

5739 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 09:19 PM | PERMALINK

4333

http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for
Adult DVD And Adult DVDS And Adult videos Thanks and dont forget Check out the diecast model
cars at http://www.diecastdot.com

Posted by: Adult DVD at August 19, 2004 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

3120 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 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

136 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 25, 2004 07:38 AM | PERMALINK

7846 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow

Posted by: online texas hold em at August 25, 2004 03:18 PM | PERMALINK