Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Best way to bump into Ed Gillespie of the RNC? Get in the gutter and troll for trash. He's always there.

The more we keep asking these questions, the closer we'll get to the answers. There is absolutely no good reason to not release those documents if Bush did everything right. And there is absolutely no reason why those documents wouldn't exist. And there is absolutely no reason why we don't deserve the full story. And there is absolutely no way to believe that the only documents we're allowed to see have half the points blacked out, or are torn, or are from time periods other than the specific 6 months or so in question.

Turn them over.
Turn them over!
Turn them over!

C'mon, yell with me...

Turn them over!
Turn them over!

hehe.

http://balta.blogspot.com

Isn't it true that a person convicted of a felony cannot serve as President later in life?
If so, a very parsimonious explanation of the panic over the records is that they indicate he was convicted of felonies before or during his TANG service. Comments?

This has been a huge 24 hours for the story of George Bush's disservice to this country.

Alabama vets have come forward to say that Bush never showed up.

Bush's immediate supervisor, Reese Bricken says Bush never showed up.

A senior NG official has stated that Bush's file was cleaned up. Two other senior NG officials have generally confirmed that he told them of this in 1997, when the incident occurred.

The release of the dentist's record shows (a) that George Bush was in Alabama when his biography says he was in Texas and (b) that he doesn't brush his teeth very often.

Colonel William Campenni, who published a letter in the Washington Times claiming to have served with Bush has been proven a liar; he is on record as having been in grad school in 1971-2 and then in the Pennsylvania Guard.

The list goes on.

So, of course, the mud machine goes in high gear. Anything to change the subject. But this time, the subject will not change.

Where were you in '72, Mr. Bush?

It's kinda hard to release records that were placed in the trash several years ago, now isn't it? Could this episode show the power of bloglandia in 2004 as opposed to 2000? Nothing is new here, just that the media finally decided to ask some questions. And we owe most of this to Michael Moore. You see. Outrageousness has its uses.

The timing could have been better. That is, perhaps Michael should have waited a couple of months before the election to throw out his deserter charges.

But we have been warned. Some Republican muckety muck on CNN warned that this will probably backfire on the Democrats. What does he really mean here? Had he read the Drudge report on Kerry's alleged infidelity when he said that?

And do people still (if they ever) care about infidelity. Didn't Clinton pretty much show that you can easily be elected and still have a bunch of infidelities under you belt. And why did Drudge wait until now to reveal this. Because he wanted to wait until Kerry was the front runner and then nail him. But whether he's truly nailed remains to be seen.

Actually, I don't think there is any prohibition against a felon serving as President. The only legal requirements for the Presidency are those in the Constitution: 35 years old, natural born U.S. citizen, 14-year U.S. resident.

the reeps should know not to rely on the "modified limited hangout." their boy, John Ehrlichman, warned of its tactical futility. rumor has it that he might have been an acquaintance of cheney and rumsfeld. but they still keep "modifying." the new polls are beginning to show the result.

Even if you throw out records in one file, they often inconveniently show up somewhere else, so the truth not only outs, but one begins to wonder what happened to the record in which they should have been but weren't. Besides, throwing away basic records -- like an application, etc., would be really suspicious. Sure, attendance records might have fallen through the cracks, but not the original commission, orders, and whatever waivers, etc., needed to be in place for the commission to be issued. Throwing away some documents would just be too obvious. I can't believe that what is in those documents is anything more than embarrassing, except that it would probably show a level of deceit that would be very hard to explain away at this point. Probably a much higher degree of favoritism as well. Being born on third base has its advantages, of course, but when you've been trying to pretend that you got there with a triple for the better part of 15 years, such clear evidence of favoritism must seem really humiliating.

" at a time when Weaver said there were numerous active duty pilots with combat experience eager to get flying billets in Guard units."

Which confirms what Col Campenni has said. Occam's Razor: Bush's explanation of his record fits the facts available to us. He got an honorable discharge because he served satisfactorily.

And, btw, the Washington Post has located an Alabama ANG officer who remembers Bush:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37904-2004Feb12?language=printer

" 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."

Here's how the Boston Globe wipes egg off its face:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/13/doubts_raised_on_bush_accuser/

-----------quote------------
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.

------------endquote--------------

So good of Patrick to come to the president's defense. But if there's no there there why don't they just release the record themselves like every other candidate for the presidency over the last 50+ years? Hmmmm. There's no answer for that, I don't care who else is lying.

>>

LOL. Of course, if something IS brought up in the 11th hour -- like the DWI conviction was brought up in 2000 -- the Bush spinmeisters throw a hissy fit about "late hits" and "dirty tricks."

I mean, why doesn't Scott just put a sign on his podium that says "four legs good; two legs bad" and be done with it?

As Calpundit points out, Conn's denial doesn't actaully contradict Burkett. Burkett says he saw an officer poring over the records and discovered that some had been discarded. Conn says he (Conn) never saw that.

Remind me, Patrick, how does Conn falsify Burkett?

Again, I commend progress. Not one comment so far has repeated the by now debunked claim that Bush was AWOL.

Thanks.

Less Shrill, more Filling.

So, what is the charge now? The Shrub is supposed to turn over the records to prove he is NOT guilty of ... what, exactly? I forget.

"Not one comment so far has repeated the by now debunked claim that Bush was AWOL."

Only because the definition of AWOL in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 appears to have been purely metaphysical -- at least for Shrub. It may have existed, but only in the realm of abstract thought.

I mean, as a common sense proposition, I would have thought taking off for Alabama in May, then applying for a transfer nine days later, then having that request rejected, and then hanging around Montgomery for another three months anyway, would have constituted going AWOL.

But apparently it failed the Bush family test: For us, all things are permitted.

pouncer: he did not exactly rush to do his promised duty, did he? but some have suggested that those may have been days of loose practices in the guard. why could he not arrange the flight medical to keep from being disqualified after the expensive training? just release the whole file, as the distinguished soldier wesley clark has done. let it all hang out, as we said in the sixties. what advantage lies in doing anything else, if not to hide something?

Pouncer: I have no idea what Bush was doing in the early 70s, and I don't even care that much. This whole issue is a sideshow.

But I am happy to see the GOP squirm. I mean, if it's fair game to repeat the easily refuted charge that Al Gore said he "invented" the Internet along with the implication that he had no right to take credit for being among its earliest supporters in Congress (e.g. see Kahn and Cerf http://www.politechbot.com/p-01394.html) then surely it's fair game to repeat the not so easily refuted (and possibly true) charge that Bush missed some guard service he should have attended and somehow got his records smoothed over.

All the protests from Bush supporters on this matter amount to a call for unilateral disarmament by the opposition. Who can take this seriously at such a late hour? The 2002 election shows the effectiveness of "play nice and hope the voters come to their senses" as a political strategy.

> The Shrub is supposed to turn over the records to prove he is NOT guilty of ... what, exactly? I forget.

It's reasonable to expect Bush to turn over his entire files because that's what a reasonable person would conclude that he agreed to on Meet the Press.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1076497178284961.xml

" 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."

" It's reasonable to expect Bush to turn over his entire files because that's what a reasonable person would conclude that he agreed to on Meet the Press."

That's not what Bush said to Russert.

>That's not what Bush said to Russert.

But it IS what a reasonable personable would conclude that he meant by this:

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

President Bush: Yes, absolutely.

Any other interpretation is what used to be called "Clintonian word parsing" if I recall correctly.

" Remind me, Patrick, how does Conn falsify Burkett?"

Try reading the article for which I gave the url:

-----------quote-----------
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."
--------endquote----------

Paul, I would expect a reasonable person to READ THE TRANSCRIPT, which our host has provided for us of the Meet the Press interview. And, comprehend:

----------quote---------
Russert: But would you allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period?

President Bush: Yeah. If we still have them, but I you know, the records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records.

And I'm just telling you, I did my duty, and it's politics, you know, to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me. But I have been through it before. I'm used to it. What I don't like is when people say serving in the Guard is is may not be a true service.

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

President Bush: Yes, absolutely.

--------endquote-------

Bush is referring to Russert's: "pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period". And he appears to have done so, including a record of a dental exam performed at Dannelly Air Base.

It is beyond dispute now. Bush attended meetings in Alabama. He acquired the "points" needed to meet his obligation. This whole thing is baloney, and has always been so. It is obvious to anyone trained in the basics of logic.

It is nice to have Patrick posting on this site to keep things interesting but he must be more than a little uncomfortable with the obvious: if there is nothing to hide the Bush administration would have laid this to rest by now by finding and releasing all the documents. To try to spin Bush's reply to Russert's direct question on this central point of telling all strikes me as being just plain disingenuous.

No need to read the transcript. It's a reasonable thing to do because GWB is the president and hopes to remain so. It's what every other would-be president has done. Why does GWB expect "affirmative action" on this particular point compared to all the other applicants?

The thing that is obvious is that the unhinged Bush haters who started out claiming Bush was a deserter or AWOL, had to eat crow on the issue. To save face they've come up with something new, hoping some other embarrassment might surface.

Btw, "every other would be president" has not done this. Bill Clinton famously refused to release his medical records. And, of course, he had no service records to release.

Patrick: it depends on what the meaning of "Bush 'is' a lying sack of manure" is.