Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

That's why the Democratic Party needs to get with the program and learn how to do rapid insertion in the media.

Won't happen this cycle, the powers that be think they've got this licked. It will take another goring for them to get it - unless someone decides to set up a 527 to fix the problem themselves.

In the meantime Tony Blair is embroiled in a scandal over spying out the U.N., including Kofi Annan's office, at the behest of the United States' NSA:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1156694,00.html

Remember the days when a U.S. President was forced to resign because he knew about spying ops on the Democratic campaign headquarter? Good times, simple times.

The Center of American Progress is new, but they mostly get it. They have quite good "rapid response." I got an email from them about 30 minutes after Bush's MTP interview. Of course, they are contrained by both facts and human decency, so they're at a disadvantage.

btw, I see on "The Corner" that they're now calling Massachusetts the Gay State. Funny, huh? great stuff over there.

Aw, good grief.

Yeah, the Democrats NEVER do anything like "opposition research." The big crocodile tears over the Unfairness Of It All when the Democrats practically invented the political dirty trick is a bit lame.

Of course, the Democrats are pretty good at playing innocent. "That precisely timed DUI flap in 2000? Who us?" Next you'll tell us James Carville has joined a monastery.

everybody does oppo research, tbrosz: that's hardly an insight.

What the Bush-Cheney-Gillespie machine practice is much more than oppo research: it's a debasement of the whole idea of democracy, since no opposition to the party line can possibly be allowed to exist, and any slimy claim of any sort is legitimate in that context.

As for Bush's DUI: a.) it really happened, unlike the garbage that the RNC is busy claiming for Kerry; b.) if it was "precisely timed," it was precisely wrongly timed - for the DUI story to have shifted votes, it would have needed to be released weeks before the vote, not minutes....

Mr. tbroz has a point. Along those lines, I suggest that the "Republican Slime Machine" is about to have its ass handed to it. Just watch. And marvel.

And the slime will follow the Bush family tradition...remember when Daddy Bush saw he was in trouble, and suddenly discovered the massive threat that flag burning posed to the Republic?

Also, remember McCain in 2000 and Max Cleland in 2004.

Dubya is a phony and a fraud...he will play the "likeable" leader, above the fray while Rove, Gillespie and the other surrogates parcel out the slime to others to maintain deniability for Shrub.

But, remember, Bush is a man who "speaks with moral clarity", as we are reminded ad nauseum.

The cynical and deceitful campaign he will run is a disgrace, or it would be if he had any shame.....what is even worse is his professed Christianity....for some of us, he is an embarassment.

A leader worthy of respect would not allow the things he does in his name.

But, apparently the likes of tbrosz are untroubled...I guess the aroma is too good to pass up from where they are positioned.

I've been collecting Kerry smears and posting them at my URL. In most cases there's quite considerable mistrepresentation and twisting -- it goes beyond simple OR. It's all directed at people who have no other information and who will NOT look for other sources. The official party and media attacks are supplemented by internet smears which are even more dubious, but which often creep into the legit press.

My feeling is that it's game time, and there's really no reason to communicate with tbrosz. His loyalties are clear, and if he wins, we lose, and if we win, he loses. His responses are all kneejerk partisan, whether they make any sense or have any content or not.

My comparison is with trash talkers in a basketball game. Their only goal is to get into your head and make you a worse player. If you feel obligated to engage in civic discourse with them, you will just waste your time.

Persons of this type have an enormous sense of entitlement and feel that they should be welcomed everywhere. It's part of their attack. Sometimes I'm accused of being a Stalinist for saying what I justsaid, and sometimes a fascist -- I wish they'd make up their minds.

The most egregious Republican attempt to smear the Democrats was Newt Gingrich's before the 1994 election. He claimed that Sharon Smith, the mother who had drowned her kids in order to run off with her lover, was the result of Democratic Party rule. Totally loony and loathesome, but it gets worse: it turned out that Smith's stepfather, a Republican Party state committeeman and Moral Majority member (Beverly Russell), had sexually molested Smith for years wghen she was growing up.

That was the election when Gingrich became Speaker of the House. And of course, while the completely unwarranted smear against the Democrats got coverage, once it was found that Smith indeed WAS the victim of a Republican Party official, the story died.

If Democrats really were as bad as Republicans, "Beverly Russell" would be a household name. It isn't.

Republican Family Values Sex Criminals

volks,

has anyone here thought about going on the offensive?

from the worried shrimp:
http://www.mind.net/basile/DeficitDubya120.html
click the link, view the image, deal with the issue.

http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.sex.htm

RNC chair - oh no I never questioned Kerry's patriotism. And pay no attention to my instructions to my minions to do so.

This URL has real red meat to attack Bush with. It's also a completely valid issue -- Bush's record on counter-terrorism isn't good and never was:

http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.binladen.htm

Bush is saying in his campaign speeches that he does not hear many ideas from Dems about improving the economy. This seems an admission that things are not well. But I think we ought to be putting some out there to counter this. If I had to say something, I would say reconfigure the tax cuts to put more money in the hands of lower income people who must spend it.

Yes indeed. I'm not about to complain about the slime. This time around, the motherfuckers are going to find out what slime is really all about. I'm sort of looking forward to it. Little George has given us a bottomless well of slime to draw from. You don't even have to be creative. Hell you don't even have to make anything up. To paraphrase Harry Truman. We just need to tell the truth and it will feel like slime.

Check out the article at http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/ for a debunking of the sliming of Kerry's voting record on defense. Interesting stuff.

"That was the election when Gingrich became Speaker of the House. And of course, while the completely unwarranted smear against the Democrats got coverage, once it was found that Smith indeed WAS the victim of a Republican Party official, the story died."

I also remember Gingrich's crack about how Woody Allen was a great example of "Democratic family values." That was too much even for George Will, who has some, um, similar issues.

I agree with tbrosz on one thing -- all this boo hoo hoo about how unfair the Republicans are is pretty pointless. THE VLWC just needs to try harder to inject OUR ugly stories into the mainstream media.

If they won't bite on Dick Cheney's "other priorities," we can try Shrub's BCCI connection. If they won't go for that, maybe something will turn up about his community service gig in Houston. Or maybe the abortion story will take off (if Larry Flynt can deliver the goods, that is).

There are plenty of possibilities out there, although I think in the end the REALLY ugly stories -- Iraq, Plamegate, Enron economics, their own bloody incompetence -- will be the most effective.

The slime is just old southern political method that goes back to the 'nigger, nigger' campaigns a century ago, which the conservative establishment used to split the (still voting) Black and poor White vote. It's harder to make it work at the national level, which is why the pitch is to the border states and the lower tier of counties in the Ohio valley.

I'm watching the history channel and there is some thing about warfare in the middle ages on. They describe a weapon called a bill. It is like a hook and a blade on a poll, that a footsoldier used to unhorse a knight by hooking him with it and pulling him to the ground. The guy who carried the bill was called a billman. Guess that is what we need.

"What the Bush-Cheney-Gillespie machine practice is much more than oppo research: it's a debasement of the whole idea of democracy, since no opposition to the party line can possibly be allowed to exist, and any slimy claim of any sort is legitimate in that context."

You probably have no idea how humorous it is to see countless articles, hundreds of websites, thousands of people marching in the streets, opinions on television, and books on Amazon, all of them describing what a four-star son of a bitch Bush is, how his entire administration stinks on ice, and how Bush doesn't permit any dissenting opinions in America.

Why is it that when Democrats fish around in what Bush was up to 30 years ago, this is fine. But when Republicans do it to Kerry, it is "sliming"?

Seems hypocritical, especially as Kerry's actions were related to public policy whereas Bush's were not.

Oh well.

another adroit, insightful comment from tbrosz. i should just listen to Zizka....

Of course, as is so often the case, tbrosz plays word games here: as prof delong points out on a regular basis, these people are the living embodiment of many orwellian tendencies, and they treat oppo research accordingly.

as much as I disagree with their political views, I have to admit that tbrosz and person are right. Taking the moral high ground is fine and all, but democrats have and will continue to slime Bush as much as is humanly possible. The difference was that after 9/11 the media would not print views critical of the administration, which led to a huge one-sided vacuum of "either with us or against us" mentality. Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and the republicans are desperate to try to regain their slime high ground. I don't think it will be so easy for them to dominate the political discourse in this election, though. Clinton's penis seems to have faded in importance compared with Bush's snake oil scam which resulted in our unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation.

Re: "Why is it that when Democrats fish around in what Bush was up to 30 years ago, this is fine. But when Republicans do it to Kerry, it is "sliming"?"

Because Kerry wasn't doing it...

Re: "Because Kerry wasn't doing it..."

That makes zero sense. Bush is no more responsible or this "sliming" than Kerry was for "sliming" Bush.

In both cases, the "sliming" is being performed by less senior politicians, party apparatchiks, friendly journalists and partisan bloggers.

The charge of hypocrisy stands.

I think we need to know what John Kerry was doing with Jane Fonda back in 1970. Maybe there's sex involved too. Inquiring minds want to know. Bring it on!!!

person,

You missed Brad's point. The Republican slimers are LYING. As in WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACT(S) AT HAND.

This has nothing to do with hypocrisy, unless one considers your hypocritical defense of LYING.

Non-economist - in what way was our invasion of a sovereign nation "unilateral"? I take it you are referring to Iraq, where we have had diplomatic support from dozens of countries, troops on the ground from Great Britain, Australia and I think Poland, joined by perhaps a dozen others in peacekeeping operations since the war ended.

Please explain how this is "unilateral". I make it quadralateral at the least, and mostly much more than that.

Does George W. Bush REALLY want a day-by-day playback of the late 1960's and early 1970's? That is, what he was doing in great detail in that time period? We've already seen how much recent trouble the Bushies had in accounting for a few week-ends in the National Guard in that time framework--would they be comfortable in looking more closely for more detail? If so, bring it on.

Charles

"Aw, good grief."

When we get around to impeaching Bush over a blow job, call me.

" Because Kerry wasn't doing it..."

Oh yes he was. He jumped on the AWOL bandwagon, but later seemed to realize how it opened up his own activities of 30 years ago, and shut up.

But it is amusing to see the party of Paul Begala, James Carville, Terry McAuliffe, and Paul Krugman complaining about "slime".

Do the usual suspects consider this to be "slime":

NATIONAL JOURNAL on Friday claimed Democrat frontrunner John Kerry has the "most liberal" voting record in the Senate.

The results of Senate vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5 -- far ahead of such Democrat stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

NATIONAL JOURNAL's scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy.

"To be sure, Kerry's ranking as the No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003 -- and his earning of similar honors three times during his first term, from 1985 to 1990 -- will probably have opposition researchers licking their chops," NATIONAL JOURNAL reports.

My position is that we do not need to match the Republican dishonesty, but only their diligence and ferocity.

The anti-Kerry smears I'm collecting are mostly quite dishonest, and many are also self-refuting. Examples: Kerry has taken some money from special interest groups, Kerry has changed his stands onf some positions, and Kerry is wealthy and has some investments. At worst, none of these are really things that differentiate Kerry from Bush; in actual fact, in these respects Kerry looks better than Bush. In terms of special-interest contributions, there's an enormous disparity in favor of Kerry -- honesty-wise; dollar-wise the advantage is Bush's. Bush is the most successful influence-peddler in U.S. history.

As I said, the name "Beverly Russell" should be a household word. The facts are on our side, and if he were a Democrat everyone would know who he is and what he did. But he's a Republican.

Viciousness yes, lying no.

The internet Bush hacks have a desperate air to them these days. They change the subject wildly and shout "The Democrats are just as bad". It's pretty much a confession of defeat when your rallying cry is "No worse than my opponent".

How many here would agree that George W. Bush is a utility-maximizing agent whilst denying that any Democrat is the same? If we are to try and model the actions of those in the political sphere, is it an appropriate assumption that some politicians are good and others bad?

I had an aha moment when I saw the Kerry with Jane Fonda photo on TV. I noticed Jane F. was wearing a helmit and I remebered that she did this in a well known photo of her that did not include Kerry. This photo first appeared on the RNC web site and then went on from there to news outlets. It has since been exposed as a fraud and the RNC has taken it down. Of course this was known as "rewriting history" when Stalin did it and was new in the early twentieth century. My aha moment when I recognized that photo on Fox News as a fraud-Yes it can happen here.

Podhoretz's column (con.):

"But then Kerry was throwing around a lot of collective-guilt accusations in those days. He went before the Senate and accused his fellow American soldiers in Vietnam of 'crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.' He compared American conduct in Vietnam to the behavior of Genghis Khan, and said American forces 'generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war.' "

Actually, what he said was that a great many US soliders he'd talked to had admited that they themselves had commited such crimes. He was correct; they did. Take a look at the piece in the April 17, 1995 New Republic by the decidedly non-radical Charles Lane on the extent to which the My Lai massacre was just one part of a consistent pattern of behavior by the Americal division -- including the massacre of 20 people in the village of My Khe on the same day as My Lai, for which no one was ever punished -- and the extent to which Colin Powell played a central role in covering up the My Lai massacre. Also, take a look at Douglas Brinkley's piece on Kerry in the December "Atlantic".

Pat Sullivan: "Do the usual suspects consider this to be "slime"? NATIONAL JOURNAL on Friday claimed Democrat frontrunner John Kerry has the 'most liberal' voting record in the Senate."

Hardly, Patrick. (They rated him the 9th most liberal in 2002, by the way.) To quote their complete headline (which, unfortunately, is all I have access to):

"John Kerry is ranked 'most liberal,' and some Republicans who normally are among the most-conservative members find themselves keeping company with moderates in National Journal's 2003 vote ratings."

Ignoring that intriguing last phrase, calling Kerry "liberal" is of course not quite the same thing as what Podhoretz caled him. This is probably an appropriate time to quote the end of the Washington Post's Feb. 8 piece on his Senate voting record ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A22260-2004Feb7¬Found=true ):

"Republicans who have worked with him, especially the closely knit bipartisan brotherhood of Vietnam veterans in the Senate, see a more complicated portrait of Kerry. 'He's bright, very articulate, tough . . . the complete package,' said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a Vietnam vet who is personally close to Kerry. 'He's the most difficult opponent we can face in November.' "

"...the massacre of 20 people in the village of My Khe on the same day as My Lai, for which no one was ever punished."

A typo on my part. It was actually 90 people.

Interesting and informative item (which I've heard before) in Mimi Swartz's piece in yesterday's NY Times about Bush's Guard service ( http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/opinion/27SWAR.html?pagewanted=print&position= ) :

"Let's start at the beginning, with the 1994 governor's race between Ann Richards and Mr. Bush. Like many of George W. Bush's early opponents, the Richards team made the mistake of underestimating him. Ms. Richards's consultants and campaign strategists tried to portray Mr. Bush, initially at least, as a son of privilege who couldn't possibly be taken seriously... Mr. Bush's military record emerged as a weapon in the son-of-privilege arsenal, but the story had weak legs.

"This was partly because the records that the consultants and reporters possessed were incomplete — they were torn, with Mr. Bush's name and other crucial pieces of information blacked out — but also because the Richards campaign backed off the issue. As many people in Texas and beyond now know, Mr. Bush's Guard unit included more than a few sons of the state's rich and powerful, including Lloyd Bentsen III, son of the state's august Democratic senator. As Patrick Woodson, one of Ms. Richards's campaign consultants, told me earlier this month, 'We were unofficially told that because of Bentsen's kid the Guard thing was not on the table.'

"Then, too, the questions about Mr. Bush's military record were not focused on what he did in the Texas Guard but on how he managed to get in at a time when the waiting list for the National Guard, for instance, contained more than 100,000 names. Local reporters could coax one former Democratic state official into admitting, off the record, that he had interceded on Mr. Bush's behalf at the request of either a prominent Dallas businessman or George H. W. Bush, who was then a member of Congress. But the official's story — the source was later revealed to be former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes — was subject to change and there were no documents to support his claims."

Privilege is a wonderful thing. Now, what do you suppose all those stars of Texas' power structure (both Republican and Democratic) were so frantic to conceal about that particular Guard unit? Surely nothing sinister -- after all, Pat Sullivan keeps assuring us that Bush's entry into the guard was entirely legitimate and had nothing to do with any attempt to dodge Vietnam. (Sullivan can console himself, however, with the fact that Swartz goes on to say that Bush as governor was not the dumbbell he's appeared to be since entering the White House.)

Bruce continues to embarrass himself over Bush's service. Bush was a fighter pilot, and there were no waiting lists for that occupation in the Texas ANG (at least not the unit Bush got into). The man who recruited him, retired Gen. Walter Staudt said there was no political influence used, because none was needed. The Guard NEEDED pilots (was Bentsen a pilot, I don't know). The records indicate the unit was understaffed in 1968.

And, typical of Bruce's sloppiness: "the state's august Democratic senator Lloyd Bentsen", was not even in government in 1968. He had been a congressman in the '50s, but wasn't elected to the Senate until 1970.

One person, a Democrat, has said he RECOMMENDED Bush be accepted. Whether that is true is in dispute. However, one can't even get into grad school without letters of recommendation, so why would anyone be surprised the ANG might require them.

http://www.adaction.org/lifetimesenmassachusetts.html

Note that Kerry's lifetime rating is the highest of the four Senators. To the left of Ted Kennedy.

Patrick, I KNOW that Bentsen wasn't elected Senator until 1970 (although he had spent a couple of terms in the House in the early 1950s). Typical of YOUR sloppiness: there's nothing in Swartz's article that says that Bentsen Jr. used pull to get into that same elite Guard unit as Bush until after his daddy had gotten into the Senate. What she does indicate -- and I've read this from several Texas sources before, although not in as much detail -- is that that particular Guard unit was set up specifically as a refuge from Vietnam for the sons of prominent Texas pols, and that Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes now admits that he was the man with the Keys to the Kingdom. (Barnes was the all-purpose fixer in Texas politics at the time -- a role that finally got him into serious legal trouble in 1972 and forced him to retire from politics just when he was planning a run for governor. I followed that story while it was taking place, while I was in college.)

"Note that Kerry's lifetime rating is the highest of the four Senators. To the left of Ted Kennedy."

Shocking! (But not quite the same thing Podhoretz said about him.) In this connection, by the way, Bob Barr is now opposing Bush's proposed gay marriage amendment as too radical (see his interview on the MSNBC site), and Tom Delay, Orrin Hatch and Sen. George Allen are expressing serious queasiness about it. Which leaves one wondering what kind of Senate record Bush would have by now, had he been elected to the Senate.

"What she does indicate -- and I've read this from several Texas sources before, although not in as much detail -- is that that particular Guard unit was set up specifically as a refuge from Vietnam for the sons of prominent Texas pols..."

I should have added that the earlier articles (which I haven't found the links to yet; it's been awhile) specifically listed young Bush and young Bentsen as among its beneficiaries. (I should also have added that Barnes had actually launched his 1972 run for governor when the legal roof fell in on him, and that -- as a result -- while he had started out as the landslide favorite, he ended up with about 12% of the primary vote and only narrowly avoided jail.)

" Typical of YOUR sloppiness: there's nothing in Swartz's article that says that Bentsen Jr. used pull to get into that same elite Guard unit as Bush until after his daddy had gotten into the Senate."

Sure there is, the word "august". It means venerable, and a first term senator sworn in in January 1971 wouldn't be "august" even a year and a half later when the draft officially ended. And it was unofficially over for most of us before that with the Vietnamization of the war.

Er, Patrick. I told you that I'd already read elsewhere (CBS, I believe) that Bentsen's boy got into that particular Guard unit, and that it was notorious in Texas for being utilized to shelter the sons of prominent Texas politicoes from service in Vietnam. Against this, the best you can do is to say that when Mimi Swartz -- as a longtime reporter for the Texas Monthly -- said exactly this same thing in this Times article, she didn't really mean it because when she called Bentsen "august" she meant that he was "venerable" rather than just that he was "influential"? (To say nothing of the fact that -- by the time Bush ran against Richards, and Richards' campaign staff were forbidden to use this issue "because of the Bentsen kid" -- Bentsen really WAS venerable?)

Jesus fucking Christ. Give it up. You have most definitely hit the point of diminishing returns. My advice is that you stick to trying to prove that Kerry was also a draft-dodger -- and that, during all those years in which he was famous for sending his boat voluntarily into the mouth of danger, he was really in a fugue state.

From the Washington Post ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm ):

"Bush was sworn in as an airman the same day he applied. His commander, Col. Walter B. 'Buck' Staudt, was apparently so pleased to have a VIP's son in his unit that he later staged a special ceremony so he could have his picture taken administering the oath, instead of the captain who actually had sworn Bush in. Later, when Bush was commissioned a second lieutenant by another subordinate, Staudt again staged a special ceremony for the cameras, this time with Bush's father the congressman – a supporter of the Vietnam War – standing proudly in the background.

"Bush's father went on to run for senator in 1970 against Lloyd Bentsen Jr. – a prominent Texas Democrat whose own son had been placed in the same Texas Guard unit by the same Col. Staudt around the same time as Bush. On Election Day, before the polls closed, Guard commanders nominated both George W. Bush and Lloyd Bentsen III for promotion to first lieutenant – even as the elder Bentsen was defeating the elder Bush.

"Three decades later, as Bush begins a campaign for the presidency that has invited new scrutiny of his life, Staudt and other Guard commanders insist no favoritism was shown to him. But others active in Texas politics in the 1960s say the Texas National Guard was open to string-pulling by the well-connected, and there are charges that the then-speaker of the Texas legislature helped George W. gain admittance."

The then-speaker was Barnes.

Daniel Schorr ("Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 20):

"The real issue, painful in a society that prides itself on being egalitarian, is privilege - who got to serve in the Guard's 'champagne unit' as [Bush's] unit was called, and who went to Vietnam, perhaps to die.

"It was all inside and cozy back in Texas then. Lloyd Bentsen III, son of a future senator, got a coveted slot in the Houston-based guard unit. John Connally III, son of the former governor, got another. And in 1968, George Bush, son of Houston's congressman, made it after Ben Barnes, Speaker of the Texas House, talked to the head of the National Guard on the young man's behalf. Bush's first solo flight made headlines in the Houston papers."

Now, why do you suppose they called it "the champagne unit"? Because all those brave young men drank a lot of champagne the night before they volunteered to fly in Vietnam?

From http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html :

BUZZFLASH SPECIAL GUEST COMMENTARY
By James C. Moore, co-author of "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W.Bush Presidential"

"President George W. Bush is a draft dodger. And his cowardice is the worst kind. Mr. Bush avoided both combat and making any kind of political statement on the War in Vietnam. While others served, giving their lives and limbs, or took part in a protest movement to end the war, the president's family connections got him a safe spot in the Texas Air National Guard. This is not the profile of a leader.

"In 1994, during his first run for Governor of Texas, I was a panelist on a televised debate between Mr. Bush and Ann Richards. I was the first person in his life to ask him how he got into the National Guard so easily when there were more than 100,000 young men on waiting lists around the country. Mr. Bush said there was a shortage of pilots and he was willing to make the six year training commitment that others were not.

"That is not true. There was no shortage. And when he got one of the coveted spots, Mr. Bush failed to honor his commitment.

"Sgt. Donald Barnhart of the Texas Guard said there was a waiting list of 150 names for Bush's unit and a minimum of 18 months passed before an applicant was moved to the top. Historian for the Texas Air National Guard, Tom Hall, reported Bush's Houston air wing was authorized for 29 pilots and had 27. But two replacements were already in training and another pilot was awaiting transfer. There was no shortage.

"But there were family connections.

"In a deposition for an unrelated lawsuit, former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes said he took a call from Bush family friend Sid Adger, a Houston businessman, asking for the favor of moving Bush up on the Guard's waiting list. Barnes said he called General James Rose, commanding officer of the Guard, and the request was granted. Adger was one of former President Bush's oldest and closest friends. A spokesman said the first President Bush 'loved' Mr. Adger.

"The son of then Congressman George H. W. Bush joined an Air Guard unit at
Ellington Air Force Base, where he served with the son of U.S. Senator John Tower and Lloyd Bentsen III, also a Texas senator's son.

"Immediately after basic training, Bush got a direct appointment to Second Lieutenant, circumventing a rigorous qualification process, which normally involved Officer Candidate School. Charles Shoemake, who retired from the Texas Guard as a full colonel, said such appointments were rare, hard to get, and required extensive credentials. 'I went from master sergeant to first lieutenant based on my three years in college and 15 years as a non-commissioned officer,' he said. 'Then I got considered for a direct appointment.'

"During his answer to my debate question in 1994, Mr. Bush said he could have been called up for duty in Vietnam. He had to know that was not true, either. On his Guard application, the future president checked a box saying he did 'not' want to be considered for overseas deployment. Additionally, he was hundreds of hours short of flight time required for foreign duty, and the aircraft he flew, the F-102 was no longer being used in Southeast Asia."

So. Bush's son, Bentsen's son, Connally's son, and Tower's son, all in the same unit. Have I patted down the earth on the grave adequately enough?

According to "Wikipedia", seven then-active members of the Dallas Cowboys were also in the Champagne Unit.

NY Times, Feb. 15:

"Yet despite [Bush's] inclination to support the war and his professed desire to serve as a fighter pilot, there is no disputing that he avoided signing up with the Air Force, a course that could have led to the perilous skies over Vietnam. Instead, two weeks before graduation, he opted to seek a slot in the 147th Fighter Group, a Texas Air National Guard unit whose main mission was to defend the Gulf Coast...

"The 147th Fighter Group, based at Ellington Air Base in Houston, was nicknamed the Champagne Unit because it had so many sons of Texas privilege, including Lloyd Bentsen III, son of a future U.S. senator, and John Connally III, son of the former Texas governor."

I do hope I won't have to deal with this issue anymore -- although I doubt it. If no quantity of wooden stakes driven through the heart could keep Christopher Lee down permanently, I imagine the same will be true of Patrick.

Bruce, you have to be positively one of the thickest people I have ever encountered here. The evidence--not theories made up by people who hate George W. Bush--tells us that the 147th was looking for pilots. They only had two in training when they accepted Bush, and in May of 1968 we were at the peak of the Vietnam War. No one could predicted that training to be a fighter pilot would be a way to avoid combat.

Highly amusing that you think it significant that a military recruiter would want to publicize that a congressman's son had gotten his wings. I'd think it would be a recruiter's wet dream to have such come into your office tell you he wanted to "learn to fly just like his daddy". And a Yale grad to boot.

Do yourself a favor, Bruce, there are several websites devoted to elementary logic. You ought to peruse one of them.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h071399_1.shtml

---------quote----------
UPI quotes Serrano's [LA Times] absurdly vague claim that Bush received "favorable treatment." (But not without improving the claim. UPI makes the treatment "highly favorable.") Most strikingly, UPI repeats Serrano's image of the 100,000 men on those lists. Yesterday, we noted the irrelevance of this item; the 100,000 men were in other states, and Serrano never refutes Col. Walter Staudt's claim that there was no waiting list for pilot applicants in Texas. The image of the 100,000 men suggests Bush somehow jumped them in line, although Serrano offer no evidence that Bush was ever leap-frogged over anyone.

[snip]

SERRANO: (20) Staudt, who retired in 1972 as a brigadier general, said Bush's expedited acceptance into the Guard was justified by a shortage of volunteers to be pilots.

(21) "Nobody did anything for him," Staudt said in an interview"There was no goddamn influence on his behalf. Neither his daddy nor anybody else got him into the Guard."

[snip]

look at the data Serrano cites in paragraph 24. He says Bush's unit was authorized for 29 pilots; the unit had 27 on staff, with two in training; and one other pilot was awaiting transfer (we assume he means transfer in). To Serrano, these figures mean there was no reason to be training another pilot. But the fact that 27 pilots were on staff when Bush applied does not tell us when they were scheduled to leave the Guard; if half the pilots were about to leave, there would be a clear need to train pilots.
----------endquote----------

Dept. of "NO KIDDING":

"On his Guard application, the future president checked a box saying he did 'not' want to be considered for overseas deployment. Additionally, he was hundreds of hours short of flight time required for foreign duty, and the aircraft he flew, the F-102 was no longer being used in Southeast Asia."

That he didn't have any hours in a cockpit BEFORE he went through pilot training is news to you Bruce?

But, you're wrong about F-102s not being in Vietnam at the time. They were, and they were piloted by ANG officers including some from the Texas. Three of Bush's fellow pilots confirm that he tried to volunteer for the Vietnam assignment. Of course, in the black helicopter world inhabitted by Bruce Moomaw, since the program was cancelled AFTER Bush tried to get in, that is evidence Bush KNEW it was going to be cancelled.

Since Bruce has such an active imagination, perhaps he'd like to speculate some about John Kerry. Who had some fairly famous political connections himself (seen the pictures of the young Kerry on a yacht with JFK I?). Do you suppose Kerry needed someone to recommend he get into the Navy as an officer?

And does Bruce think that being an electrician on a ship is more dangerous duty than flying an F-102 out over the Gulf of Mexico (hint: something like 260 F-102s crashed in non-combat assignments with 70 pilots losing their lives).

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h071499_1.shtml

--------quote-----------
Here is how the Morning News reported data which Hail provided:

SLOVER AND KUEMPEL: (13) Records provided to The News by Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, show that the unit Mr. Bush signed up for was not filled. In mid-1968, the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, based in Houston, had 156 openings among its authorized staff of 925 military personnel.

(14) Of those, 26 openings were for officer slots, such as that filled by Mr. Bush, and 130 were for enlisted men and women. Also, several former Air Force pilots who served in the unit said they were recruited from elsewhere to fly for the Texas Guard.

According to the Morning News, there were many open spots in Bush's unit, and the unit was looking for pilots.
-----------endquote------------

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h071599_1.shtml

------------quote---------------
We couldn't help chuckling, here at DAILY HOWLER World Headquarters, when we scanned our clips on the Bush-in-war stories, and hit upon a next-day dispatch from the Washington Times. The Times was reviewing the July 4 pieces that discussed how Bush got in the Guard:

THE WASHINGTON TIMES (AP): Bush spokeswoman Karen Hughes said the Texas Air National Guard was short of pilots, and a candidate had to be a commissioned officer to go to flight school.
"The military found him absolutely qualified to be commissioned," she said.

The [Los Angeles] Times said it was told by Tom Hail, a historian of the Texas Air National Guard, that Mr. Bush's unit had 27 pilots at the time he began applying, two short of its authorized strength.

We could only chuckle when we read the passage about Air Guard historian Hail. In the Washington Times/AP rendition, historian Hail gave data which showed Bush's unit had been in need of pilots. But in the L. A. Times article the AP was citing, Hail was cited making the opposite point. Hail said the unit had 27 pilots, all right. But he also cited two pilots in training, and one more who was transferring in:

SERRANO: Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, said that records do not show a pilot shortage in the Guard squadron at the time.
Do show, do not show--it's close enough for the press corps! Hail, cited by the L. A. Times as saying one thing, was quickly written up saying the opposite.
-------------endquote---------

The remainder of that Daily Howler column -- which Patrick, strangely, doesn't quote:

"We could only chuckle when we read the passage about Air Guard historian Hail. In the Washington Times/AP rendition, historian Hail gave data which showed Bush's unit had been in need of pilots. But in the L. A. Times article the AP was citing, Hail was cited making the opposite point. Hail said the unit had 27 pilots, all right. But he also cited two pilots in training, and one more who was transferring in:

"Do you see, dear readers, why we're less than sanguine about exploring the lives of the hopefuls? In principle, it would only be prudent. But the work would have to be done by the press--and the Bush-in-war stories show the problems that occur when this press corps goes after big game. Back to Hail--each of the original articles had cited the scholar, giving data on Guard staffing matters. But the two articles had Hail making opposite points--it was as if he was discussing two different Guard units--and the next day, the AP took what Hail told the L. A. Times, and completely reversed his point. (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/14/99, for our report on the dueling Hail treatments.)

"Will the press corps try to straighten this mess--try to sort out the confusion? Please. In the aftermath of the Bush-in-war stories, we saw no one call attention to the puzzling way the stories presented contradictory information (from the same source). We saw no one point to the grisly spin that littered the L. A. Times piece.

"And we saw no one suggest that there might be a point in trying to develop an accurate story. Indeed, a press corps that had just spent three embarrassing months discussing Vice President Gore's 4-H record seemed to have no particular interest in examining Bush in the Guard.

"Several news programs devoted time to the story, but the coverage was typically weak. On Meet the Press, Serrano appeared, and the following exchange took place:

"TIM RUSSERT: Now, your article specifically states, 'While there is no evidence of illegality or regulations broken to accommodate Bush's entry and rise in the service, documents do show that doors were opened and good fortune flowed to him at opportune times.' But if he didn't do anything illegal or didn't break any regulations, how important or how serious is this allegation?

"SERRANO: Well, it's serious in the sense that others probably had to go into the regular service because of the favoritism that he got. We're not alleging that he pushed any buttons or that his father pushed any buttons. What we are trying to point out, this was a time, you know, thirty years ago--the Guard officials knew or were aware that his father was a congressman. There was a son of Senator Lloyd Bentsen who also got into the Guard rather quickly. But, you know, they wanted them in there. It was good PR for them, and it was certainly an accommodation for the young Bush.

"But did Bush receive 'favoritism,' or an inappropriate 'accommodation?' It's precisely that question Serrano's article doesn't answer--although none of the panelists, perhaps understandably, seemed prepared to address the problems with the article on the very morning it appeared in the press.

"Given the caliber of our current press corps, maybe it's better that matters like this not come up. Here's the sort of thing that occurs when this gang starts talkin' bio:

"WARREN: Gang, doesn't this look a little bit like Dan Quayle in 1982, the notion of preferential treatment in getting into the Indiana National Guard? But then again, who is [Bush] up against? Most of the [other candidates] had no combat service...

"CHAREN: I cannot stand it. I cannot stand the double standard of the press on this issue. They always ask Republicans whether they had special influence, family and so on that helped them get--when Al Gore was named as Clinton's vice president, the press had a huge lovefest. 'Oh, he served in Vietnam'...He served as a journalist and he used parental influence, his father was a senator, to get a very cushy [job].

"To Warren, this 'sounded a little bit like' something else, although he made no effort to evaluate facts. Charen, in turn, made an allegation about Gore with no apparent basis. We know of no one who ever has charged that Gore's father got him a cushy job in the army. Indeed, Gore's Regnery biographer, Bob Zelnick, has explicitly stated that nothing like this occurred. [Footnote from Moomaw: a story that's come out since then is that it wasn't Gore Sr. that arranged that low-risk job for Gore Jr. in Vietnam -- it was CREEP! Gore Sr., whom Nixon desperately wanted to get out of the Senate, was in a nip-and-tuck fight for reeelction that year -- and H.R. Haldeman ordered the Army not to give Gore Jr. any dangerous job because they wre afraid it would give the anti-Vietnam War Gore Sr. favorable publicity to blunt their attack on him for being unpatriotic.]

"Would it be helpful to know about Bush-in-the-Guard? In an ideal world, it would be. Hopefuls seeking the office he seeks are pursuing a powerful post. Ideally, it would help to know as much as we could about their personal background. There are elements in these articles which do suggest that Bush may have gotten special treatment from the Guard. In an ideal world, knowing if that did occur might deepen our knowledge of Bush.

"But the Bush-in-war stories show something else--this press corps ain't up to the mission. This press corps is extremely selective in the topics it pursues, and profoundly limited in its skill sifting facts--and it rarely shows the slightest inclination to demand quality work from itself. That's why you'll likely not hear one word said about this puzzling pair of war stories--and why you'll likely not hear one question asked about the spin we saw in the L. A. Times."

Well, we now know that Bush got into the Champagne Unit -- which Bentsen, Connally's and Tower's sons also just happened to get into, as did seven then-active members of the Dallas Cowboys -- and that the Texas government's chief favor-fixer was involved in this (as he's testified under oath in Bush's case). No doubt all of them did so by sheer coincidence, and because they were simply burning to fly in Vietnam (although the Feb. 15 NY Times confirms that they were much less likely to do so in that case than if they had applied to the Air Force). Not a peep from Patrick in response to any of this, or to my note that (as confirmed by Douglas Brinkley) Kerry, once on that swift boat, not only did not duck combat but repeatedly steered into it deliberately.

At this point, what Joe McCarthy said falsely about George Marshall can be said truly about Patrick -- he can't possibly be this stupid; he's distorting the truth deliberately. The truth is that Bush got into that particular unit through improper pull -- and that the odds are overwhelming that he did so to dodge Vietnam, as did its other numerous august (there's that word again) members.

One final comment (and then I really must go; Peter Cushing can deal with Patrick from now on):

If Bush's supposed attempt to volunteer for "Palace Guard" actually was sincere -- that is, if he had developed a feeling of guilt about originally using the Guard to dodge Vietnam service, and didn't know when he applied for "P.G." that his plane was obsolete and his flying time totally inadequate to qualify, and that the program was within a few days of being shut down -- then (as Josh Marshall points out) why didn't he mention this little fact when Russert grilled him at great length about whether he dodged service in Vietnam? (See the MSNBC transcript of the show.) Any sane person who really HAD sincerely volunteered for such duty, at any point in his Guard career, would have mentioned that little fact. Patrick has been forced to fall back on the theory that, when Russert told him "you didn't volunteer or enlist for Vietnam" and Bush said "No, I didn't -- you're right", Bush only heard the word "enlist" and not the word "volunteer". Right. Patrick should definitely shift to more plausible theories, such as that Bush was possessed by the Devil between 1968 and 1972 and would have volunteered for Vietnam otherwise.

Bruce, is there a chance that Brad has a pseudonym that allows certain issues to float a little longer than one might otherwise imagine? Could PS really be, well, as dense (and tireless) as this?
Do you imagine GWB thanking PS for his Good Work here?
I admire your skill (and patience). It's like bowling where the pins keep getting set up only to be knocked down again.

One mistake on my part (thanks to the fact that it's been a while since I read it): Bill Turque, in his frequently unflattering biography "Inventing Al Gore", concludes that the Nixon Administration did indeed deliberately delay Al Gore Jr.'s departure for Vietnam until after his father had been defeated for reelection -- and quotes Gen. Westmoreland as saying that he has "little doubt" about it -- but doesn't specifically name H.R. Haldeman as the chief plotter. (I got that mixed up with my memories of his accounts of Haldeman's OTHER sleazy activities in the GOP campaign against Gore Sr.)

"Well, we now know that Bush got into the Champagne Unit -- which Bentsen, Connally's and Tower's sons also just happened to get into, as did seven then-active members of the Dallas Cowboys --"

You know, I was thinking that it was simply that Bruce is so consumed with hatred for Bush that explains his inability to reason effectively. But I'm becoming ever more convinced that it is more garden variety stupidity (combined with hatred for Bush).

We certainly do not "know" the above from the lengthy bit that Bruce seems to think it so important from Somerby. All the Somerby stuff is arguing is that it is peculiar that the same facts are treated so differently by different publications. From which Somerby derives a non-sequitur: the press isn't up to the job.

In fact, some of the press may not be, but not all of the press. And if Somerby would have thought a little bit about his earlier post on the LA Times' Serrano--"Serrano's [LA Times] absurdly vague claim that Bush received "favorable treatment."--he would conclude that it was the Dallas Morning News that wasn't violating any principles of logic with its treatment. But, as Somerby duly noted, Serrano was.

Then, we have the problem with all the other "favored sons". Were any of them pilots?

Certainly the Dallas Cowboys weren't, they wouldn't have had the time for the training. Thus, they are a red herring (Bruce, that is one of the logical fallacies I suggest you acquaint yourself with). Btw, Bruce has seemingly changed his story about the "august Senator Bentsen", whose son NOW is in the Guard before his father is elected to the Senate.

" and that the Texas government's chief favor-fixer was involved in this (as he's testified under oath in Bush's case)."

Again, there is nothing but a theory to back this up. Bruce really needs to learn what is evidence and what is speculation. It certainly isn't obvious why a Democrat in 1968, in LBJ's Texas, would want to do a favor for a one term Republican congressman. Nor, is it clear that Barnett did anything but provide a necessary RECOMMENDATION for young Bush (if he's telling the truth, which is disputed by Gen. Staudt). You can't get into ANY officers' position without RECOMMENDATIONS. (You can't get into any decent grad school without them either)

" No doubt all of them did so by sheer coincidence, and because they were simply burning to fly in Vietnam..."

Please produce any evidence at all that any of them were pilots, except Bush. Certainly the Cowboys would not have been.

"(although the Feb. 15 NY Times confirms that they were much less likely to do so in that case than if they had applied to the Air Force)."

And as I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions, it was not easy to get in to the Air Force. That was the route to a $300K per year commercial pilot job with United, Pan Am, Braniff et al. Those positions were coveted by people who wanted to have a career in aviation. I know this because a life-long friend of mine went this route, and I remember all the hoops he had to jump through to get accepted.

" Not a peep from Patrick in response to any of this,"

Why do you keep repeating this lie? I've continually refuted your stupidities. Every silly commonplace logical and evidentiary fallacy you've produced. And you've hardly missed a one. There are FIVE POSTS from me above that destroy your chain of (being charitable) reasoning.

" or to my note that (as confirmed by Douglas Brinkley) Kerry, once on that swift boat, not only did not duck combat but repeatedly steered into it deliberately."

Again, you are simply lying about me. This business of Kerry's tactics has been commented on by me, as it brought up the matter of Kerry's possible recklessness or foolhardiness. Any comment on his producing a home movie? On his exposing his men a second time to the dangers of beaching his boat, just to relive the Silver Star incident--remember that the boat had two very noisy engines, so any VC in the area would have known where they were?

Any peeps about Kerry's statement that he thought he was volunteering for safe duty patrolling the coast? Any peeps about Kerry abandoning his assignment after 4 months for some other poor slob to take over?

Indeed, any peeps about how Kerry avoided the draft by enlisting in the Navy, to become an electrician safely ensconced in an air conditioned ship?

There's a great deal of similarity to Bush and Kerry's military careers. The major difference being that Bush was turned down--but Bruce "knows" that Bush had advance knowledge he would be--for his volunteer assignment in Vietnam, and that Kerry was accepted, and accidentally became a hero.

Not a peep from Bruce to this undisputed EVIDENCE:

----------quote-------------
(13) Records provided to The News by Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, show that the unit Mr. Bush signed up for was not filled. In mid-1968, the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, based in Houston, had 156 openings among its authorized staff of 925 military personnel.

(14) Of those, 26 openings were for officer slots, such as that filled by Mr. Bush, and 130 were for enlisted men and women. Also, several former Air Force pilots who served in the unit said they were recruited from elsewhere to fly for the Texas Guard.
--------endquote--------

Regarding the Dallas Cowboys players in the Texas ANG unit (almost certainly none of them as pilots), a little historical context: Senator Bill Bradley served in the AF Reserve in New Jersey for six months at about the same time. After having taken his Rhodes Scholarship and studying at Oxford, that is. No mention was made of this during the 2000 Primary campaign that I remember.

And Bradley wasn't alone:

https://www.veteransadvantage.com/coverstory/HeroAthletes.html

A Pentagon study in the spring of 1967 found 360 pro players in the Reserves and the Guard. Among them were Boston Red Sox pitcher Jim Lonborg, New York Mets pitchers Tom Seaver and Nolan Ryan and second baseman Ken Boswell, and New York Knicks stars Cazzie Russell and Bill Bradley.

Patrick... The NY Times said explicitly that this was a Guard unit of flyers. The fact that Bush's, Bentsen's, Connally's and Tower's sons all got into it indicates by itself (unless you believe in cosmic levels of coincidence) that it was being used as a refuge from Vietnam for the sons of influential Texas pols -- which is exactly the sort of thing Barnes (not "Barnett")routinely did, and what he finally ended up in serious legal trouble for. Richards' campaign strategists were told that it was unwise to criticize Bush's injection into the Guard because it would lead to serious questions being asked about the fact that the same thing was done for "Bentsen's kid". John Tower, like Bush, was a Republican (Bush was one of Houston's own Congressmen)-- and no doubt if the refuge hadn't been made bipartisan, the Texas GOP was in a position to scream bloody murder.

Nor is there a peep from Patrick about the (obvious) point raised by Josh Marshall regarding Bush's curious failure to mention to Russert that he supposedly did finally end up volunteering for possible Vietnam duty (after checking off the "do not volunteer" box when he enlisted).

As for all those professional athletes being able to get into the reserves and the Guard: all that proves, of course, is that there was wholesale favoritism toward influential people and popular entertainers in being able to dodge the draft for Vietnam (which is undisputed, and is one of the major reasons why the war was unpopular). And is it not wise for you to make up your mind as to whether John Kerry was cowardly or whether he was recklessly battle-hungry?

" Patrick... The NY Times said explicitly that this was a Guard unit of flyers."

Genius, look at the numbers provided by Tom Hail, the ANG historian. Over 900 positions but only 29 pilots. Meaning that it took roughly 30 non fliers to support each pilot. Overwhelmingly the chances are that the others were not pilots. Hence, while THEY may have used the Guard as a refuge from Vietnam, Bush did not. You've made another entirely characteristic error in logic.

" Nor is there a peep from Patrick about ... Bush's curious failure to mention to Russert that he supposedly did finally end up volunteering for possible Vietnam duty (after checking off the "do not volunteer" box when he enlisted)."

This of course is yet another repeated lie about me by the pathetic Bruce. I've pointed out before that neither of these points mean what Bruce thinks (stupidly) they do. Bush was having a CONVERSATION with Russert, not responding to written interogatories. Perhaps few people ever have conversations with Bruce (it wouldn't surprise me)so he doesn't realize that in the give and take of conversation certain points get lost. Bush's answer was immediately after Russert's: "enlist to go". That's accurate, and only an embittered imbecile would take it to mean any thing other than what it clearly is. Especially since Bruce himself has posted an excerpt from a 1999 WaPo article in which Bush mentions his attempt to volunteer for Palace Alert. Which is backed up by three other ANG pilots. All of whom Bruce wants to contradict over a brief conversational statement on Meet the Press.

As for the "x" in the box, would it ever occur to Bruce that it might not be wise tactics to tell a recruiter that you would like the Texas taxpayers to pay for your pilot training so you could then serve outside of Texas?

As for the significance of the numerous athletes service in Reserve and Nat'l Guard units, 1. They mostly had six months of active duty--verifying Bush's claim that not many wanted to put in the time training to be a pilot. 2. I mentioned Bradley's serving in New Jersey for a reason. You've got Daniel Schorr claiming that things were "cozy" in Texas. But similar results abounded all around the country. So suddenly your "facts" about Texas look a little shaky. It just wasn't that hard to get into the Reserves or the Guard, Bruce. I knew plenty of people who did so with no political or celebrity pull whatsoever. I could have done so myelf, but just as Bush said, I didn't want to make the lengthy commitment.

Let's summarize the evidence:

(1) Bush has never said that he decided to join the Guard because he wanted to fly in Vietnam rather than being an infantryman there. He's said -- repeatedly -- that he didn't want to serve in Vietnam at all, that therefore "it was either Canada or the service", and that he thought it would be unacceptable for the son of a pro-war Congressman to run to Canada. "So I decided to better myself by learning to fly airplanes."

(2) Once he was in, he checked the "do not volunteer" box -- although he says he can't remember whether he did so or not. (Patrick is now forced to fall back on the surrealistic explanation that he did so because he thought the Texas Guard recruiters might be infuriated to learn that their training was going to something as trivial as fighting in Vietnam, rather than the urgent duty of defending Texas from imminent invasion by Mexico. Although Patrick simultaneously says it was routine knowledge that a great many of the flyers who entered the Guard DID do so to fly in Vietnam. Apparently the Guard's own recruiters and officials were unaware of this routine knowledge, although a lot of the applicants WERE aware of it.) Bush himself gives no such explanation. He agrees that he did not volunteer at all during his first two years in the Guard, although he says that "if my unit had been called, I would have gone."

(2) He entered a single Guard unit that was famous in Texas for being remarkably packed with the sons of prominent Texas pols (both Democratic and Republican), providing them with a perfect out from any danger of being drafted. (Bush Sr. was one of the Congressmen from Houston, where the unit was located.) Bush Jr. got into it with the personal assistance of Ben Barnes, favor-fixer supreme for the pols of Texas, who later got into serious legal trouble for precisely that reason. And Ann Richards' campaign strategists were told not to raise this issue because it would lead to embarrassing questions being asked about similar treatment for "the Bentsen kid".

(3) Bush claims (sometimes) that, after two years (during which he never did get around to checking that "Volunteer" box), he finally did volunteer for possible Vietnam service in Palace Guard -- although he did so at a time when his plane was already being retired from such duty, he had only half the required hours of flying time, and the program was within a week of being cancelled. Maybe he really didn't know any of these facts, and really had finally decided to volunteer sincerely. In that case, though, it's curious that when Russert said, "But you didn't volunteer or enlist for Vietnam", Bush simply replied, "No, I didn't. You're right", and then moved on to criticizing the Vietnam War at length for being unjustified because it was poorly fought -- instead of mentioning his supposed volunteering for Vietnam through Palace Guard. Patrick once again says that when Russert says, "But you didn't volunteer or enlist for Vietnam", Bush probably just heard the last half of the sentence -- and also didn't feel motivated to mention his supposed bravery for thus volunteering at any other point during their protracted discussion of whether he actually did his duty for his country during the Vietnam War. One would swear that he really didn't take his supposed "volunteering" for Palace Guard seriously. (P.G., by the way, involved assigning the volunteering pilots not just to Vietnam, but all over the world -- mostly to places as safe to fly in as Texas.)

(4) Patrick can't make up his mind whether Kerry cowardly tried to avoid dangerous service in vietnam, or whether he was wildly reckless both of his own life and his mens' lives when he got in. What's wrong with this picture? (Most of his men, by the way, seem to have a very high opinion of him.)

You know, I was thinking that it was simply Patrick's garden-variety stupidity that explains his inability to reason effectively. But I'm becoming ever more convinced that it's simply that Patrick is so consumed with hatred for Kerry (and/or irrational love for Bush) that explains his inability to reason effectively. At this point he reminds me most of Inspector Clouseau in "A Shot in the Dark", who repeatedly finds a woman standing over freshly murdered corpses and (because he's fallen in love with her) keeps coming up with increasingly complicated and unlikely explanations for why she probably didn't commit the murders.

Postscript, in which the New Republic provides a portrait of the young patriot in 1972:

Bush in 1972: After Smashing Into Trash Cans, Bush Wanted To Fight Future Head of CIA. "In a now famous incident, [Bush] took his then-16-year-old brother, Marvin, out drinking and ran over a neighbor's garbage cans on the way home; and when confronted by his father, he challenged him to go 'mano a mano'outside." (Lois Romano and Mike Allen, "Guard Records on President are Released," The Washington Post, 2/11/04)

Now THERE's a responsible, conscientious, self-sacrificing young American, by God.

Or maybe he had simply been traumatized into drinking by his tragic wartime experiences.

Bruce continues to embarrass himself by displaying an inability to read and extremely weak skill as a logician.

" He's said -- repeatedly -- that he didn't want to serve in Vietnam at all...."

You are lying. That's not what he said.

" he thought the Texas Guard recruiters might be infuriated to learn that their training was going to something as trivial as fighting in Vietnam"

When you misrepresent a completely pedestrian concern--that someone paying for a service expects to get what he pays for--in this idiotic way, I know you know you are losing the argument.

"Although Patrick simultaneously says it was routine knowledge that a great many of the flyers who entered the Guard DID do so to fly in Vietnam."

Of course, this is another lie. I have never said this. Again, Bruce is misrepresenting what I have said because he knows he's lost on the logic.

I've said that becoming trained as a fighter pilot would qualify you to be called into duty that would include air combat. Anyone who thought such training would disqualify them for such peril would truly be an idiot.

Especially since the plane was being used in Vietnam at the same time you were learning to fly it. According to the historian's records there were plenty of open positions (150, iirc)in that ANG unit that Bush could have used his father's friends' influence for that didn't entail such combat training. If Bush really did enlist to avoid combat, why didn't he take a non-flying position?

"Bush Jr. got into it with the personal assistance of Ben Barnes"

This is in dispute. Gen. Staudt denies it, and so has Bush. At any rate, SOMEONE would have had to recommend Bush, just as someone had to recommend Kerry for the navy.

" And Ann Richards' campaign strategists were told not to raise this issue because it would lead to embarrassing questions being asked about similar treatment for 'the Bentsen kid'."

This is yet another logical hiccup from Bruce. That no one wanted to embarrass Bentsen (who we still don't know to have been a pilot) is irrelevant to whether Bush had anything to be embarrassed about. Bruce has committed a non-sequitur (probably without even knowing what one is).

"after two years (during which he never did get around to checking that 'Volunteer' box)"

Amusing the ideas that get into Bruce's head. Bush should have asked to have his application to enlist erased and done over because, in 1970 he decided to volunteer?

" he did so at a time when his plane was already being retired from such duty,"

This is false.

" he had only half the required hours of flying time,"

Evidence of either bravery or foolhardiness, sorta like Kerry beaching his boat?

" and the program was within a week of being cancelled. Maybe he really didn't know any of these facts"

Starting to get the hang of Occam's Razor are we? That something done prior to something else happening is unlikely to have been known at the time of the earlier event. Good, good. Progress.

"when Russert said, 'But you didn't volunteer or enlist for Vietnam' "

Telling that Bruce can't get a quotation accurate. What Russert actually asked was:

"But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go."

To which Bush gave an accurate answer. Bruce needs to have this little exchange between Bush and Russert contradict what Bush told the WaPo in 1999, and also what three other pilots have gone on record as saying. Four people have to be lying for Bruce's interpretation to work.

"Palace Guard" (made several times). The actual program was Palace Alert. The pilots were from the Air Nat'l Guard.

"(P.G., by the way, involved assigning the volunteering pilots not just to Vietnam, but all over the world -- mostly to places as safe to fly in as Texas.)"

The pilots (and Bush in 1999) say it was specifically for Vietnam. And the proper phrase would be, "as dangerous to fly in as Texas".

" Patrick can't make up his mind whether Kerry cowardly tried to avoid dangerous service in vietnam..."

Another lie. I have never said any such thing.

"...or whether he was wildly reckless both of his own life and his mens' lives when he got in. What's wrong with this picture? "

That Bruce is a ridiculously poor logician. Someone can be both brave and reckless. Audie Murphy was both in the incident that won him the Medal of Honor--it's accurately depicted in the movie of his life. Murphy called in artillery on his own position and also jumped on a burning tank destroyer to use its machine gun. The tank destroyer exploded a few seconds after he jumped off. Of course, Murphy only risked his own life after ordering his men to retreat to safe positions.

" Bush in 1972: After Smashing Into Trash Cans, Bush Wanted To Fight Future Head of CIA."

Another classic logical fallacy (Bruce is boxing the compass).

And, "not a peep" from Bruce about Kerry's career as a movie producer.

Let's take a closer look at what Bush was saying in 1999:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bushtext072899.htm

-------quote--------

Did you ever consider enlisting in active duty?

Yeah, I did but I got into Guard as a pilot. I got a pilot slot.

Why did you do the Guard instead of active duty?

I was guaranteed a pilot slot. I found out – as I'm sure you've researched all this out – they were looking for pilots. I think there were five or six pilot slots available. I was the third slot in the Texas Guard. Had that not worked out no telling where I would have been. I would have ended up in the military somewhere.

You meant to join the Guard when you took the pilot's qualifying test?

Or the regular Air Force. I was just looking for options. I didn't have a strategy. I knew I was going in the military. I wasn't sure what branch I was going into. I took the test with an eye obviously on the Guard slot, but had that not worked out I wouldn't have gotten into pilot training. I remember going to Air Force recruiting station and getting the Air Force recruiting material to be a pilot. Then I went home and I learned there was a pilot slot available.

Were you avoiding the draft?

No, I was becoming a pilot.

You wanted to serve?

Yes I did.

But when you were asked do you want to go overseas, you said no.

I didn't know that. But I actually tried to go on a Palace Alert program.

That was later.

It was. After I became a pilot.

Palace Alert program was being phased out.

Not really, a couple of my buddies got to go. ...

... But they'd already graduated.

That's true. I couldn't go until actually I'd gotten my –

I was curious about the sequence. You got out of combat school on June 23, 1970. Palace Alert programs were all closed down overseas as of June 30. So could you have gone even if you signed up for it?

I guess not if that's the case, but I remember going to see [the supervisor] to try to get signed up for it. You just ask the commander to put you in. He said you can't go because you're too low on the totem pole. I'm not trying to make this thing any grander than it is. ...
---------endquote--------

And Bruce wants all the above disqualified (and the three men supporting it) because Bush didn't mention it to Russert on Meet the Press. Amazing.

" He's said -- repeatedly -- that he didn't want to serve in Vietnam at all...."

You are lying. That's not what he said.
___________________________

Bush to Dallas Morning News, 2-25-90: "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning to fly airplanes."

Bush to Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, 11-29-98: "I don't want to play like I was somebody out there marching [to war] when I wasn't. It was either Canada or the service."

Sounds awfully eager, doesn't he? He does say that "if my unit had been called, I would have gone." The unit, that is, unusually crammed with the sons of very influential Texas pols who were trying to allow their sons to avoid service in Vietnam.

********************************
*********************************

" he thought the Texas Guard recruiters might be infuriated to learn that their training was going to something as trivial as fighting in Vietnam"

When you misrepresent a completely pedestrian concern--that someone paying for a service expects to get what he pays for--in this idiotic way, I know you know you are losing the argument.
________________________

Ah. So Bush didn't check that box because he was afraid that, by offering to volunteer for Vietnam, he would infuriate the Guard recruiter into turning him down? (Because, as I say, the Guard would have been infuriated that he was using their training for something as trivial as service in Vietnam rather than defending Texas from Mexico -- although the Guard had provided the opportunity to volunteer for such service in the first place, and, as Patrick keeps saying, it was always [officially] possible for Guard pilots to be called up for Vietnam?) Right. Bush himself, as I said, says that he "doesn't remember" whether or not he checked that box -- and, in the Post interview that Patrick quotes, he says he wasn't even aware that he had ruled out such volunteering:

POST: But when you were asked do you want to go overseas, you said no.

BUSH: I didn't know that.

Again: you betcha. Personally, if I had checked off a "Do Not Volunteer" box when I enlisted, I think I would have remembered the fact over the next two years.

********************************
********************************

If Bush really did enlist to avoid combat, why didn't he take a non-flying position?
____________________________________

"I chose to better myself by learning to fly airplanes."

That is, as a career move. Especially logical on the part of someone who knew there was no real danger he'd be forced to fly in Vietnam.

**********************************
*********************************

"Bush Jr. got into it with the personal assistance of Ben Barnes"

This is in dispute. Gen. Staudt denies it, and so has Bush. At any rate, SOMEONE would have had to recommend Bush, just as someone had to recommend Kerry for the navy.
____________________________________

Barnes has testified to it under oath, in a court deposition.

Gen. Staudt also denies that he used clout to get Bentsen Jr. into that Guard unit. This is the same Guard unit that also just happened to accept Connally's son, Tower's son, and seven members of the Dallas Cowboys. On election day 1970, the sons of the two candidates for US Senate -- Bentsen and Bush -- were both suddenly and simultaneously promoted to First Lieutenant. Oh my, no; of course there is no likelihood that Bush got into that unit through political favoritism.

****************************
*****************************

"after two years (during which he never did get around to checking that 'Volunteer' box)"

Amusing the ideas that get into Bruce's head. Bush should have asked to have his application to enlist erased and done over because, in 1970 he decided to volunteer?
______________________________

What I meant, my dear idiot, is that you expect us to believe that there was no way for Bush to change his "do not volunteer" status at any point during those two years -- until he suddenly decided to do so, by sheer chance, a week before the posssibility that he might be accepted for such service just happened to be cancelled? Interesting coincidence. (Especially when you consider the very high probability that there were already very strong rumors flying around that it WAS about to be cancelled, what with Bush's plane already being phased out of duty and all.)

Still, Bush was honest on one point during the Post interview: "I'm not trying to make this thing any grander than it is." Which, as I say, may indicate why he also didn't think it worth mentioning during his protracted grilling by Russert on the subject of whether he had ever truly volunteered for service in Vietnam.

*****************************
******************************

"But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go."

To which Bush gave an accurate answer.
___________________________________________

Ah. So you've now switched to agreeing that Bush was indeed saying that he didn't either volunteer OR enlist to go to Vietnam -- as opposed to insisting, with a straight face, that Bush was merely saying that he had not enlisted for that role (having not heard the first half of the sentence)?

**************************************************************************************************

" Patrick can't make up his mind whether Kerry cowardly tried to avoid dangerous service in vietnam..."
Another lie. I have never said any such thing.
_________________________________________________

From Sullivan's comments on the "Marc Racicot Says Bush Volunteered for Vietnam" thread:
"And, I wonder if any of the usual suspects would like to demonstrate their consistency by claiming John Kerry never volunteered for Vietnam because he: 1. tried to extend his student deferment after he'd graduated in 1966 to study in Paris. 2. When turned down by his draft board avoided the draft by becoming a Naval officer, and being assigned to an air conditioned ship off the coast of Vietnam in a non-combat position that was certainly less dangerous than flying an F-102?"

And:

"Left unanswered by the [NY] Times (but we know they will pursue this with the same energy they brought to the "Bush AWOL" hunt) are two questions:

"(1) When will Sen. Kerry release his military records?

" (2) How common was it for an officer to invoke the "Three Purple Hearts and you're out" rule? The [Boston] Globe was curious, and gives us this:

" '...On Friday, however, the National Archives provided the Globe with a Navy "instruction" document that formed the basis for Kerry's request. The instruction, titled 1300.39, says that a Naval officer who requires hospitalization on two separate occasions, or who receives three wounds "regardless of the nature of the wounds," can ask a superior officer to request a reassignment. The instruction makes clear the reassignment is not automatic. It says that the reassignment "will be determined after consideration of his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis." Because Kerry's wounds were not considered serious, his reassignment appears to have been made on an individual basis.

" 'Moreover, the instruction makes clear that Kerry could have asked that any reassignment be waived.

" 'The bottom line is that Kerry could have remained but he chose to seek an early transfer. He met with Horne, who agreed to forward the request, which Horne said probably ensured final approval. The Navy could not say how many other officers or sailors got a similar early release from combat, but it was unusual for anyone to have three Purple Hearts. "

"Puzzling."

Yes indeed. Particularly given that Patrick simultaneously insists that Kerry was irresponsibly reckless in beaching his boat, leaping out, and single-handedly pursuing a fleeing Cong into the jungle to kill him. Sounds like an awfully brave coward, or maybe an awfully cowardly recklessly brave man. Or -- dare I suggest it -- Patrick is lying through his teeth?
***************************************
***************************************

" Bush in 1972: After Smashing Into Trash Cans, Bush Wanted To Fight Future Head of CIA."
Another classic logical fallacy (Bruce is boxing the compass).
______________________________________

Because Bush -- during this period in which Sullivan expects us to believe that he was responsible and unselfish -- decided not only to go out and amuse himself by getting stinko drunk, but dragged his 16-year-old brother along (illegally) for the same role, then drove that brother back while dangerously stinko drunk, ran over some garbage cans, and threatened to slug it out with his father for getting furious with him over all this? Yet again: you betcha. For a real example of boxing the compass, however, see another of Patrick's comments on the "Marc Racicot" thread:

"Of course, I'm absolutely shocked that no one wants to be consistent and call for an examination of John Kerry's curious combat record. Funny that, given the precedent with another JFK:

" http://www.backcreekbooks.com/catalogs/JFK.html

"-----------quote------------
...Reader's Digest magazine containing John Hersey's story of John F. Kennedy and PT-109. To put it simply, this is the article that launched Kennedy's political career. Hersey, a Kennedy family friend, first published this flattering account in the 'New Yorker.' But Joe Kennedy, unhappy with the New Yorker's relatively small circulation, pressed editor Paul Palmer for this appearance in the much more widely read 'Reader's Digest.' It was a shrewd move, and this condensed version of the PT-109 incident proved crucial to Kennedy's early political success. Indeed, this version was reprinted for each of JFK's subsequent campaigns, including his 1960 presidential run. As to the story itself, few would argue that young Lt. Kennedy acted heroically in his efforts to rescue his men after his PT boat was rammed by a Japanese destroyer. But veteran PT commanders were incredulous that such a quick and maneuverable craft could not escape being struck by a much larger and slower enemy in the first place. In fact no other PT boat was ever rammed by an enemy ship before or since Kennedy's, and he narrowly escaped court-martial for the incident.
"---------endquote------------"

Personally, I really think Bush's penchant for getting not only drunk for amusement, but dangerously and irresponsibly drunk for amusement -- and doing the same for his 16-year-old brother, during the period when Patrick expects us to believe that he was a responsible young patriot -- is a wee bit more relevant to the debate over Bush's and Kerry's relative virtues than is the fact that JFK apparently got careless with his surveillance duty during WW II and his dad tried to cover the fact up.

*********************************
*********************************

In short, Inspector Clouseau is definitely still in love. Patrick, a word of personal advice: break up with Monomania. She's not a nice girl, and she consistently makes fools out of her boyfriends.

Bruce has truly become deranged. Unfortunately for him not everyone is as Reading Impaired as he. Attempting to prove that he was correct to say: " He's said -- repeatedly -- that he didn't want to serve in Vietnam at all....", Bruce produces two of three quotes that I have already--I've forgotten in which of these threads--pointed out to him DO NOT SUPPORT him.

Taking them in order:

1. " Bush to Dallas Morning News, 2-25-90: "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning to fly airplanes."

The above does not say what Bruce claims. Clearly these words are not there: "he didn't want to serve in Vietnam at all"

2. "Bush to Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, 11-29-98: 'I don't want to play like I was somebody out there marching [to war] when I wasn't. It was either Canada or the service.'"

Again, nothing about not wanting "to serve in Vietnam at all". It is truly astounding that Bruce can't get this through his thick head. Especially since Bruce admits that Bush HAS SAID the opposite: "if my unit had been called, I would have gone." Bruce is contradicting himself.

After again failing to recognize the difference between being "infuriated" and making a simple cost benefit analysis, Bruce then attempts to support his claim that: " Patrick can't make up his mind whether Kerry cowardly tried to avoid dangerous service in vietnam..."

He, right on cue, provides 2 quotes that clearly do no such thing:

1. "From Sullivan's comments on the "Marc Racicot Says Bush Volunteered for Vietnam" thread:
'And, I wonder if any of the usual suspects would like to demonstrate their consistency by claiming John Kerry never volunteered for Vietnam because he: 1. tried to extend his student deferment after he'd graduated in 1966 to study in Paris. 2. When turned down by his draft board avoided the draft by becoming a Naval officer, and being assigned to an air conditioned ship off the coast of Vietnam in a non-combat position that was certainly less dangerous than flying an F-102?' "

Those not consumed with hatred for Bush, nor too obtuse to grasp the logic, will realize that, in the above, I'm not accusing Kerry of cowardice, I'm merely pointing out that if someone--take a guess who I have in mind, Bruce--wants to accuse Bush of trying to avoid a combat role, then consistency demands the same judgment of Kerry.

Since I don't accuse Bush of anything dishonorable or cowardly, I also don't for Kerry. Elementary logic. What Bruce is doing, it appears, is what psychologists call projecting his own irrationalities unto me.

But the second quote that Bruce produces is really funny, because while it also does not accuse Kerry of cowardly behavior, it isn't even from me! It's from Tom Maquire.

And I'm accused of "lying through my teeth" for it. What a hoot you are, Bruce.

Pat Sullivan's version of Bush, during interviews: "I didn't want to become an infantryman, but I did want to do my part in Vietnam, so I applied to the Guard to become a flyer instead. They made me check the "Do Not Volunteer" box when I enlisted for some silly legalistic reason or other, but I was always ready to volunteer for Vietnam service as soon as I got enough experience that they'd accept me. And when I heard about that "Palace Alert" thing I signed up for it right away -- but they wouldn't take me because I didn't have enough flying time, and a week later they cancelled it."

The real Bush, to Texas newspapers: " I didn't want to fight in Vietnam, but the only other things to do were either go to Canada or join some other branch of the service -- so I decided to join the National Guard and lean to fly planes to train myself for a possible later career. You know, better myself."

The real Bush, to the Washington Post in 1999: "Gee, I just didn't notice it when I checked that "Do Not Volunteer" box on my application when I enlisted -- I didn't think I'd done anything like that. A couple of years later, though, I heard about this "Palace Alert" thing and decided to apply, but they told me I didn't have enough flying time and a week later the whole thing was cancelled anyway. So I don't want to make that sound like too much."

The real Bush, to Tim Russert: "Yeah, you're right -- I never did volunteer or enlist for Vietnam. I would have gone if they'd actually called up my unit to fight over there, though -- you know, the unit with all those sons of prominent Texas politicians in it. I mean, I wouldn't have refused and gone to jail or anything."

All four versions: "And, oh yeah, I spent a lot of my time during those years getting stinko drunk and weaving home all over the road, and once I took my 16-year-old brother out and got him drunk too and came weaving home and ran over some garbage cans, and they tell me that I got real mad and threatened to slug my dad when he yelled at me. Like I've said before, 'When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.' I mean, REAL irresponsible."

" What I meant, my dear idiot, is that you expect us to believe that there was no way for Bush to change his "do not volunteer" status at any point during those two years"

Those two years were his training years, Bruce. He wouldn't have qualified for any service overseas (nor any stateside) until he'd earned his wings. You truly are a fool, or need professional help for your hatreds.

" -- until he suddenly decided to do so, by sheer chance, a week before the posssibility that he might be accepted for such service just happened to be cancelled? Interesting coincidence.

Watch out for that black helicopter, Bruce. Didn't you read the excerpt from the Post story I provided?

" I was curious about the sequence. You got out of combat school on June 23, 1970. Palace Alert programs were all closed down overseas as of June 30. So could you have gone even if you signed up for it? "

GOT OUT OF COMBAT SCHOOL. Capice?

" (Especially when you consider the very high probability that there were already very strong rumors flying around that it WAS about to be cancelled..."

Which is simply made up out of thin air. Bruce has no way of knowing this to be so, and Bush's IP Maurice Udell had just come back from service in Vietnam.

" what with Bush's plane already being phased out of duty and all."

Again, I've already pointed out that this just isn't accurate.

"Personally, if I had checked off a "Do Not Volunteer" box when I enlisted, I think I would have remembered the fact over the next two years."

Make that 31 years ago, Bruce.

To my question about the logic of training for combat training to avoid combat, Bruce ties himself into a pretzel:

" as a career move. Especially logical on the part of someone who knew there was no real danger he'd be forced to fly in Vietnam."

Of course, Bruce has numerous times been told that at the time June of 1968, there were F-102s in Vietnam flown by ANG pilots. So, shall we say, "especially [il]logical".

Bruce also is at sea over the Ben Barnes testimony: "Bush Jr. got into it with the personal assistance of Ben Barnes".

As I have pointed out several times, this is disputed. Barnes has said he made a telephone call on behalf of Bush, but not at the request of either Bush or his father. Whether or not his memory is accurate, is certainly open to question. According to Bruce, Barnes was making calls constantly "fixing" things. So, he may be confusing Bush with....Bentsen?

But, at any rate, Bush wouldn't have needed any "fixer" because there were vacancies in that ANG unit. We haven't "heard a peep" from Bruce about the records the ANG historian produced showing that the entire Dallas Cowboys roster along with the cheerleaders could have gotten in since they had over 100 vacancies.

Nor have we heard a peep from Bruce to my demonstration that a man can be brave and reckless at the same time. Actually two demonstrations, Audie Murphy and JFK I.

I especially like this gracious concession on Bruce's part:

" Still, Bush was honest on one point during the Post interview: 'I'm not trying to make this thing any grander than it is.'
Which, as I say, may indicate why he also didn't think it worth mentioning during his protracted grilling by Russert on the subject of whether he had ever truly volunteered for service in Vietnam. "

As YOU say, Bruce!!! I'm the guy who told you that Bush isn't a braggart like Kerry.

For the coup de grace:

"And, oh yeah, I spent a lot of my time during those years getting stinko drunk and weaving home all over the road, and once I took my 16-year-old brother out and got him drunk too and came weaving home and ran over some garbage cans, and they tell me that I got real mad and threatened to slug my dad when he yelled at me. Like I've said before, 'When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.' I mean, REAL irresponsible."

That's the third time Bruce has changed the subject with a classic ad hominem argument. The last desperate move from the defeated debater.

(1) "Since I don't accuse Bush of anything dishonorable or cowardly, I also don't for Kerry. Elementary logic. What Bruce is doing, it appears, is what psychologists call projecting his own irrationalities unto me.

"But the second quote that Bruce produces is really funny, because while it also does not accuse Kerry of cowardly behavior, it isn't even from me! It's from Tom Maquire."
_________________________

The quote (again), which Sulllivan approvingly requotes (along with referring to the need to look into Kerry's "curious war record"):

"Left unanswered by the [NY] Times (but we know they will pursue this with the same energy they brought to the "Bush AWOL" hunt) are two questions:

"(1) When will Sen. Kerry release his military records?

" (2) How common was it for an officer to invoke the "Three Purple Hearts and you're out" rule? The [Boston] Globe was curious, and gives us this:

" '...On Friday, however, the National Archives provided the Globe with a Navy "instruction" document that formed the basis for Kerry's request. The instruction, titled 1300.39, says that a Naval officer who requires hospitalization on two separate occasions, or who receives three wounds "regardless of the nature of the wounds," can ask a superior officer to request a reassignment. The instruction makes clear the reassignment is not automatic. It says that the reassignment "will be determined after consideration of his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis." Because Kerry's wounds were not considered serious, his reassignment appears to have been made on an individual basis.

" 'Moreover, the instruction makes clear that Kerry could have asked that any reassignment be waived.

" 'The bottom line is that Kerry could have remained but he chose to seek an early transfer. He met with Horne, who agreed to forward the request, which Horne said probably ensured final approval. The Navy could not say how many other officers or sailors got a similar early release from combat, but it was unusual for anyone to have three Purple Hearts. "

"Puzzling."

Gee, sure sounds to me as though both Maguire and Sullivan are accusing Kerry of cowardice. Maybe, when he chased that Cong into the forest single-handedly, he was hoping the guy would just give him a light flesh wound so he could come home early?

*******************************

(2) "Bush to Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, 11-29-98: 'I don't want to play like I was somebody out there marching [to war] when I wasn't. It was either Canada or the service.'"

Again, nothing about not wanting "to serve in Vietnam at all". It is truly astounding that Bruce can't get this through his thick head.
____________________

Ah. So when Bush said he "wasn't marching to war or anything like that", he meant he was really FLYING eagerly to war instead. And he just stuck in those references to Canada as his other alternative for no reason.

*************************************

(3) Especially since Bruce admits that Bush HAS SAID the opposite: "if my unit had been called, I would have gone." Bruce is contradicting himself.
____________________________________

Yep; going to war if you're called to duty -- as opposed to going into the slammer for refusing an order -- is real patriotic eagerness to fight. (Especially when, as I say, the chances that his VIP-crammed unit would ever have been called to dangerous duty in Vietnam is approximately the same as the probability that Patrick scored 1600 on his SATs.)

**************************************

Well done, Monsieur l'Inspecteur!

" What I meant, my dear idiot, is that you expect us to believe that there was no way for Bush to change his "do not volunteer" status at any point during those two years"

Those two years were his training years, Bruce. He wouldn't have qualified for any service overseas (nor any stateside) until he'd earned his wings. You truly are a fool, or need professional help for your hatreds.
_______________________________

Then, my dear Patrick, why did they ask him whether he wanted to volunteer that early, if the question made no sense?

*******************************

Personally, if I had checked off a "Do Not Volunteer" box when I enlisted, I think I would have remembered the fact over the next two years."

Make that 31 years ago, Bruce.
________________________

Odd. Bush says that when he volunteered for Palace Alert, he didn't "know" that he'd checked that "Do Not Volunteer" box two years earlier. One would think that anyone who was seriously planning to volunteer as soon as he got the chance would remember something like that.
*************************

" as a career move. Especially logical on the part of someone who knew there was no real danger he'd be forced to fly in Vietnam."

Of course, Bruce has numerous times been told that at the time June of 1968, there were F-102s in Vietnam flown by ANG pilots. So, shall we say, "especially [il]logical".
________________________

Which, of course, is not what I was talking about. What I was talking about is the fact that it was -- to put it mildly -- unlikely that any of the high-ranking politicoes' sons in that unit would ever be forced to serve in Vietnam against his wishes.

**************************

Bruce also is at sea over the Ben Barnes testimony: "Bush Jr. got into it with the personal assistance of Ben Barnes".

As I have pointed out several times, this is disputed. Barnes has said he made a telephone call on behalf of Bush, but not at the request of either Bush or his father. Whether or not his memory is accurate, is certainly open to question. According to Bruce, Barnes was making calls constantly "fixing" things. So, he may be confusing Bush with....Bentsen?
_______________________

Again, odd. Barnes has said that he remembers the whole conversation in great detail. Of course, there's always the possibility that HE was possessed by the Devil during this period, too, and that Lucifer has implanted detailed false memories in him.

************************

" Still, Bush was honest on one point during the Post interview: 'I'm not trying to make this thing any grander than it is.'
Which, as I say, may indicate why he also didn't think it worth mentioning during his protracted grilling by Russert on the subject of whether he had ever truly volunteered for service in Vietnam. "

As YOU say, Bruce!!! I'm the guy who told you that Bush isn't a braggart like Kerry.
_____________________________

Either that, or (as he told Russert) he has nothing real whatsoever to brag about.

*******************************

For the coup de grace:

"And, oh yeah, I spent a lot of my time during those years getting stinko drunk and weaving home all over the road, and once I took my 16-year-old brother out and got him drunk too and came weaving home and ran over some garbage cans, and they tell me that I got real mad and threatened to slug my dad when he yelled at me. Like I've said before, 'When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.' I mean, REAL irresponsible."

That's the third time Bruce has changed the subject with a classic ad hominem argument. The last desperate move from the defeated debater.
_____________________________

"Ad hominem", Patrick? Seems to sum up the morality of the real Bush during this period awfully well. Doesn't really sound very patriotic or unselfish, does he?

"Odd. Bush says that when he volunteered for Palace Alert, he didn't 'know' that he'd checked that "Do Not Volunteer" box two years earlier. One would think that anyone who was seriously planning to volunteer as soon as he got the chance would remember something like that."

Indeed, one would think that anyone who really did plan to volunteer for Vietnam duty as soon as he got the chance would be thinking repeatedly during those two years about the fact that he had checked that "Don Not Volunteer" box -- and that he would still remember today that he'd frequently thought about that fact during this period.

Finally: if Bush was really ready to volunteer for Vietnam duty the moment he went into the Guard, then why, for God's sake, did he agree with Russert that "you didn't volunteer or enlist for Vietnam", and instead just insist that he would have gone if he was actually forced to go?

The absolute conceivable maximum extent to which he can claim honorable behavior is if he really, sincerely, did later change his mind and decide to volunteer for Palace Alert -- but, as I've said, the case for that is incredibly shaky itself. Particularly since he didn't feel any urge to mention that to Russert either, during a nationwide TV interview grappling with the question of whether he was a Vietnam-dodging coward. (Which IS the sort of behavior that would be believable from him if he had never really seriously intended that supposed offer to join Palace Alert, and the whole affair had thus slipped his mind during the interview. It sure as hell wouldn't have slipped his mind otherwise.)

Bruce's case is in tatters, and yet he soldiers on. He's reduced to disingenuous paraphrases of what I've said, and projects his own psychological problems onto others. He's even defending his ad hominem fallacy (there's a reason they're called FALLACIES)again.

Let's pile up some of the deadwood:

" Gee, sure sounds to me as though both Maguire and Sullivan are accusing Kerry of cowardice. Maybe, when he chased that Cong into the forest single-handedly, he was hoping the guy would just give him a light flesh wound so he could come home early?"

But Bruce can't produce anything from the quotes to support his belief. And then tries to laugh off that failure to produce with a joke. This is the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy.

" So when Bush said he "wasn't marching to war or anything like that"..."

This is simply a lie, or Bruce doesn't understand the proper use of quotation marks. Bruce inserted "to war" on his own and now attributes it to Bush. Meaning he finally realizes that he has laughably misread the actual quotes.

" he just stuck in those references to Canada as his other alternative for no reason."

He was obviously referencing a common way people avoided military service back then, and saying that he didn't do that. This is not rocket science, boy.

" Yep; going to war if you're called to duty -- as opposed to going into the slammer for refusing an order -- is real patriotic eagerness to fight."

Another classic logical fallacy. Bruce has just shifted the grounds away from the factual questions: 1. Did Bush train for combat as a pilot (he certainly did). And, 2. Did Bush volunteer for duty in Vietnam (he did, in 1970). To, "patriotic eagerness to fight". People do this to save face when they realize they've lost the original argument.

Bruce follows immediately with another instance of the fallacy:

"the chances that his VIP-crammed unit would ever have been called to dangerous duty in Vietnam"

Again, that is not the issue at hand. Bruce is shifting the grounds. Only 29 men out of over 900 slots in this ANG unit were trained for combat. What the unit was facing was not what Bush was facing. How to explain the continued obtuseness over this simple logic, except to conclude that Bruce knows his reasoning is faulty, but needs to protect his fragile ego?

" Then, my dear Patrick, why did they ask him whether he wanted to volunteer that early, if the question made no sense?"

It was a line on a STANDARD FORM, dummy. He merely typed an "x" beside it, and we don't even know if it was Bush who typed it. The ANG's own explanation is that Bush would have been instructed to do so because he was not generically enlisting, but specifically getting into a fighter program that was, at that specific moment, based in Texas. It would have been self contradictory to volunteer for "overseas" duty, AT THE TIME.

And "not a peep" from Bruce about Kerry's similar behavior in enlisting as a naval officer rather than being drafted into the army. "Not a peep" from Bruce ridiculing Kerry for, a "real patriotic eagerness to fight", for becoming a shipboard electrician. (Since Bruce is so poor a logician, I stress that the preceding is a point about consistency, not a claim of cowardice).

" Odd. Bush says that when he volunteered for Palace Alert, he didn't 'know' that he'd checked that 'Do Not Volunteer' box two years earlier. One would think that anyone who was seriously planning to volunteer as soon as he got the chance would remember something like that."

You've again misunderstood what Bush said. But only the Logically Impaired would draw the conclusion you have. At the time of enlisting, Bush's goal was to get into a pilot training program, he did what he needed to do to accomplish that.

He wouldn't be in a position to go into combat until he'd been properly trained, so (and here I'm going to add 2+2 and get 4) Bush PROBABLY waited until he was confident he was going to successfully complete his training (lots of people wash out of these difficult programs) before volunteering. I speculate thus, because one of the people verifying that Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam was his IP (Instructor Pilot, for those in Moomawian IQ-land). Which means that Bush probably volunteered several weeks earlier than Bruce is claiming.

" What I was talking about is the fact that it was -- to put it mildly -- unlikely that any of the high-ranking politicoes' sons in that unit would ever be forced to serve in Vietnam against his wishes."

And as I've shown countless times, this doesn't apply to men like Bush, because in 1968 a trained combat pilot wouldn't have any such expectations. Bruce is the poster boy for the non-sequitur.

" Barnes has said that he remembers the whole conversation in great detail."

What are you, 12? Barnes is an old man testifying about a conversation over 30 years ago. Memories are not that reliable. But, yet again, "not a peep" from Bruce about the historian's records that say there were over 100 openings in that ANG unit.

" Either that, or (as he told Russert) he has nothing real whatsoever to brag about."

Another non-peep from Bruce about the fact that four people have to be lying for Bruce's argument to work.

" 'Ad hominem', Patrick? Seems to sum up the morality of the real Bush during this period awfully well. Doesn't really sound very patriotic or unselfish, does he?"

Bruce, whether an ad hominem is accurate or not, is irrelevant to the logic. Do you understand the meaning of "fallacy"? It's because the ad hominem changes the subject away from the relevant issue that makes it a fallacy.

" Finally: if Bush was really ready to volunteer for Vietnam duty the moment he went into the Guard..."

Sheesh, the King of Circular Reasoning. He has never said that he was "ready to volunteer for Vietnam duty the moment he went into the Guard". I am truly curious how anyone interested in economics learned this bizarre reasoning process on demonstration here.

" The absolute conceivable maximum extent to which he can claim honorable behavior...."

Is exactly the same for Bush as it is for Kerry (actually, Bush's is the more macho up the point where Kerry goes into the Swift Boats). Their actions are remarkable for the similarity, as stated in their own words. Unlike you, Bruce, I take BOTH MEN to be telling the truth

Bruce's case is in tatters, and yet he soldiers on. He's reduced to disingenuous paraphrases of what I've said, and projects his own psychological problems onto others. He's even defending his ad hominem fallacy (there's a reason they're called FALLACIES) again.

Let's pile up some of the deadwood:

" Gee, sure sounds to me as though both Maguire and Sullivan are accusing Kerry of cowardice. Maybe, when he chased that Cong into the forest single-handedly, he was hoping the guy would just give him a light flesh wound so he could come home early?"

But Bruce can't produce anything from the quotes to support his belief. And then tries to laugh off that failure to produce with a joke. This is the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy.
___________________________________
Patrick, really. Maguire talks (at length) about how curious (and unusual) it was that Kerry supposedly used legalities to get out of Vietnam after only three light flesh wounds, instead of really serious stuff. You quote him favorably to that effect.
**************************************
**************************************

" So when Bush said he "wasn't marching to war or anything like that"..."

This is simply a lie, or Bruce doesn't understand the proper use of quotation marks. Bruce inserted "to war" on his own and now attributes it to Bush. Meaning he finally realizes that he has laughably misread the actual quotes.

" he just stuck in those references to Canada as his other alternative for no reason."

He was obviously referencing a common way people avoided military service back then, and saying that he didn't do that. This is not rocket science, boy.
________________________________________________
I inserted "to war" because a quotation from the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram itself inserted it, to clarify the meaning of Bush's sentence from the context of his surrounding sentences. He has never given the slightest hint that, when he first entered the Guard, he intended to go to Vietnam as soon as he got enough training. He HAS said explicitly that he entered it "to better myself by learning to fly airplanes" -- that is, to learn to fly as possible career training.

Craig Stapleton, "who is married to Bush's cousin and has been a confident of Bush's for 25 years", in the 7-28-99 Washington Post: "He was trying to remain a centrist when there wasn't anything left at the center... He didn't dodge the military. But he didn't volunteer to go to Vietnam and killed, either."
********************************************
********************************************

" Yep; going to war if you're called to duty -- as opposed to going into the slammer for refusing an order -- is real patriotic eagerness to fight."

Another classic logical fallacy. Bruce has just shifted the grounds away from the factual questions: 1. Did Bush train for combat as a pilot (he certainly did). And, 2. Did Bush volunteer for duty in Vietnam (he did, in 1970). To, "patriotic eagerness to fight". People do this to save face when they realize they've lost the original argument.
_________________________________________________
Again, really. You explicitly quoted Bush's "If my unit had been called, I would have gone" statement (as did he) as proof that he did not join the Guard to try to avoid combat. I pointed out the (obvious) facts that (A) if Bush's unit had been called and he had refused, he would have gone to jail; and (B) he knew perfectly well that the chances of a unit as crammed with influential Texas pols' sons as the 147th was would ever be called to dangerous duty was precisely zero. THIS is not rocket science, boy.
*******************************************************
*******************************************************

Bruce follows immediately with another instance of the fallacy:

"the chances that his VIP-crammed unit would ever have been called to dangerous duty in Vietnam"

Again, that is not the issue at hand. Bruce is shifting the grounds. Only 29 men out of over 900 slots in this ANG unit were trained for combat. What the unit was facing was not what Bush was facing. How to explain the continued obtuseness over this simple logic, except to conclude that Bruce knows his reasoning is faulty, but needs to protect his fragile ego?
______________________________________________________
To point out the excruciatingly obvious once again: how likely was it that this unit would EVER have been called to duty in Vietnam?
********************************************************
********************************************************

" Then, my dear Patrick, why did they ask him whether he wanted to volunteer that early, if the question made no sense?"

It was a line on a STANDARD FORM, dummy. He merely typed an "x" beside it, and we don't even know if it was Bush who typed it. The ANG's own explanation is that Bush would have been instructed to do so because he was not generically enlisting, but specifically getting into a fighter program that was, at that specific moment, based in Texas. It would have been self contradictory to volunteer for "overseas" duty, AT THE TIME.
______________________________________________________
Your one possibly valid point -- I need to know more about the nature of that form (although Josh Marshall has also raised this point, and in fact I first learned about it from him. There is no other information about it on the Web.)

But in any case, it's really irrelevant -- Bush, when asked repeatedly about his Guard service, has never said that when he went in he intended to volunteer for Vietnam duty as soon as he got enough training, and the form would just further cement that fact.
*********************************************************
*********************************************************

And "not a peep" from Bruce about Kerry's similar behavior in enlisting as a naval officer rather than being drafted into the army. "Not a peep" from Bruce ridiculing Kerry for, a "real patriotic eagerness to fight", for becoming a shipboard electrician. (Since Bruce is so poor a logician, I stress that the preceding is a point about consistency, not a claim of cowardice).
___________________________________________________________
My point about Kerry, for the trillionth time, is that it is extremely odd that someone who supposedly worked to dodge dangerous Vietnam duty would suddenly turn into a self-risking berserker when he actually got there. Either he suddenly suffered a dramatic fit of moral repentence, or your story is false. (See http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp ).
**************************************************
**************************************************

" Odd. Bush says that when he volunteered for Palace Alert, he didn't 'know' that he'd checked that 'Do Not Volunteer' box two years earlier. One would think that anyone who was seriously planning to volunteer as soon as he got the chance would remember something like that."
You've again misunderstood what Bush said. But only the Logically Impaired would draw the conclusion you have. At the time of enlisting, Bush's goal was to get into a pilot training program, he did what he needed to do to accomplish that.

He wouldn't be in a position to go into combat until he'd been properly trained, so (and here I'm going to add 2+2 and get 4) Bush PROBABLY waited until he was confident he was going to successfully complete his training (lots of people wash out of these difficult programs) before volunteering. I speculate thus, because one of the people verifying that Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam was his IP (Instructor Pilot, for those in Moomawian IQ-land). Which means that Bush probably volunteered several weeks earlier than Bruce is claiming.
____________________________________
See above. Bush has never said that when he first entered the service, he intended to volunteer for Vietnam as soon as he got enough training. A extremely strange thing for him to fail to mention, during repeated interviews on the subject, if he really did intend to do so.

So the only remaining question is whether he later changed his mind and was sincere in volunteering for Palace Alert two years later. And, as Marshall says, if he was sincere about doing so, his complete failure to say a word about the affair to Russert is very odd (see below). As is Stapleton's statement to the Post.
****************************************************
****************************************************

" Barnes has said that he remembers the whole conversation in great detail."

What are you, 12? Barnes is an old man testifying about a conversation over 30 years ago. Memories are not that reliable. But, yet again, "not a peep" from Bruce about the historian's records that say there were over 100 openings in that ANG unit.
_________________________________________________________
(1) Los Angeles Times, 2-15-04:
"The National Guard was a far different creature then than it is today. Now, members of the Guard are being used in Afghanistan and Iraq, as they were in an earlier war, waged by Bush's father, in the Persian Gulf.

"But in the late 1960s, the National Guard was a safe haven from the draft for young men who did not want to opt for Canada or the regular army. Instead, guardsmen ended up in a sort of nether land, not honored or denounced as Vietnam veterans, but also not considered hip or despised as draft dodgers. During the Vietnam period, the rules were often relaxed, with commanders giving plenty of leeway for guardsmen to juggle their military duty around civilian lives.

"It was into this world that Bush came in the summer of 1968. His military records show that, with long waiting lists for many Guard units around the country, he jumped into the Air Guard and the officer ranks without the exceptional credentials and ROTC training that other officer candidates often possessed. He was also given a highly coveted pilot's slot.

"Bush's application, as well as his commission, were handled by then-Col. Walter B. 'Buck' Staudt, who said, 'Nobody did anything for him…. There was no … influence on his behalf. Neither his daddy nor anybody else got him into the Guard.' Staudt, who retired in 1972 as a brigadier general, said Bush was enrolled quickly because there was a demand for pilot candidates.

"But Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, said that records did not show a pilot shortage in the Guard squadron at the time. Hail, who reviewed the unit's personnel records for a special Guard museum display on Gov. Bush's service, said Bush's unit had 27 pilots at the time he began applying.

"While that number was two short of its authorized strength, the unit had two other pilots who were in training and another awaiting a transfer into the unit. There was no apparent need to fast-track applicants, he said.

"As for a direct commission for someone of Bush's limited qualifications, Hail said, 'I've never heard of that. Generally they did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight surgeons.'...

"Staudt also was instrumental in getting another politician's son into the Guard in 1968. He met Lloyd Bentsen III, who recently had graduated from Stanford University business school, at a party and told him he needed a financial officer. Bentsen's father, later a Democratic U.S. senator from Texas and vice presidential candidate, denied intervening to help his son.)"

(2) Washington Post, 2-3-04: "Bush was accepted for pilot training after having scored only 25 percent on the pilot's aptitude test, the lowest acceptable grade."

(3) Dallas Morning News, 9-8-99:
" Former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes has told friends that in the late 1960s, a well-known Houston oilman asked him to help George W. Bush get a spot in the Texas Air National Guard.

"Two of those friends, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said in recent interviews that Mr. Barnes identified the oilman as Sidney A. Adger, a longtime Bush family acquaintance who died in 1996. They said that Mr. Barnes -- a Democrat, Austin businessman and sometime lobbyist - told them that one of his staff members forwarded Mr. Adger's request to the general in charge of the Guard's air operations...

"Mr. Barnes declined to comment but is scheduled to be questioned Thursday about Mr. Bush and the Guard in a lawsuit filed by the ex-director of the Texas lottery. Brig. Gen. James Rose, the general in charge of the Guard's air operations, died in 1993...

"Mr. Adger, a former pilot for Pan American World Airways, was known affectionately in Houston business and political circles as 'The King.' For years, he lived in the same Houston neighborhood and sent his children to the same private school as the Bushes. He belonged to the the same downtown clubs as the elder Mr. Bush, who from 1967 to 1970 represented Houston as a Republican congressman.

" 'President Bush knew Sid Adger well,' Ms. Becker said. 'He loved him.'...

"Earlier this summer, Mr. Barnes acknowledged he sometimes received requests for help in obtaining Guard slots. But he said he never got such a call from anyone in the Bush family. He declined to comment on whether someone else contacted him on Mr. Bush's behalf.

"Mr. Barnes has been subpoenaed to give a deposition Thursday in a wrongful termination suit filed by Lawrence Littwin, the former lottery director, against Gtech Corp., the lottery contractor that employed Mr. Barnes as a lobbyist. Mr. Littwin and his lawyers have suggested in court records that Gtech kept its state contract in exchange for Mr. Barnes' silence on the Guard matter. Gtech and Mr. Bush's office have denied the allegation.

"A top Barnes aide, Nick Kralj of Austin, who simultaneously served as aide to the late Gen. Rose, already testified in the lawsuit that he passed on names of Guard applicants from Mr. Barnes to Gen. Rose. He said that he couldn't recall the applicants' names but that Mr. Bush was not among them.

"In interviews with The Dallas Morning News, Mr. Barnes' friends said he told them Mr. Adger contacted him and asked for help to secure a Guard spot for Mr. Bush. They said Mr. Barnes did not make it clear whether he believed the Bushes were behind Mr. Adger's request. They said that Mr. Adger was on good terms with Mr. Barnes, who would go on to become lieutenant governor, and other Democrats in control of state politics.

"Interviews show that Mr. Adger had influential contacts in both parties. And Mr. Barnes, as speaker and later as lieutenant governor, was the chief political ally of Gen. Rose, who was engaged in an ultimately unsuccessful fight to keep his job. A rival for that job was Walter 'Buck' Staudt, a colonel and commander of the 147th Fighter Group in Houston, later promoted to general and now retired. He was the person who signed up Mr. Bush for his pilot slot."

(4) Washington Post, 9-21-99:
"The speaker of the Texas legislature personally asked the top official of the Texas Air National Guard to help George W. Bush obtain a pilot's slot in a Guard fighter squadron during the war in Vietnam, according to informed sources.

"The speaker, Ben Barnes, intervened on Bush's behalf sometime in late 1967 or early 1968 at the request of a good friend of Bush's father, then a Republican congressman from Houston, the sources said. The friend, Sidney A. Adger, was a prominent Houston business executive who died in 1996. The Guard official contacted at his behest, Brig. Gen. James M. Rose, died in 1993...

"The question of how George W. Bush got into the Texas Guard as a pilot trainee less than two weeks before his graduation from Yale has been a recurring issue in his political campaigns and has now been raised in a contentious lawsuit in which Barnes, who retired from politics after serving as House speaker and then lieutenant governor, is scheduled to give a deposition in Austin Sept. 27.

"Barnes said in an interview this summer that when he was speaker he sometimes received requests for help in obtaining Guard slots, but never received such a call from then-Rep. Bush or anyone in the Bush family. But he declined to comment when asked if an intermediary or friend of the Bush family had ever asked him to intercede on George W. Bush's behalf.

"Barnes has refused to make any further statement. However, he has told associates in Texas that Adger once called him seeking his help for George W. Bush. Barnes then called Rose, and, the sources say, recommended young Bush in a see-what-you-can-do fashion. Rose was in charge of the state's Air National Guard as assistant adjutant general for air...

"Staudt said in an interview that he knew Adger, but that Adger never mentioned Bush to him. Bush has said that he met Staudt in late 1967, during Christmas vacation of his senior year at Yale, called him later, and by Bush's account, 'found out what it took to apply.' Asked recently how it was that Bush came to call Staudt, Bush's communications director, Karen Hughes, has said he heard 'from friends while he was home over the Christmas break that the Guard was looking for pilots and that Colonel Staudt was the person to contact.' She said Bush did not recall who those 'friends' were.

Jake Johnson, a former legislator, said Rose once told him that ' "I got that Republican congressman's son from Houston into the Guard." ' Johnson, a close friend and ally of Rose's, was chairman of the House Veterans and Military Affairs Committee in Austin in the late 1960s. He said Rose made the remark at one of their frequent meetings about bureaucratic infighting in the Texas Guard.

"Staudt praised Bush as someone who 'volunteered to serve his country' when many others didn't. But the unit he joined offered Bush a chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas and was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age. 'It was sometimes called Air Canada,' Johnson said. 'What that meant was you didn't have to go to Canada to stay out of Vietnam.'

"The suit involving Barnes was brought by former Texas lottery director Lawrence Littwin, who was fired by the state lottery commission, headed by Bush appointee Harriet Miers, in October 1997 after five months on the job. It contends that Gtech Corp., which runs the state lottery and until February 1997 employed Barnes as a lobbyist for more than $3 million a year, was responsible for Littwin's dismissal.

"Littwin's lawyers have suggested in court filings that Gtech was allowed to keep the lottery contract, which Littwin wanted to open up to competitive bidding, in return for Barnes's silence about Bush's entry into the Guard.

"Barnes and his lawyers have denounced this 'favor-repaid' theory in court pleadings as 'preposterous . . . fantastic [and] fanciful.' Littwin was fired after ordering a review of the campaign finance reports of various Texas politicians for any links to Gtech or other lottery contractors. But Littwin wasn't hired, or fired, until months after Barnes had severed his relationship with Gtech.

"Barnes and his partner had been getting 4 percent of Gtech's gross revenue in Texas each year, on condition that the lottery contract not be put up for rebid. The world's biggest lottery operator, with revenue of almost $1 billion a year, Gtech agreed to buy them out for $23.1 million in the wake of damaging publicity stemming from the criminal prosecution in New Jersey of a top Gtech executive.

"But while the Barnes camp has scoffed at the assertions of a payback for a 30-year-old favor, they have been more circumspect about the 'favor' itself. In a motion seeking to block the deposition, Barnes's lawyer, Charles R. Burton, simply contended that whatever Barnes did in recommending 'qualified candidates for service in the Guard' was irrelevant, private and privileged.

"U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin rejected the argument, saying he was 'unpersuaded' by what amounted to a last-minute pleading that Barnes could have submitted weeks earlier."

(5) Dallas Morning News, 9-28-99: "AUSTIN -- Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes confirmed Monday that he recommended Gov. George W. Bush for a slot in the Texas Air National Guard during the height of the Vietnam War, at the request of a Bush family friend." (No more of this article is available on the Web.)

(6) Finally, there is apparently a report in either the Dallas Morning News or the Austin American-Statesman -- I haven't been able to determine which -- that Staudt also put both of Adger's sons in the 147th, one in 1966 and one in 1968.

And now, back to Patrick:
********************************************************
********************************************************

" Either that, or (as he told Russert) he has nothing real whatsoever to brag about."

Another non-peep from Bruce about the fact that four people have to be lying for Bruce's argument to work.
__________________________________________
What are you, 12? It obviously only requires one person to lie -- Bush himself, when he says that he didn't know he was totally unqualified for Palace Alert when he applied for it.
************************************************
************************************************

" 'Ad hominem', Patrick? Seems to sum up the morality of the real Bush during this period awfully well. Doesn't really sound very patriotic or unselfish, does he?"

Bruce, whether an ad hominem is accurate or not, is irrelevant to the logic. Do you understand the meaning of "fallacy"? It's because the ad hominem changes the subject away from the relevant issue that makes it a fallacy.
_____________________________________________________
Please, Patrick. There is, of couse, nothing whatsoever ad hominem or irrelevant about the Garbage Can Incident, because it very neatly describes Bush's actual nature during those years -- he was a totally selfish, self-centered sleaze, for years after entering the Guard.. Which makes it even more unlikely that he would have volunteered to risk his own neck for his country.
********************************************************
**********************************************************

" Finally: if Bush was really ready to volunteer for Vietnam duty the moment he went into the Guard..."

Sheesh, the King of Circular Reasoning. He has never said that he was "ready to volunteer for Vietnam duty the moment he went into the Guard". I am truly curious how anyone interested in economics learned this bizarre reasoning process on demonstration here.
_________________________________________________________
You yourself seem to have trouble with elementary logic. What I meant, of course, was NOT that he expected to get into Vietnam the moment he went into the Guard -- I meant that at the time he went into the Guard, he did NOT intend ever to volunteer for Vietnam duty, and that this is why he really checked that "Do Not Volunteer" box. The only valid question is whether he changed his mind later, at the time he supposedly volunteered for Palace Alert -- and I've provided reasons for thinking he probably didn't. Now let's take a look at his exchange with Russert on that subject:

"RUSSERT: Were you in favor of the war in Vietnam?

"BUSH: I supported my government. I did. And would hve gone if my unit had been called up, by the way.

"RUSSERT: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.

BUSH: No, I didn't. You're right. I served. I flew fighters and enjoyed it, and provided a service to our country. In those days we had what was called an "air defense command', and it was a part of the air defense command system.

"The thing about the Vietnam war that troubles me as I look back was it was a political war." [Goes on to criticize Vietnam War for being run by "politicians" rather than "the military". End of discussion of his Guard record.]

Not a word about Palace Alert -- which, as Josh Marshall points out, is extremely odd if he really did sincerely volunteer for service in Vietnam, but makes infinitely more sense if he didn't intend his Palace Alert application seriously from the start.
***************************************************************
****************************************************************

" The absolute conceivable maximum extent to which he can claim honorable behavior...."

Is exactly the same for Bush as it is for Kerry (actually, Bush's is the more macho up the point where Kerry goes into the Swift Boats). Their actions are remarkable for the similarity, as stated in their own words. Unlike you, Bruce, I take BOTH MEN to be telling the truth.
______________________________________
Bull. You chortled interminably about the Kerry Flesh Wound story -- a story which, as I say, is utterly idiotic on the face of it. Men trying to avoid injury do not chase the enemy single-handedly and unnecessarily into the woods, or do any of the other things Kerry got those medals for. Against that, all you have is Bush's (questionable) claim that he finally did volunteer for Vietnam duty. (And, by the way, I don't ever automatically assume that ANYONE is telling the truth without corroborative evidence. Particularly when it's seriously in their interest to lie.)

You really are absolutely frantic to alibi this guy, aren't you? (As you're also frantic to smear Kerry.) But, to quote Thoreau: some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk. In this case, there are a whole school of them.

"Please, Patrick. There is, of couse, nothing whatsoever ad hominem or irrelevant about the Garbage Can Incident, because it very neatly describes Bush's actual nature during those years -- he was a totally selfish, self-centered sleaze, for years after entering the Guard.. Which makes it even more unlikely that he would have volunteered to risk his own neck for his country."

An overstatement on my part. He was just a MOSTLY selfish, self-centered sleaze. (To decide the extent to which he still is one, we must look at other evidence.)

But -- since there were some right-wingers and Vietnam hawks who actually did put their money where their mouths were, and actually did risk their lives there -- I suggest you switch to praising them, and give up trying to alibi this particular piece of Rich White Trash.

Well, I hope Prof. DeLong appreciates Bruce's latest tactic when he gets this month's bill for bandwidth usage.

Since Bruce is obviously committed to changing the subject, repeating himself, citing hearsay, torturing logic, avoiding questions, pretending to miss the point, and still can't grasp the ad hominem fallacy that is staring him in the face:

"Please, Patrick. There is, of couse, nothing whatsoever ad hominem or irrelevant about the Garbage Can Incident, because it very neatly describes Bush's actual nature during those years -- he was a totally selfish, self-centered sleaze, for years after entering the Guard.. Which makes it even more unlikely that he would have volunteered to risk his own neck for his country."

I say, fine let's play by Bruce's rules:

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061503.shtml

----------quote-----------
John Forbes Kerry swerved his two-seat plane across San Francisco Bay, heading straight toward the Golden Gate. ``Let's fly under the bridge!'' Kerry shouted to his sole passenger and close friend, David Thorne. Thorne tried not to panic as the tiny craft buzzed low across the swells.

Most students who had graduated from Yale with Kerry the previous year knew him as the ultimate Brahmin, the studious and serious class orator who longed to run for president someday. But Thorne and other members of the university's elite Skull and Bones society knew another side of Kerry: He was a young man drawn to danger. During his senior year he "majored in flying," as Kerry put it, learning aerobatics and performing loop-de-loops instead of focusing on his studies.

Thorne also knew that Kerry had been fascinated with the legend of a Yale professor who once looped a bridge, pulling a 360 around the span.

It was a summer day in 1967. The sky was clear as the Golden Gate Bridge came into view. Kerry clung to the controls of the rented T-34, similar to those used for military training, and the two young Naval officers headed toward the famous span.

Wham!

The plane jerked and veered. Out on the wing, the feet of an unfortunate seagull stuck out like a scene from a cartoon. Seconds later the scene flipped from Looney Tunes to Alfred Hitchcock, as more birds appeared in front of them. Suck one into an engine and a young pilot's life story could conclude right there: Yale aviator, dreamed of being president, killed on joyride.

Kerry, the son of a World War II test pilot, pulled up the nose of his small plane, ascending beyond the dangerous flock of birds.

"We were worried the wing would come off," Thorne recalled. Instead, Kerry steered the aircraft away from the bridge and toward a nearby airfield, leaving behind whatever stunts were lurking inside his 23-year-old brain.
---------endquote-----------

I know Bruce is allergic to consistency, but I can't help but ask where he would rate the above behavior for "self-centered sleaze".

Yep -- it is. (Although Kerry, as far as either of us knows so far, did it only once, whereas Bush spent years getting repeatedly bombed and then weaving home.)

Now, then, Patrick: about those other points I raised. Any responses?

"Well, I hope Prof. DeLong appreciates Bruce's latest tactic when he gets this month's bill for bandwidth usage."

Comments, Brad? I myself find it hard to avoid the conclusion that Sullivan is getting awful hard up for ammunition, since I used all of my lengthy comments and quotes to bury his own lengthy procession of faulty arguments a mile deep.

Also, Brad: Although this should go without saying, if Sullivan actually DOES have any replies to my arguments, please don't cut him off by complaining about his own excessive use of bandwidth. (Alternatively, of course, we can always shoot it out via E-mail.)

While this is a minor point: I presume, then, that Sullivan is dropping that line about "Bush's record being more macho than Kerry's to the time Kerry got on the Swift Boats"? (Unless he's going to argue that Bush was actually braver because he repeatedly got behind the wheel and drove home after liberally fortifying himself with Dutch courage.)

Actually, the story that Kerry loved aerobatics (which I'd never heard before) is the strongest argument Sullivan has ever been able to come up with -- while it blows to bits his argument that Kerry tried to dodge dangerous duty in Vietnam, it raises the possibility that his daring-do there was motivated as much (or more) by a love of thrills than by a sense of duty.

As for Bush: we now have virtual proof that he (A) did NOT enter the Guard to take on dangerous duty in Vietnam, but instead decided to take whatever risks he took in becoming a flyer as a form of job training; (B) preferred those risks to whatever risks he would have taken in Vietnam; (C)used unfair pull to get into the Guard.

Bruce, I already have answered every point you've raised. Repeating false arguments doesn't make them valid. For instance:

" As for Bush: we now have virtual proof that he (A) did NOT enter the Guard to take on dangerous duty in Vietnam..."

That is shifting the grounds of the debate. YOU need to prove Bush enlisted in the ANG to avoid Vietnam, and you have failed miserably to do that. I am truly interested; just where did you learn to reason in this way?

" Actually, the story that Kerry loved aerobatics (which I'd never heard before) is the strongest argument Sullivan has ever been able to come up with -- while it blows to bits his argument that Kerry tried to dodge dangerous duty in Vietnam..."

You are repeating a falsehood. I've never made that argument, I've only pointed out that consistency requires YOU make that argument. But intellectual consistency isn't something you do, is it.

Btw, there's an old joke that ends with the punchline: "I may be drunk, lady. But, tomorrow I'll be sober, and you'll still be ugly." Bush is sober today. Is Kerry still reckless?

JFK I was still reckless when he attained the presidency. The same character flaw that led him to crash his PT boat into a dock racing the other skippers back to base, that might have gotten his PT boat sliced in half by a Japanese ship, that led him to sneak literally dozens of women into the White House when Jackie wasn't there, that led him to take the country to the brink of nuclear war over Cuba, also resulted in the initial escalation of the Vietnam War.

Is that same trait still present in Kerry's character? The one that led him to twice beach his Swift Boat and expose it and his men to enemy fire. What would have happened had there been a second VC with a rocket launcher (he didn't see the guy until he'd beached himself 10 feet from him). His CO said he considered court martialing him for leaving his boat, and then Kerry goes back to the scene and does it again to make a home movie for his future political career. Does that sound like the kind of person we want in the White House.

" As for Bush: we now have virtual proof that he(A) did NOT enter the Guard to take on dangerous duty in Vietnam..."

That is shifting the grounds of the debate. YOU need to prove Bush enlisted in the ANG to avoid Vietnam, and you have failed miserably to do that. I am truly interested; just where did you learn to reason in this way?
_______________________________________

*sigh*... Bush himself has said, repeatedly, that he didn't want to fight in the infantry in Vietnam, and he also didn't want to "run to Canada", and so he decided to "better himself by learning to fly airplanes" -- which can only be a reference to the fact that he was using as job training for a a future aviation career (at public expense). He has never said that when he went into the Guard he was planning to enter flying service in Vietnam as soon as he was qualified for that job, and his lifetime friend and confidant confirms that he didn't. He got into an outfit notorious throughout Texas as being designed a shelter for the sons of the influential who wanted to dodge Vietnam, and which was in fact crammed with those sons. He got into it --- and got his flyer's job --through unfair political influence (unless you've suddenly turned on Hail's testimony, and unless you ignore the fact that he got that flyer's job despite getting the lowest possible qualification score on his aptitude test, and unless you ignore all that other evidence about the nature of the 147th).

There is a possibility that he finally changed his mind two years later due to guilt pangs and decided to volunteer for Vietnam duty after all through Palace Alert (a week before the program shut down, at a time when he had only 1/3 the flying hours he needed to qulify) -- but he didn't feel it worth mentioning when Russert was grilling him at length about whether he had dodged service in Vietnam. His lifetime friend and confidant also doesn't mention it. Which makes very unlikely possibility that his vulnteering was sincere.

And that is how I learned to reason that way, Patrick. I learned to reason, period.

" I presume, then, that Sullivan is dropping that line about "Bush's record being more macho than Kerry's to the time Kerry got on the Swift Boats"? (Unless he's going to argue that Bush was actually braver because he repeatedly got behind the wheel and drove home after liberally fortifying himself with Dutch courage.)"

You are really a masochist. Try informing yourself of the facts before shooting your mouth off, from part 2 of the Boston Globe story, Kerry in his own words:

---------quote---------
Kerry served two tours. For a relatively uneventful six months, from December 1967 to June 1968, he served in the electrical department aboard the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate that supported aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin and was far removed from combat.

"I didn't have any real feel for what the heck was going on [in the war]," Kerry has recalled. His ship returned to its Long Beach, Calif., port on June 6, 1968, the day that Robert F. Kennedy died from a gunshot wound he received on the previous night at a Los Angeles hotel. The antiwar protests were growing. But within five months Kerry was heading back to Vietnam, seeking to fulfill his officer commitment despite his growing misgivings about the war.

Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."
-------endquote---------

That is not the first time I've provided the above for you. Are you going to ignore it this time also?

So make up your mind. Is Kerry a coward, or is he dangerously personally reckless? Which one (if either) was reflected in his behavior after he got on the Swift Boats?

I must say, your recent argument that he might be "dangerously militarily reckless like JFK" is certainly an impressive switch from the current official GOP line about him, which is that he's a dove who foolishly shrinks from necessary military confrontations. As for this "never being your argument": come on. It may not have been your specific argument when you first brought up the bridge-buzzing affair (although it obviously follows from that incident, as I pointed out), but you've certainly jumped at the opportunity to agree with me that it may have been a characteristic of his at the time.

There is, however, solid evidence that it is NOT his characteristic now -- there's a reason why the GOP isn't using that line of attack. You've been accusing him of being excessively dovish during the Cold War, and he voted against immediate entry into the Kuwait War (as did Daniel P. Moynihan, incidentally). And if you bothered to read his recent speech as noted by Kleiman, you're going to have trouble finding any evidence of either stupid dovishness OR stupid hawkishness.

So, to repeat: make your damn mind. By your bizarre portrayal, he started out as a daredevil Flying Fool who regularly risked his own life and others' lives for thrills; then he suddenly turned into a coward trying to avoid dangerous service in Vietnam; then, after ending up on a Swift Boat anyway, he suddenly turned back into a daredevil who regularly risked his own life and his men's for thrills and/or to build up his image for a future political career; now the GOP says that he is once again foolishly shrinking from necessary military confrontations. (His men, as I say, mostly seem to have a very high opinion of him, in large part because he repeatedly risked his life to save them -- which is considerably more than can ever be said for George W. And E.J. Dionne, who's seen Kerry's Vietnam movies, says there is virtually no self-agggrandizement in them -- they were, instead, apparently an attempt to build up a historical document of what that war was actually like.) Maybe you're going to accuse him of having a split personality?

And as for John Kennedy: I'm not going to defend his conduct where women are concerned. Any man who knowingly has an affair with a Mafia moll while he's running for President is irresponsible as hell on that subject. But your statement that he "brought his country to the brink of war over Cuba" is cretinous -- almost all US politicians were urging him to be MORE aggressive in confronting the USSR there, by bombing the missiles sites immediately. Every member of his Cabinet and his high-level officials except RFK, Stevenson, and George Ball urged that. So did Fulbright and Brzezinski. So did virtually every Republican politician. As "Slate" points out, he was one of the most dovish politicians in the country during the Missile Crisis, and thank God he was.

And as for his "escalating the Vietnam conflict": the most recently released batch of his recorded Oval Office conversations (although the press hasn't paid much attention to this) reveal that just before his murder he had definitely decided to order all US troops pullled out of Vietnam by the end of 1965 if we weren't provably beating the VC by then. As "Slate" points out, this once again puts him firmly to the dovish side of virtually all of his own Cabinet, particularly Dean Rusk. (And as "Slate" also points out, LBJ was also far queasier about initially escalating the war than most of the Cabinet members he had inherited from JFK were -- but Johnson had less intellectual confidence in his own judgement than JFK did, and ended up following their line that we had to escalate the war rather pulling out.)

That's "escalate the war rather THAN pulling out."

And, regarding Bush now being sober: of course he is. But the relevant question has always been: is he still selfish, and if so to what degree? He was certainly selfish as hell back during his young days, and made absolutely no attempt to hide it, in college or anywhere else -- and his roaring around Houston boozed up was just one manifestation of that fact.

" And that is how I learned to reason that way, Patrick. I learned to reason, period."

Too funny! You can't get anything right. Uh, Bruce,to answer my question, which was:

"just where did you learn to reason in this way?"

You need to say something like: "At Wabash College, where I took two courses in logic."

Instead, what you did was to produce another chain of invalid reasoning (at least your were comparatively brief). I guess the answer to my question is, you have never been exposed to proper logical methods. And are committed to never doing so.

To Kerry's own words on his naval career:

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

Bruce answers:

" So make up your mind. Is Kerry a coward, or is he dangerously personally reckless? Which one (if either) was reflected in his behavior after he got on the Swift Boats?"

I guess you studied semantics the same way you did logic. Okay, your first error is that it is not my mind that needs to be made up. I've already told you I think neither Bush nor Kerry demonstrated cowardice in their enlistment choices. I'm trying to get you to to the same.

Here, I'll make it easy:

___ I, Bruce Moomaw, believe both Bush and Kerry showed cowardice by not volunteering for infantry duty when they enlisted.

___ I, Bruce Moomaw, believe neither Bush nor Kerry showed cowardice by not volunteering for infantry duty when they enlisted.

Just put an "x" in front of your choice (hey, even Bush could handle that).

Your second error is that "coward" and "reckless" are not antonyms. Thus, your question is illogical. Third: obviously, beaching your boat and making yourself a sitting duck for an VC with a rocket launcher suggests "recklessness".