|
|
 |
|
Home Blog of the American Resistance! |
|
|
|
saturday, february 14, 2004
Memorable Hot Links
Newspapers around the country are headlining the story of John Calhoun,
the retired officer who claims he saw George W. Bush report for duty in Alabama in 1972. I'm sure the story is getting similar
play on television news, which I rarely watch any more because it's too depressing.
The headline writers are playing Calhoun's testimony against yesterday's White House
document dump of what is claimed are Bush's complete military records. More on that below.
The problem with Mr. Calhoun's memories is that they are a little too good. Mr.
Calhoun "remembers" Bush reporting for duty at times when even Bush's scattershot documentation (and everybody else who served in the Alabama Guard unit in question) says he wasn't there. (Billmon at Whiskey Bar has good commentary on this.)
Notice that even the White House has reservations about Mr. Calhoun:
Three comments: First, a great many people will only see or hear the
headline and assume the AWOL charge has been answered. They won't pay attention long enough to notice the discrepancies. And,
of course, the hard right will use Mr. Calhoun's testimony as ideological earplugs -- la la la I only hear what I want
to hear la la la.
However, the fact that the White House is keeping Mr. Calhoun at arm's length must
indicate the President doesn't remember Mr. Calhoun, and they have no idea where Mr. Calhoun is coming from, and they aren't
sure what to do about him.
Is Calhoun lying? Maybe, but I think it is very possible Mr. Calhoun suffers
from false memory syndrome, which in my unprofessional opinion is a real thing and fairly common. Mr. Calhoun may want so badly to believe in the
goodness and virtue of President Bush that he "remembers" things that never happened. As time goes on, Mr. Calhoun's memories
will become more and more detailed and more and more estranged from documented reality. Watch for this.
On to the document dump. According to Dana Milbank and
Mike Allen of the Washington Post, the documentation released by the White House yesterday pretty much proves, Mr.
Calhoun's "memories" notwithstanding, that Bush just plain skipped out on his Guard obligations.
The records show Bush was an eager fighter pilot who said he wanted to spend a
lifetime in aviation. But they provide no evidence that he did any military service in Alabama, to which he had requested
a transfer in May 1972 to work on a Senate campaign that ended in November 1972.
And the records show officials from Bush's home base in Texas declining to
provide details of his activities between May 1972 to April 1973, even though such documentation was requested by National
Guard headquarters. ...
... the tone of Bush's military file changed abruptly, and with no documented explanation,
in May 1972, when Bush sought to transfer to Alabama. That began a period of months in which, the documents suggest, Bush
did not actively pursue Guard service and the Guard did not actively pursue him. [Dana Milbank and Mike Allen, "Many Gaps in Bush's Guard Records," The Washington Post, February 14, 2004]
See also comments by Billmon and David Corn. And if you haven't seen transcript of yesterday's duel between a reporter (I understand the reporter is Helen Thomas) and
Scott McClellan, click here.
One more item: The White House is still playing games with Bush's medical records
from the period. Citing a need to protect the President's "privacy," the White House did not release 44 pages of medical records,
but instead allowed a select group of reporters to paw through them for 20 minutes.
But even as the President's staff so zealously guards his privacy, Bush's
Department of Justice has no such consideration for women who have had abortions.
In an attempt to bolster its defense of the unconstitutional Partial Birth
Abortion Act of 2003, the Bush administration has gone beyond its campaign to destroy women's reproductive rights and has
attacked the privacy rights of all Americans.
This assault is being conducted through subpoenas the Justice Department has issued
demanding that at least six hospitals in New York City, Philadelphia, Illinois and elsewhere turn over hundreds of patient
records for certain abortions. This egregious intrusion on patients' privacy is being pursued in the name of defending lawsuits
against the abortion ban. Not only is the information not needed to do that, but it is also a flagrant example of why Congress
and the attorney general have no business second-guessing sensitive medical decisions made by individuals and their doctors.
["Privacy in Peril," The New York Times, February 14, 2004]
Indeed.
friday, february 13, 2004
Hot Links, Friday the 13th Edition
5:53 am | link
thursday, february 12, 2004
You Can't Make This Up
Word has come down from the Chemically Altered One himself, Rush Limbaugh,
that the Kerry "bimbo" story came from Bill Clinton.
First, go read the transcript to Rush's commentary and tell me that boy ain't still on drugs. Rush's rhetoric foams at the mouth. But as near as I
can tell, what Rush says comes down to this: the Clintons ordered the hit on Kerry because they don't want a Democrat to win
in 2004, because Hillary! plans to run in 2008. Got that?
Outside of tabloids, right-wing blogs, and the more virulent VRWC-owned media,
nobody in the media seems to be rushing to report on the "infidelity" story. Curiouser and curiouser.
Smoking Bimbos?
Drudge, he to whom I will not link, claims that John Kerry has a bimbo
problem. Drudge alleges that John Kerry was involved in a marital "infidelity" with a woman who once worked for the Associated
Press. Drudge says this story was being investigated by the AP, The Washington Post, Time magazine
and ABC network.
According to Atrios, Fox News picked the story up from Drudge, but I could not find it on their web site. Hesiod calls it the "John Kerry version of the Gennifer Flowers story." Both bloggers imply that the story likely is a Karl Rove
plant.
The Drudge site also declared that General Wesley Clark,
in an off-the-record chat with reporters earlier this week, predicted that the Kerry campaign would soon implode due to an
"intern." It would seem strange, however, if he really believed that, that he would drop out of the race, as he did yesterday.
Sean-Paul Kelley posts at The Agonist:
A few more very random thoughts on this issue. First, do the Republicans really
want to go the sex route again? If so, my first suggestion is finding Larry Flynt again and asking him to sponsor another
of his investigations--you know the guy who uncovered Newt's affair with an intern during the impeachment hearings, among
others. Also, if the Republicans go down this path again, playing dirty politics likes this, I say we take the gloves off.
Everything, and I mean everything becomes fair game. We are fighting for the soul of this country, so, as George is so fond
of saying: Bring it on.
And good advice for the Kerry Team from The Note, probably posted before the Drudge accusations broke:
We WERE going to have today's Note summary anchored by "Political dynamics to watch," a regular feature here,
but there's actually only ONE dynamic to watch in the presidential race right now.
Political dynamic to watch:
1. How is the Kerry communications team (and the candidate himself) dealing with the stepped-up dredging/Drudging
of his past?
Did the campaign know in advance about the Jane Fonda picture? How about the old Harvard Crimson interview?
How about the gay marriage letter?
Leaving aside the merits of these matters (like the merits of a flag factory . . . .), there are the basic
questions of knowing what's out there and being ready to respond to kill these things before they take on a life of their
own and define John Kerry for a public that still mostly doesn't know him.
Everything else -- the Mankiw flap; Bob Novak's mindset; Howard Dean's mindset; John Edwards' mind; House
special elections; the President's dental records; Joe Allbaugh's memory; the Massachusetts legislature; Fred Hochberg's lunch
-- all these things are at most secondary, and, in many cases, tertiary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Note also points to today's Bob Novak column,
and The Note is right -- it's atomic.
The ''Meet the Press'' performance raised disturbing questions for Republicans.
How could Bush be put out to confront the most feared questioner in Washington without a careful scenario? How could he face
Russert without precise answers on the decision to go to war in Iraq and on his National Guard service? The suspicion
is that his 2004 campaign organization, a fund-raising juggernaut, is otherwise inadequate.
The Bush White House is cloistered, where even Bush aides seem restrained
from debating strategy even behind closed doors. The belief in Republican circles is that Bush, tired of battering by Democrats
and alarmed by his descent in the polls, asked for an hour on television. This questions how it could be possible for a president
who claims to neither read newspapers nor watch television.
In any event, no aide dissuaded Bush from embarking on this course or devised
a plan to make the most of it. [Novak, 2/12/04]
My impression of the Bushies is that this whole governing thing
is way over their heads. They've bumbled along by distracting us with war and making promises they can't keep for the future.
Maybe the future is about to arrive.
[Update] And speaking of Bob Novak --
Two government officials have told the FBI that conservative columnist
Robert Novak was asked specifically not to publish the name of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in his now-famous July
14 newspaper column. The two officials told investigators they warned Novak that by naming Plame he might potentially
jeopardize her ability to engage in covert work, stymie ongoing intelligence operations, and jeopardize sensitive overseas
sources. [Murray S. Waas, "Plame Gate," The American Prospect, February 12, 2004]
Hot Links
6:23 am | link
wednesday, february 11, 2004
Today's Press Briefing
Q Coming back to John's question real briefly. One of the questions that remain
after the release of the documents yesterday involves the President's physical in 1972. Are you guys talking about what happened
there and why he didn't take --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think this was all addressed previously. I think that, again,
this goes to show that some are not interested in the facts of whether or not he served; they're interested in trolling for
trash and using this issue for partisan political gain.
Q What was the answer previous to this?
MR. McCLELLAN: What's the question?
Q On the question of --
MR. McCLELLAN: See, I mean, there are some that want us to engage in gutter
politics. I'm not going to engage in gutter politics. I'm going to focus on what we're doing --
Q But you were suggesting you'd answered the question previously.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- to address the priorities for the American people. We went
through this in 1994, I believe again in '98, 2000. Now some are trying to bring it up again in 2004.
Q Scott, can I ask, in 2004, just again, why did the President miss his physical?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Why did the President miss his physical?
MR. McCLELLAN: Are you talking about when he -- whether or not he -- I put
out a response to that question yesterday, about whether or not he was rated by his commanders as a pilot.
Q Can I just ask you today, in 2004 --
MR. McCLELLAN: No.
Q -- why he missed his physical?
MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, there are some that -- again, this is a question
of whether or not he served. That question has been answered through the documents that were released yesterday, and released
previously.
Q I just want to hear from the White House Press Secretary --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not -- no, there are some -- Elisabeth, we've already addressed
this issue. I'm not going to engage in gutter politics. I'm going to focus on what we're doing to make the world safer, to
make the world a better place, and to make America more prosperous. If others want to engage in gutter politics, that's their
choice. But I think that --
Q How is asking that question engaging in gutter politics?
MR. McCLELLAN: But I think the American people -- I think the American people
deserve better.
Q Scott, how does that engage in gutter politics if I ask that question?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've been through these issues. I wasn't accusing you.
I'm accusing some -- (Laughter.) But, you see, we went through --
Q -- the answer to that question today?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, we went through these -- no, we went -- we've already addressed
this issue. We went through it previously. We went through it four years ago, for sure.
You didn't, Scott, but thanks for playing ...
Read It Read It Read It!
You must read Gail Sheehy's article in the New York Observer on the September 11 investigation. Or, I should say, the non-investigation. We learn what the FCC knew, and a lot of what
Bush was told, and what he did (or, rather, didn't) do, and what is not being investigated.
Reporters' Revenge?
According to Dan Froomkin's Washington Post column, the National Guard issue is consuming Washington.
The White House released a handful of records yesterday in an attempt to quell
the controversy over whether President Bush shirked his duty as a National Guardsman during the Vietnam War.
But the documents, one of which had already been circulated on the Internet
for days, did not exactly clear things up.
As Charlie Gibson put it on ABC's "Good Morning America" today, the subject
"seems to be consuming Washington."
Still stinging from unusually rough treatment in yesterday's press briefing, Scott McClellan said today that Democrats who continue to demand more proof that the president reported for National Guard
duty in Alabama are "trolling for trash." He also pulled back from the White House pledge to release all documentation
regarding the President's National Guard service.
Bush said in a television interview over the weekend that he would be willing
to open up his entire military file, and would "absolutely" be willing to authorize the release of anything that would settle
the controversy over his service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan appeared to step back from
that pledge, telling reporters: "If there is new information that comes to our attention we will let you know - if
it's relevant to this issue."
"I think what you're seeing is gutter politics," McClellan said. "The
American people deserve better. There are some who are not interested in the facts. They are simply trolling for trash" for
political gain. [Deb Reichmann, "Spokesman Defends Bush's Military Service," Associated Press, February 11, 2004]
I agree that the American people deserve better, mainly Anybody But Bush as President.
If the National Guard issue puts some chinks in his armor, let's use it.
Mr. McClellan must wonder what bit the press corps. They were actually holding his
feet to the fire and making him answer questions. They weren't meekly taking whatever handouts he gave them and slinking off.
I'm wondering if the press corps, seething from months of ill use by the White House,
is finally rebelling. And, really, this is a reasonably straight-up story. Bush ought to be able to document exactly
what National Guard service he performed in 1972. Given the resources of the White House staff, not to mention the Republican
Party, one would think they could put this to rest if they tried -- unless, of course, they had something to hide.
Maybe the White House Press Corps has finally seized upon this issue as a means to
fight back.
But, really, what was McClellan thinking, releasing that half-assed documentation
with the same old gaps in the record? Alert Mahablog reader Anne DeVille wrote that this episode reveals "the Bush team
doesn't know how to gather and interpret intelligence." Well, geez, no wonder they decided to invade Iraq!
So when, do you think, Peter Jennings will apologize to General Wesley Clark? Hmmmmm?
In other news -- most of you may not care about Amtrak, but here on the East Coast
it's the only civilized way to travel from city to city. Now we learn that Bush is cutting so much of Amtrak's funding it
will have to shut down. This is a seriously bad thing. My daughter, who is a big fan of Amtrak, blogs about this here.
Hot Links
I read in the Washington Post (although it isn't exactly news) that the Prez plans to endorse a marriage amendment to make gay marriage unconstitutional.
Republicans must think they've got a winning wedge issue, since Massachusetts is
now the central front of the gay marriage issue, the Democratic nominee-presumptive is a Massachusetts senator, and the party's
convention will held in Boston.
However, I suspect that if the Pugs try Willie Horton-style ads to smear
Kerry, this year it could backfire. Where the hard right might see a defense of traditional "values," the rest of the country
would probably see gay bashing. And I don't think swing voters will be won over by gay bashing.
Further, I think the Dems can defuse this issue for most people
by evoking states' rights. It's a state issue, not a federal issue. Dick Cheney himself said this during the 2000 campaign.
That's the ticket.
The smoking military record. Last night I listened to a number of TV talking heads "analyze" the Bush National Guard service issue. It was gratifying
to see this issue finally get some national media exposure, but it also revealed the gap between the web and "professional"
media.
The media version of the story is that the National Guard issue emerged only
at the very end of the 2000 campaign and died quickly because "people" were not interested. Then the story went to sleep,
and is bubbling up now because of the presumed face-off between war hero John Kerry and war shirker Smirk.
We know, of course, that the National Guard story raged on the web throughout
2000 and never died after. And I think the story has "legs" now because bloggers are finally gaining some influence over "normal"
media. Just a theory. Anyway, please see this editorial in today's New York Times, and keep up with recent updates on Calpundit.
tuesday, february 10, 2004
John Kerry, Juggernaut
We're waiting for the TV clowns to announce that John Kerry won the
Tennessee primary. And while we're waiting, here's a bit from a nice blog called Art Machine, originating in Tennessee:
Snapping a shot of Clark as he spoke proved to be a fruitless task for your
fearless ArtMachine. I was stationed on the second floor, and the first was so packed that I had to fight even to get to the
door. There was no way I could get an angle to pick up a picture of Clark. So when the General finished his speech (by the
way - the camera doesn't lie. The man can speak. He's good. He's Bill Clinton good) we dashed out the side door
and I managed to catch a picture as he made his way back to the bus.
We don't hear much about Clark these days - and that's sad. Clark has come
a long way from when he entered the race. Clark is no longer the man who shows up at the end of the picnic with
a big ol' Tupperware of soup - he's now the man who shows up with the Tupperware, then laughs and says, "Just kiddin'! Who
wants ice cream? Everybody into the van!" He's smart, quick as a whip, and has some amazing ideas for how to put the country
back on track.
Yes. I have to admit. I liked Clark.
Clark made his way back to the van and sat in the van signing placards for
some of the fans and supporters standing around outside. As the bus pulled out, he waved to the crowd and snapped off a cheerful
salute. He's got a busy schedule ahead of him - and a media to prove wrong.
Rock on, General.
Sigh. Secretary of State, maybe? The TV tells me Kerry takes Tennessee,
but they won't project second place. Kos says it's Edwards.
Hot Links
Primaries today in Virginia and Tennessee, and it looks like two more wins for Kerry.
In other campaign developments, Howard Dean has changed his mind about quitting the race if he loses Wisconsin.
The White House is still blaming the bad economy, the one they claim is booming (where?),
on the Clinton Administratrion.
In the annual Economic Report of the President, the White House said economic
activity peaked in the fourth quarter of 2000, several months earlier than the March 2001 recession start cited by the National
Bureau of Economic Research.
"While some arbitrariness in determining the date on which a recession began
is inevitable, revisions since the NBER made its decision for the most recent recession strongly suggest that the business-cycle
peak was before March 2001," the Bush administration said in the report.
Bush's economic team has long argued he inherited the recession from the Clinton
administration. Some 2.2 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office in January 2001, and the jobs issue looms large
in Bush's quest to be re-elected in November. ...
A spokeswoman for the NBER said there was no plan "at this time" to change
the date of the recession, and shrugged off the White House's assertion that the slump began earlier. [Reuters, February 9, 2004]
Oh, those pesky peasants and their
jobs. And they want health care, too. What a bother. Anyway -- Billmon at Whiskey Bar has a must-read commentary on this
little development here. And click here for an analysis of the Bush track record at predicting job growth. Great blogging.
And then go read today's Paul Krugman column -- "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs."
More reviews of Bush's tap dance act on last Sunday's "Meet the Press": Andrew Sullivan says Bush appears to have attention deficit disorder on economic matters. (What can I say about Andrew Sullivan
that hasn't already been said? Maybe someday he'll tire of being a Bush cabin boy.) Spencer Ackerman says Bush's comments on Iraq amount to "breathtaking ignorance." Today's Daily Mojo at Mother Jones says that the Russert interview failed to energize Bush's base supporters. A New York Times editorial accuses Bush of factual revisionism -- instead of changing policy to conform to facts, the Bushies fudge
the facts and keep the failing policies. (David Brooks of the NYT also discusses the MTP interview today, but I haven't had
the nerve to read the column yet. Click here if you think you can stand it.)
Marie Cocco writes in New York Newsday that the MTP interview gave viewers a glimpse of Bush's inner autocrat. "No wonder he
does not believe there's the slightest possibility Americans will vote him out of office," she writes. "Bush cannot imagine
a set of facts, a change of circumstance, a shift of mood that might overtake the electorate and influence its choice. This
is because he is not influenced by facts, or changing circumstance or shifts of mood." Carla Marinucci of the San Francisco Chronicle writes,
With political analysts and observers hitting the "replay'' button, the White
House must now relive the sound bites and the lackluster reviews from even some normally supportive Republicans who were left
ruing the decision to put the president front and center so early in the campaign.
Indeed. Can't let the voters get a really good look at him. They might not like what
they see.
monday, february 9, 2004
Hot Links
7:04 am | link
sunday, february 8, 2004
Meet the Press, Part Trois
Daschle says Bush is the most partisan president we've ever had. Exit
polls in South Carolina showed that independents didn't like Bush. But the boy just does not know why people think he's a
partisan divider. He's trying so hard to bring people together. He's citing the Medicare Bill as an example of how he works
hard to bring people together. That's worth five blogs right there.
He says he doesn't attack people. Unfavorable ratings all over the world. He's claiming
to be the next Ronald Reagan.
He's trailing John Kerry in the polls. Attacks against him are just "politics." He's
not gonna lose. He knows exactly where he wants to lead the country and the world. He's gonna win again. Losing not an option.
Biggest issue in the campaign is how to use America's power to make the world a better
place. Must win the heart and soul of the American people. He can sit in the Oval Office when times are tough and make good
decisions. Like the decision to go to war in Iraq? Sure.
This interview must seem slightly tougher than one of Bush's scripted press conferences,
but of course Russert didn't push the really hard questions.
Comments?
Meet the Press, Part Deux
This is part II of the Tim Russert interview with the "President."
Now we're talking politics. AWOL! Didn't show up when he should have
showed up.
I served in the National Guard, I flew airplanes, I was honorably discharged, I've
heard this story since I started running for office. I would be careful about denigrating the Guard, he says.
There may not be evidence, but I did report. I got an honorable discharge, I
got an honorable discharge, I got an honorable discharge. He'd be willing to open his files, and people are lookin' for 'em,
but those records just can't be found. Too bad.
What I don't like is when people say serving the Guard isn't true service, he says.
Straw man, straw man, straw man. Nobody is saying that.
I love this -- the thing that troubles him about Vietnam is that it was a political
war.
Why should the American people re-hire you as CEO of our economy? Well, the stock
market began to slide in 2000, the recession began in 2001, the attacks on our country etc. We've been through a lot. But
I acted, he said, but cutting taxes on individuals and small businesses, which led to our recovery. But wha | | | | |
