Me: Frank Lynch

Home
(Current commentary)

These are my mundane daily ramblings.
For something less spontaneous, I maintain The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page (over 1,800 Johnson quotes), with a weekly essay springing from one of Johnson's quotations.

Email:
frank
dot
lynch2
at
verizon
dot
net

Turn on your computer's sound (if not on already), and go to

Now.
Link 4:15 PM

Putting the focus back on the Bush record:

Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush on Wednesday of presiding over an "excuse presidency," challenging Bush's credibility on jobs, the record national deficit and the war in Iraq.

"This president has created more excuses than jobs," Kerry told the Detroit Economic Club. "His is the excuse presidency -- never wrong, never responsible, never to blame. President Bush's desk isn't where the buck stops -- it's where the blame begins."

Kerry said that of the last eleven presidents, Bush was the only one to oversee a national job loss, and he said Iraq and the war on terror were no excuse. "Many of them faced more severe recessions, many of them faced bigger wars with bigger expenses," Kerry said.

Who needs forged memos, anyways? (By the way, do you have this book? Absolutely great ammunition in it, and now in paperback.)
Link 3:53 PM

Not sure if you saw this?

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A group of 25 former federal employees directly involved in the government's counterintelligence and counterterrorism programs held a press conference here this morning to lambaste both the 9-11 Commission and the Bush administration for failing to hold government officials accountable for failures leading up to 9-11.

The ex-employees, from the FBI, CIA, FAA, Customs, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, had firsthand knowledge of their agencies' activities in counterintelligence and counterterrorism. Bogdan Dzakovic, a former special agent at the FAA, said he repeatedly sought to warn his superiors of mismanagement and the dangers of terrorism, but to no avail. He was a leader of a "Red Team" at FAA, engaged in preparing for terrorist attacks. But he said the security measures in his agency were "little more than window dressing," and quoted one frustrated colleague as saying, "The FAA is so screwed up I don't know where to begin."

Much more at the link...
Link 3:28 PM

The rule of law shall not be overruled. A Florida judge has taken Nader back off the ballot in Florida. He had already done that, determining it was highly unlikely that the Green party could meet state requirements, but he was overruled by Florida's Secretary of State, a Republican. (You should bookmark the Miami Herald, by the way, it's going to be a bumpy political season down there.)
Link 2:25 PM

Laws and their enforcement. It's funny, of course, that Bush went to a judge to have him set aside a law which he (Bush) had signed on election campaigning, seeking an injunction against 527 organizations. Nope, so sorry.

A federal judge in Washington this morning rejected a request from President Bush's reelection campaign for an injunction to help stop independent Democratic organizations from engaging in political activities that oppose his campaign.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson said he agreed with attorneys for the Bush campaign that the Federal Elections Commission moved at a "glacial pace" on this issue but that the law not did not give the court or the candidate authority to demand that the commission act sooner to stop alleged violations of campaign law.

In related news from Saturday, Bush will be on the ballot in Florida even though he missed the filing deadline.
Link 2:19 PM

My father taught me early about deception while speaking the truth. Jokingly, but with a serious tone in his voice, he'd say something like "I didn't win two Heisman Trophies." And then he'd be quiet, saying absolutely nothing while we thought about it. Or, "I didn't hit as many home runs as Mark McGwire did in his rookie year." As if he we were to think he won any Heisman trophies at all, or even played in the majors ever. It was the art of leaving the larger truth unsaid, focusing on something else with a little emphasis in the voice.

Today, Bush spoke to an assembly of National Guardsmen, and somehow failed to mention any specifics about his service, only...

"You've had many famous Americans in your ranks, including men named Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and Truman," the president said. "Nineteen individuals have served both in the Guard and as presidents of the United States, and I'm proud to be one of them."

And he probably didn't win two Heisman Trophies, either.
Link 8:37 PM

Shared responsibility equals shared evasion. I don't think I could have imagined how little accountability there is in the Bush administration. You realize of course, that no one in the Administration lost their job over 9/11, right? Condoleezza Rice is clearly still there, in spite of the horrible year she had in 2001; she did shaketh the trees not. Tenet resigned, of course, but it's not clear he would have been reprimanded or anything, given the way this White House works. Apparently we shouldn't hold our breaths. Regarding two internal reviews which have yet to be made public...

Intelligence officials said that a draft of the C.I.A. report was completed in July but that a finished version had been delayed in response to questions from the agency's acting director. The final Justice Department report was also completed in July, however, and officials who have seen it say it stops short of recommending disciplinary action.

(snip)

That no government officials have been disciplined over Sept. 11 failures has angered survivors, several of whom pressed Mr. Goss on the issue in a private meeting weeks ago.

"Three thousand people were killed on 9/11, and no one has been held accountable," Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband died at the World Trade Center, said in an interview Monday. Ms. Breitweiser said the intelligence overhaul now under discussion in Washington would be essentially meaningless "unless you get rid of the people who were shown to be incompetent on 9/11."

But counterterrorism officials say that the problems were systemic and that it would be foolhardy for survivors or lawmakers to hold individuals responsible for broader organizational shortcomings.

"You can't lay the blame for 9/11 on any one person," said a senior official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. "No one has demonstrated that it was any one person's fault. A lot of these problems were systemic, whether it was a technological issue or a misreading of the law. You can't lay that on one person."

So you don't put the blame on any one, you discipline a group of those who were responsible. Start with Rice, if need be. How about the people who set up the systems which make it difficult to connect the dots? Who should have thought about a technology development plan and didn't? The dots were there to connect.
Link 3:44 PM

Wandering into the mud flats. Over at Salon, Eric Boehlert has a nice little piece showing how an attempt at defending Bush's service record can go awry: there are details in a document which Matt Drudge has shared which wind up hurting a case for honoring Bush's service. It's really amazing: when you add up how flimsy his service record is, it's a wonder the Bush people want to get into military records at all — it only winds up with more mud on Bush.
Link 12:00 PM

Web sites don't kill people, people kill people. The Internet is largely beneficial, but you have to admit that like any other channel it's susceptible to cranks. I'm sure you can imagine all the varieties, and wouldn't be surprised that some people with eating disorders have sites promoting anorexia and bulimia as lifestyle choices. Let's not shut them down, though, let's shout them out.
Link 11:10 AM

If you haven't made up your mind yet about the authenticity of those CBS documents on Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, the Washington Post pretty much drives a dagger through their hearts. I think we're in the area of probability here, not certainty, so let's dispense with these and talk about more important things.
Link 10:51 AM

It smells. Bad. In Florida, the secretary of state (A Republican) forced Nader's name back on the ballot (the absentees at least) even though a judge had decided that Nader didn't belong — with a mere $18.18 in its bank account and having not qualified for federal matching funds, the Reform Party wasn't considered a legitimate party. Even though this decision only has genuine impact on the absentee ballots so far, it could have significant impact on the final results. Bush was awarded Florida in 2000 after counts gave him a margin of 537 votes; 50,000 absentee ballots are going to be mailed out.
Link 9:07 AM

MTA to aim for a more intelligent photo ban? Via Mike at Satan's Laundromat: an item in the Daily News says the MTA will be moderating its goal of a complete ban on subway photos; there had been a presumption of leniency for tourists taking pictures of each other for souvenirs, but that ignored people who just thought pictures of everyday life or the subway itself were worth recording.

"We are looking at a prohibition that will allow the police to make sure individuals are not photographing sensitive areas of the system - but that would still allow tourists and train lovers and people who just find beauty in the system - to photograph it without infringing on their civil liberties," the source said.

"In saying that, we do have security issues we need to address," the source added.

The proposed ban had been roundly criticized for its extremity, and was the cause of a peaceful protest back in June. I hope the Daily News article is correct: I think the subway is a beautiful subject for photography, although I don't always utilize it as well as others do. (My subway shots are here, but for a really nice shot see this one by Joe Holmes.)
Link 8:40 AM

Ongoing influence from Walter Staudt? One of the questions about the CBS memos from last week was how Staudt could be pressuring anyone to "sugar coat" Bush's national guard ratings a year and a half after he (Staudt) had retired. Just to follow up on this, USAToday reports:

Some former Guard officials agree that Staudt may still have been wielding influence behind the scenes after he retired. Bob Strong, a former Texas Air National Guard officer who was assigned to state headquarters in 1972, said Sunday that Staudt was powerful and well-connected in Texas politics and had been influential in getting Bush into the Guard.

"Because of his political connections, he still had the potential to become involved in political decisions with Bush," Strong said.

...so it's conceivable this discrepancy can be explained away...
Link 7:28 PM

Solid reasoning for you. Just now on CNN American Morning, Bill Gertz was plugging his new book about arms proliferation and our international threats, Treachery : How America's Friends and Foes Are Secretly Arming Our Enemies. In the interview, he was asked why he was so certain that the intelligence details he'd gathered were reliable enough for his conclusions, since we know that it's not always (uh, WMDs in Iraq and so on). His confident reply was that he showed intelligence officials the documents he'd gotten, and they were very nervous about him releasing them, and he didn't think they'd be so nervous about him releasing unreliable information. That's all he had, a presumption that they wouldn't mind him releasing unreliable information — completely oblivious to the damage which can be caused by releasing faulty information, or what it might reveal about agency sources. Unbelievably bad logic. (I'll post the transcript when it's available.)

UPDATE: Here's the transcript:

COLLINS: Well, we should also make it clear, Mr. Gertz, that, of course, in your book a lot of this information comes from reproductions of documents from the CIA and interpretations of those documents, which sometimes can be wrong.

How do you know that the information that you have found here is all that reliable?

GERTZ: Well, you know, I have the documents to show what I'm writing about in the book. And I went, took the trouble of having the agency take a look at those documents and I can tell you this, that they were very concerned about the disclosure of that information. If it was bad information, I don't think they'd want -- have a problem with that.

Did you notice this sequence of events?

1. Government reports come out indicating that there was no validity to beliefs that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, or that there was any kind of productive relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, or that Iraq aided in 9/11 in any fashion.
    
2. George Bush insists it was "worth" invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein all the same, because he was a bad man.
    
3. Replying to the "worth" idea, John Kerry about a week ago, September 4, starts talking about what else we could have done with the $200 billion we'll be spending in Iraq, putting the opportunity costs in concrete terms.
    
4. Less than a week afterwards, CBS releases documents which appear to many to be forgeries. These documents, true or false, have nothing to do with whether or not Bush fulfilled his service in Alabama and Massacusetts, only with whether or not there was favoritism in Texas. Discussion shifts away from Iraq to CBS.

Let's get back on track. The CBS docs are fascinating, but let them wait. Bigger fish to fry.
Link 11:50 PM

A bad laceration of my left index finger last night — suffered while shucking oysters and requiring stitches and six hours at the hospital — is going to limit my blogging today.

But in a slap at myself and other bloggers, I wrote an essay connecting Samuel Johnson's reservations regarding 18th century newspaper writers writing over their heads to much of what has happened in the blogosphere. You can find it here, over at my Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page. (I try to do one of those essays every week, but had been doing it much less frequently this summer; still, I had promised readers one for today, and so I did it. I hope you find it a worthwhile commentary.)
Link 1:47 PM

CBS stands by the integrity of the memos it reported on on Wednesday night. From their explanation, it sounds as if issues regarding typography and whether or not Killian was the type to have written these thoughts down as memos were considered prior to broadcast; they also point out that the copies which people have discussed on the Internet are later-generation documents, in which variations get introduced with each generation.

One question completely undiscussed in CBS's explanation is the issue of whether or not Killian's supervisor, Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt, could conceivably have pressured Killian to "sugar coat" Bush's ratings a year and a half after he'd retired. Our understanding is not aided by Staudt's refusal to comment. CBS tried to obtain his comments in advance of the broadcast, and he could have prevented a lot of wings' flapping, but he chose not to comment to them or to the Dallas Morning News. This is an area where we can only speculate, and all who are energetically calling for CBS to allow others to look at their documents should also be calling for Staudt to comment. It's worth pointing out that Staudt had shown considerable favoritism towards Bush in the past: a 1999 article in the Washington Post (with a wonderful pic of Bush blowing a bubble at Harvard) details...

Bush had scored only 25 percent on a "pilot aptitude" test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics.

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.

(snip)

Bush learned that there were pilot openings in the Texas Air National Guard during Christmas vacation of his senior year at Yale, when he called Staudt, the commander of the 147th Fighter Group, and, he said, "found out what it took to apply."

"He recalls hearing 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," said his communications director, Karen Hughes. She said Bush did not recall who those friends were.

Retired Col. Rufus G. Martin, then personnel officer in charge of the 147th Fighter Group, said the unit was short of its authorized strength, but still had a long waiting list, because of the difficulty getting slots in basic training for recruits at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio. Martin said four openings for pilots were available in the 147th in 1968, and that Bush got the last one.

Staudt, the colonel who twice had himself photographed with Bush, said his status as a congressman's son "didn't cut any ice." But others say that it was not uncommon for well-connected Texans to obtain special consideration for Air Guard slots. In addition to Bush and Bentsen, many socially or politically prominent young men were admitted to the Air Guard, according to former officials; they included the son of then-Sen. John Tower and at least seven members of the Dallas Cowboys. (Emphasis mine.)

Two important points from that article are not only Staudt's willfulness to be in the same spotlight with Bush, but that Bush had personal contact with Staudt.

A few other reminders about all this:

• We are not trying someone in court, and do not need smoking guns to draw conclusions. It should be apparent that even if Bush or his father did not ask for preferential treatment — even though the Washington Post says Bush called Staudt himself — he received it. Receiving it unsolicited is no crime, no more so than being born into a rich family. As I've said elsewhere, what matters is what you do with your opportunity. Bush clearly did not keep his nose to the grindstone, and he lied about it in his autobiography when he claimed that after enlisting in the guard and receiving training he continued to fly with his unit for several years. It's the recent lies which are the issue for many, moreso than the lapses thirty years ago. (I point out that they are consistent with his failure to be accountable in so many ways, such as his statement in a press conference that he couldn't think of any mistakes he'd made since 9/11.)
   
• As I've also said before, even if these documents are a hoax, it only removes them as evidence. Their inauthenticity does not speak to all other questions.
   
• Lastly, the Boston Globe raised a separate issue about Bush's National Guard service this week which has been obscured by discussions about the CBS documents. That is, that in the documents which the White House distributed back in February of this year (completely separate from CBS!) is a form which Bush signed acknowledging that when he goes to Massachusetts to attend Harvard, he will report to a National Guard unit there; as part of the statement, he acknowledges awareness that failure to do so might send him to Vietnam. He never reported. This is a different issue than the CBS documents, and worth remembering.

Enough of this. I'd rather not be thinking too much about Bush today, if you don't mind.
Link 1:06 PM

I am thankful today for all the firemen and policemen who knew what to do on September 11 and risked their lives, whether they lost them or not. They saved so many; surely it's appropriate to remember the 3,000 who were murdered, but let us also remember the many thousands more who were saved thanks to their efforts. They knew exactly what to do, and responded immediately. They had the right stuff.
Link 1:06 PM

Of all the changes which September 11 introduced, I doubt that any were as significant as the feeling of unity the country had immediately afterwards. There weren't Republicans or Democrats, there was a country drawing on its core ideas and values in order to heal and find a path. Election seasons are naturally divisive, but the divisions didn't wait for the election season. I won't ask for a return to that unity we had immediately after 9/11 — I actually think it would be wrong to paint over philosophical differences when the country is deciding on its future direction — but it would be good to move past the rancor. Bush's last significant opportunity to show leadership in this direction was when Senator McCain called in him to specifically repudiate the ads of the Swift Boat Veterans, and he didn't take it. It's not going to be pretty from here on in, even if there's a temporary peace pipe for today.
Link 12:06 PM

Kerry goes over the top regarding assault rifles. Kerry accused Bush of aiding terrorism by not actively pushing to get the assault rifle ban extended:

"Four years ago," Mr. Kerry said in St. Louis, "George Bush said he'd stand with and protect America's police officers by extending the assault-weapons ban, which keeps the most dangerous assault weapons off our streets, the same weapons that America's police officers want off our streets, not just to fight ordinary crime but to take on terrorists.

"In fact," the Democratic presidential candidate went on, "an Al Qaeda training manual recovered in Afghanistan included a chapter urging terrorists to get assault weapons in the United States. Why is George Bush making the job of the terrorists easier and making the job for America's police officers harder?"

There are plenty of reasons to call for an extension of the ban, but I really don't think that terrorism should be high on the list. Really, let's weigh the probabilities here... Am I wrong to think that it's much more likely that our police officers will be confronted by some domestic thug who wields one than by a terrorist? Am I? (Is this a trick question?)
Link 7:16 PM

Was John Derbyshire joking? Over at National Review's The Corner, John Derbyshire introduced an email about typography with this line:

From a reader whose e-address ends with "cune.edu." Wow, standards have really dropped at CUNY -- they can't even spell their own name any more!

Of course, if he'd put www.cune.edu into his browser he might have realized it wasn't an email from a student at the City University of New York. Perhaps he was joking. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Link 4:38 PM

You can only imagine what the ad hominem attacks will be. Via GOPUSA.com, I hear that a new documentary is coming out about a new group of some Vietnam vets' disgust with John Kerry's antiwar activities:

One by one, the men tell their horrific stories of torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese while Kerry and his cohorts paraded through the streets of Washington, DC carrying the flag of their captors. Several of their wives appear in the film to describe the impact of their husbands' prolonged absence and their reaction to the vilification of their imprisoned spouses.

The veterans in the film make the case that Kerry's public statements and antiwar activities along with Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden delayed the end of the war and postponed their release from the prison camps. While the North Vietnamese were losing the war in Southeast Asia, they say Kerry's words helped them "win the war in the streets of America."

(snip)

The group of highly decorated veterans in the film has impeccable credentials; two of them are Medal of Honor recipients. One of them, Col. George "Bud" E. Day, was held captive for nearly 6 years. He criticized Kerry for masquerading as a war hero and "casting the longest shadow" over the reputations over all who served.

He said, "Every wound and every death after Kerry's testimony in 1971 could somehow be attributed to him."

Now of course this isn't merely a complaint against Kerry, it's a complaint against every American who protested the war. Kerry was very visible, but no one would pretend that without him there would have been no protests.

The producer of the documentary is an awarded vet named Carlton Sherwood. Heard of him? GOPUSA.com lists some impressive credentials for him: "a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and decorated Vietnam veteran." In an effort to anticipate the Democratic response,

Talon News [GOPUSA.com] asked if Sherwood and the men who appeared in the documentary are prepared for a smear campaign against them.

He replied, "We are all aware of what happened to the Swift Boats Veterans for Truth and the price they had to pay for their honesty and courage. We know it's coming, in fact it's already started."

Sherwood continued, "It's disgraceful that anyone would try to impeach the credibility of these fine distinguished veterans. These are among the bravest men we have alive in our country today."

In an effort to see what kind of smear could possibly happen, I did a web search on his name, and learned of additional credentials which GOPUSA.com didn't mention. For instance, Sherwood worked for some time at the Washington Times, but also wrote a book called Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. At one point at least he was also employed as Communications Director at a company called WVC3 Group, some kind of homeland security consulting firm which could do well by polishing apples for the administration. There's more on him here. Somehow, no matter how legitimate the feelings of these vets are, I have the feeling this is going to come off as politically motivated. Calling something politically motivated is not a genuine response to the content, of course, but it has a way of damning it for the opposition's choir.
Link 1:16 PM

Now THIS is trying to read the minds of the dead. On CBS, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responded to the written words in the memos of one of Bush's supervisors (Jerry Killian) with reluctance, saying it was impossible to interpret the mind of someone who was dead — even though Bartlett was only being asked to look at the written words and not extrapolate.

Today CBS is being forthright that some people view the documents as forgeries. But beyond the technology complaints, read what those who knew Killian are saying:

But Killian's son, one of Killian's fellow officers and an independent document examiner questioned the memos.

Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he doubted his father would have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Mr. Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake.

"They looked to me like forgeries," Rufus Martin told the Associated Press. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years." Killian died in 1984.

Ordinarily, a character witness wouldn't make me laugh. But these two people are doing exactly what Dan Bartlett said shouldn't be done.
Link 11:16 AM

Are CBS's Bush-National Guard documents a hoax? There have been questions raised because of a proportional font and the use of a superscript "th" (both originally thought to be unavailable as of the date of the documents), variations in signatures, and whether one of the people alleged to be applying pressure was active at the time. (See Power Line for details of the charges.) To me the one which is most interesting is the idea that one of the officers supposedly applying pressure had retired; that's the same problem which had occurred with the Nigerian yellow-cake purchase order forgery. (Variations in signatures don't surprise me too much, and Josh Marshall has a bit on whether or not the typography issues can be explained away.)

A few things I'd like to address:

• If these are forged documents, do they exonerate Bush?
• The impact of these documents on the national debate
• Who might have been responsible? (Uninformed speculation)

If a hoax, do they exonerate Bush? No: identifying them as forged merely takes them away as evidence, leaving us with the same evidence we had before, and the same questions. The story of these documents is all about Bush's service in Texas, and interactions with his superiors there. These docs say nothing about Alabama, nor his failure to report in Massachusetts. Clouds will still remain. (Wouldn't it have been so much easier if Bush, who has always been described as such an amiable, clubby person, had made friends among his National Guard peers in Alabama? Something odd there.)

Impact on the national debate: Horrendous. Assuming for the present discussion that these documents are forged, every conceivable impact is completely against the national interest. Voters have a right to the truth, and lies erode the value of their votes. There are enough problems with Bush as a candidate for reelection without forging documents. In addition, the transparency of the "forgeries" works against Kerry; anyone who thinks they were helping Kerry with documents like these has another think coming. If these documents are shown to really be forgeries, then whoever came up with them should be hung out to dry. In Utah, on a very hot day, very far from civilization, with birds circling over top.

Who might have been responsible? This part will be mere speculation, and I can't name names so much as parties who might benefit from the whole thing. Obviously, there's the possibility of some Kerry supporter putting this together, and not having the brains to get an old IBM Selectric typewriter or to check personnel records to make sure that all the named parties hadn't retired. But there's another possibility, and that's that they were put together by a Bush-supporter. You see, if these are forgeries, their transparency is a bit difficult to explain. Why would anyone be so stupid? Well, what would their discovery as forgeries accomplish? On the one hand, if CBS's experts identify them as forgeries, the story becomes "who would forge these?" and it makes it look as if there is a conspiracy to discredit Bush, making him a victim, making his opponents look desperate, and so on. If CBS's experts don't identify them as forgeries, and they get aired, it makes a major media outlet look bad (a regular talking point for those who complain of media bias), and Bush looks like he's the victim of a conspiracy; further once discovered to be forgeries it gives Bush-supporters a talking point to use with the public to wipe away all the AWOL claims by oversimplifying the evidence. (See the first indented paragraph above.) And yes, if you were a Bush-supporter who forged damaging documents that are deliberately transparent, you would know exactly what questions to ask regarding their authenticity.

Lastly, whether or not they are forgeries, it has very little impact on what I've written in earlier posts, because Bush still displayed a sense of entitlement by not fulfilling his duties on time in Alabama and Massachusetts. The chummy guy seems to have made no friends in the Alabama National Guard, and the only person who remembers him at all has an unreliable memory. As for Massachusetts, he went to Harvard knowing he was supposed to align with a National Guard unit there, and apparently didn't.
Link 9:26 AM

There's a lot that bothers me about the Bush-National Guard thing, but beyond the apparent failure to fulfill his obligations or come clean, what I think bothers me most is the apparent sense of entitlement and irresponsibility which all his behavior suggests. Look, Bush can't help having been born into a rich, powerful family. He can't, and we shouldn't even think about holding that against him.

But you would think that a young man who gets a much-desired spot in the Texas National Guard would feel one of two things: one, either he's lucky to be in a powerful family that receives preferential treatment, or two, he's just plain lucky. (I hope I haven't created a false dilemma.) A lot of people in that situation, hearing about the mounting casualties, might feel some sense of responsibility, no matter whether he thinks his advantage was a random occurrence or associated with family prominence.

How should somebody react to that?

Well, the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30) points out that more is expected from those to whom more has been given. Did Bush make this connection? According to Texas National Guard documents shown on CBS last night, Bush sought ways to avoid service in Texas so that he could go to Alabama for political work. White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett doesn't deny this, and admits that permission was given to Bush in order to enable his departure from Texas. And there's still no solid evidence that he fulfilled his National Guard requirements in Alabama. On top of that, yesterday the Boston Globe reported that Bush later skipped out on National Guard obligations in Massachusetts when he went to Harvard for his MBA.

So far as I can tell from all this, there was no point at which Bush said to himself anything like, "you know, a lot of my peers from here in Texas are dying in Vietnam. I'm lucky to not have been sent over. I should really be grateful and keep my nose to the grindstone."

This is not a complaint against Bush having been born rich, but against how he's squandered something he was given. Now, I don't doubt that there aren't similar cases of irresponsible born-rich kids running around, but how about if we compare Bush to another son in a rich political family? Bobby Kennedy Jr.? Shall we? I can't face it — sometimes two objects are just so dissimilar that you can't even conceive of them at the same time, and if you are, the clash just makes you want to wretch. But this is what really makes me angry about the Bush-Texas National Guard thing: how different Bush is from RFK Jr; how differently he would have behaved in Bush's situation; and how different our lives would be if we had someone like RFK Jr. in the White House than Bush. Bush's behavior as a young man is just sickening, and I really would feel better if he showed some open penitence about it now.

UPDATE: An earlier version of this post misnamed Dan Bartlett as "Bruce" Bartlett.
Link 1:38 PM

CBS' report on Bush and the Texas National Guard left a lot to be desired, in my view. I think that for those who are up on the details it made a lot of sense, but for most people it would have benefitted from a time line as various details were presented. The various memos from Jerry Killian (both official and to his file) had dates on them, and I don't think they were put into proper context. The dates matter, because of the White House defense that Bush received permission that superceded his requirements; did the memos come after permission was received, thus rescinding the permission? Or did the permission which Dan Bartlett claimed had been received make those direct orders ineffective? Failure to prevent the information in a chronological setting was a problem.

I also think CBS failed by not putting the case in a situational context. Barnes was clear in that Bush was not the only son-of-a-powerful for whom he obtained a much sought-after spot. And Barnes was clear that he was not asked to do so by Bush's father. But once in the Guard, all the permissions which Bartlett referred to, how common were these? How uncommon was it for a non-performer like Bush to not be reprimanded? And lastly, what does an "honorable discharge" mean: how high a grade of performance is that? All this would have been helpful, CBS.

UPDATE: An earlier version of this post misnamed Dan Bartlett as "Bruce" Bartlett.
Link 9:59 AM

Exhibit A: Smoke. Exhibit B: Mirrors. In Dan Bartlett's interview with CBS over Bush's Texas National Guard service (transcript at Josh Marshall), the defense hinges on a few basic themes:

• Bush's lapses can be explained by his having gotten permission for his actions. (Bartlett uses the word "permission" 16 times through the course of the transcript.)
   
• Memos which Jerry Killian, Bush's supervisor, wrote to himself should not be interpreted. This is like trying to read the mind of a dead man. (Three times in the transcript.)
   
• Bush was honorably discharged, so none of this matters (Twelve times).

None of this is very significant, in my mind. Bush clearly received preferential treatment in getting into the Texas National Guard; his receiving so much "permission" to avoid physicals and duty (even if these claims hold up — there isn't any documentation of his having received permission) sounds like further examples of preferential treatment; memos to oneself are often easier to interpret than official memos because they are more candid and less likely to have been "worked over" by PC-type phrasing; and honorable discharge under these circumstances could be yet another example of preferential treatment. Everything in the CBS interview points to Bush having been far less than he should have been with respect to the National Guard. He was ordered to take a physical, and he didn't; another memo from Killian recommended his status be changed not just for failure to take his physical but also for his performance.

As an example of the preferential treatment Bush seemed to have received...

In another "memo to file," dated Aug. 18, 1973, Killian complained that he was under pressure from his superior, Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, to "sugar coat" Bush's officer evaluations. "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job," he wrote in a memo titled "CYA." "I will not rate."

(The Washington Post goes on to report that Staudt says he wasn't giving Bush any special treatment.)

In my view, Bush needs to demonstrate that the liberty he received was not unusual — and he should do it before the Kerry campaign and other groups start making claims. This is one of those affairs where stonewalling has not helped; he needs to get out in front of it in order to make it clean. Unfortunately for him, that doesn't seem to be the pattern, and he may need a new set of advisors, because the longer this is an issue the worse it is for him.

UPDATE: An earlier version of this post misnamed Dan Bartlett as "Bruce" Bartlett.
Link 9:45 AM

Back to top.