Verities

Not so fast...

AP:

President Bush, trying to calm a political storm, ordered the release of all of his Vietnam-era military records Friday to counter Democrats' suggestions that he shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard.

But ...

Bush's medical records, dozens of pages in all, were opened for examination by reporters in the Roosevelt Room, but those documents were not allowed to leave the room.

I'm speechless. No matter how often they say they're releasing "all" the files or "everything," they aren't. They lie.

Somebody, Please, Get Scott McClellan a Drink!

Talking Points Memo posts a lengthy exchange between McClellan and several reporters. It's lengthy, but worth it.

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

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

Read the whole thing. Do it now.

It's About Time

Bush orders release of complete military file.

President Bush, trying to calm a political storm, ordered the release of all of his Vietnam-era military records Friday to counter Democrats' suggestions that he shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard.

Hundreds of pages of documents detailed Bush's service in the Guard in Texas and his temporary duty in Alabama while working on a political campaign there in the early 1970s. Democrats have questioned whether Bush ever showed up for duty in Alabama.

We could note that Bush, McClellan & Co have been saying lately that everything was already released, but now there are apparently HUNDREDS of new pages being released. But we won't.

Oops. Sorry.

Noting a Double-Standard

ABC's "The Note" says the media shouldn't play referee:

"Democrats, of course, have been hammering the President for months, and there isn't any reason for the media to pass judgment on the merits of attacks on Kerry or the methods by which they are being delivered."

Huh.

Let's crank up the old DeLorean and head back to the year ... uh, well, it was three weeks ago:

ABC News Anchor Peter Jennings: At one point, Mr. Moore said, in front of you, that President Bush -- he's saying he'd like to see you, the general, and President Bush, who he called a "deserter." Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him, and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so.

ABC's Jennings not only "passed judgement on the merits of attacks on Bush," he implied it was unethical for Wesley Clark not to have done likewise!

Maybe we missed it, but we don't remember ABC's "The Note" scolding ABC's Jennings. In fact, we don't remember "The Note" ever saying the media shouldn't "pass judgement on the merits of attacks on Bush."

But we do remember "The Note" ranting earlier this week about the media's supposed liberal bias.

No, I'm not kidding.

Did Burkett Witness Bush's Guard File Being Tampered With? We Don't Know.

This Boston Globe article casts doubt on Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett's claims that he witnessed Bush's Guard file being "scrubbed."

[A] key witness to some of the events described by Burkett has told the Globe that the central elements of his story are false.

George O. Conn, a former chief warrant officer with the Guard and a friend of Burkett's, is the person whom Burkett says led him to the room where the Bush records were being vetted. But Conn says he never saw anyone combing through the Bush file or discarding records.

"I have no recall of that," Conn said. "I have no recall of that whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada."

Two things:

1) There was already reason to doubt Burkett's claims: namely, the fact that he doesn't, so far as I know, have any evidence. We shouldn't assume every allegation about Bush's Guard record is true simply because there's pretty good evidence he missed some time and because the Bush folks have been, shall we say, dishonest, in dealing with this. Absent evidence -- more evidence than just Burkett's say-so -- this "tampering" story shouldn't be presumed true.

2) Having said that, this Globe article doesn't prove that Burkett's charges aren't true. It simply says that three people involved in the story (Conn, Scribner & Allbaugh) say it isn't true. They, of course, have reason to say that: they'd all look pretty bad if they had knowledge of, or participated in, the cleansing of Bush's records. We have no way of knowing the truth at this point, so we must assume Bush & Co. to be innocent of these charges. But just as people shouldn't take an allegation without supporting evidence to be proof of wrongdoing by Bush & Co. (see point 1 above) we also shouldn't take the denials of three interested parties as proof that Burkett is lying.

Of course, both "sides" will do exactly what they shouldn't: some will say Burkett's statements are "proof" of scrubbing; others will say denials by Conn/Scribner/Allbaugh are "proof" that he's lying. People who make either of these statements should be distrusted.

Honorably Discharging a Bush Defense

From MTP:

Russert: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of the records and said there’s no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972.

President Bush: Yeah, they’re — they're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged. In other words, you don't just say "I did something" without there being verification. Military doesn't work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama.

There's nothing particularly noteworthy about this exchange; Bush's defense has always been, essentially, "I got an honorable discharge, therefore I didn't do anything wrong."

But is that what an honorable discharge means?

It looks like we have an answer:

Current U.S. Representative Bobby Rush, a Democrat from Illinois, served in the army through the mid-1960s, becoming progressively more involved with radical antiwar groups. In 1968, after Martin Luther King's assassination, he went AWOL from his unit to help found the Illinois chapter of the Black Panthers. Weeks later, he was honorably discharged.

In 1999, a Texas sheriff up for reelection saw his candidacy unravel after local newspapers reported that, despite a subsequent honorable discharge, he'd skipped out on Army service for several months in 1976 to "patch things up with his ex-wife." (He lost badly in a primary shortly after the revelations broke.)

...

A few years ago, a guest columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ruminated on going AWOL from his unit routinely with a "case of beer" to drink himself "into oblivion." "I don't know how, but I did manage to get an honorable discharge."

Huh. Interesting. Oh, I almost forgot the best example:

John Allen Muhammad, convicted last November for his participation in the D.C. sniper shootings, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978-1985, where he faced two summary courts-martial. In 1983, he was charged with striking an officer, stealing a tape measure, and going AWOL. Sentenced to seven days in the brig, he received an honorable discharge in 1985.

To be clear: I'm certain that the vast majority of Guard Members who recieve honorable discharges never went AWOL, never struck an officer, never stole a tape measure, and didn't wander off routinely with a case of beer to drink themselves into oblivion. I'm sure they showed up when they were supposed to, did what they were supposed to, and generally behaved ... well, "honorably."

That may all be true of George W. Bush as well. But it's quite clear that his "honorable discharge" doesn't mean that it is true.

I think it's well past time to put the "I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged" bit to rest.

Something to read

One of these days, I'm going to get around to adding a bunch of links to the sidebar. One of these days.

For now, here's a relatively new blogger doing some good work.

"Privacy Issues"? That dog won't hunt.

McClellan Gaggle:

MR. McCLELLAN: ... And I noticed an article in one of the papers today that had a graphic with information that was blacked out. And it was -- it's interesting to see the conspiracy theories that are out there, because there are certain privacy issues always involved when the National Guard or any government agency releases information.

Let me tell you what was in that blacked out part. I've got it here right with me. This is from what was in the paper today. It says, "Have you ever been arrested, indicted or convicted for any violation of civil or military law?" This was the President's application for a commission. And he was providing personal history there. On here it says -- and you all can see it right here with me, this is the part that was in the paper this morning -- misdemeanor, New Haven, Connecticut, December 1966, charge dismissed. Well, this was a widely-reported prank that the President was involved in while at Yale University.

Q The wreath --

MR. McCLELLAN: The wreath, that's exactly right. Two speeding tickets, July '64 and August '64, $10 fine, Houston traffic court. Two collisions, July '62 and August '62, $25 fine, Houston traffic court.

...

Q Who did the blackout that showed up in the --

MR. McCLELLAN: You'd have to ask the people who released those documents.

Q Okay. So what you have is something that came from the same source, that was not blacked out?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that you all recognize that when government agencies or people like the National Guard release information, there are privacy issues involved. And I expect that they follow those --

Q But the White House got a copy that did not have the blackout.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President's records, that's correct.

1) "Privacy issues"? Nope. The President said he'd "absolutely" authorize the release of E V E R Y T H I N G ... (I assume a link isn't necessary at this point. Oh, what the heck. Here you go.) he didn't say anything about "everything except what is redacted."

2) "Privacy issues"? Nope. Not when McClellan is willing to read the redacted material aloud.

3) Bush promised to release everything. The WH has unredacted copies. They aren't releasing them. Bush lied. 'Nuff said.

Bob Dole Vs. Scott McClellan

Scott McClellan, 2/11/04:

Q Again, when this controversy came up 10 years ago, the then Bush-Quayle campaign, on October 15, 1992, put out a press release saying that because of the controversy and the questions, that Governor Clinton should release all documents relating to his draft status, and went on to list letters to the Selective Service system, to the Reserve Officer Training Corps, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard, the Departments of State and Justice, any foreign embassy or consulate. Was that a fair standard?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is 2004, I would remind you. But let me point out to you that the issue that was before us was whether or not the President had served. There had been some who made an outrageous accusation that the President was AWOL, or that he was a deserter. Just outrageous and baseless accusations. And there was a call for more documents to be released, specifically payroll records. We didn't know that they previously existed still. But we found out that they did, and we provided that documentation. That documentation clearly shows that the President fulfilled his duties.

I think what you're seeing now is that some are not interested in the facts. Some are more interested in trolling for trash for political gain. And that's just unfortunate that we're seeing that this early in an election year. This is nothing but gutter politics. The American people deserve better.

Bob Dole, 9/8/92:

Let us get the record straight. Let us release all these records, every shred of evidence. Let us get it out there so the American people can make a judgment. It is not going to go away. ...

It is not a question of whether you were in the service or not in the service. That is over the dam. The question now is whether you are telling the truth. Not everybody could serve. ...

So I just think it is time now for Mr. Clinton to come forward. ... The American people are fair. They will make a judgment. But, first, they have to see the evidence.

Bush Lied.

Associated Press:

The White House late Wednesday released a copy of a dental evaluation Bush had at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery on Jan. 6, 1973, which Bush's spokesman said documented that the president had served in Alabama as required.

The White House obtained the dental record, along with other medical records it did not release, from the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, spokesman Scott McClellan said.

In some ways, the whole Bush/Guard issue is very complicated: when did he serve? Where? Why does nobody remember him?

But in other ways, it's painfully simple:

President Bush promised on national television to release his all of his military records. "Absolutely," he said.

That has not happened. He lied.

Oh, by the way: Scott McClellan lied, too. He said (while trying to back away from Bush's promise) "if there's more that comes to our attention, we'll make sure we make that available."

In the long history of Presidential lies, this one is pretty simple. There's no room for interpretation. Bush said he'd authorize the release of his entire military record. "Absolutely." The White House is now refusing to do that. Pretty clear cut: Bush said one thing and does another.

UPDATE: WaPo:

Administration officials declined yesterday to commit to releasing further records, despite a statement Sunday by Bush on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would open his entire military file. ... Communications director Dan Bartlett said the White House expects much in the file to already be in the public domain, but added that anything new concerning Bush's attendance in Alabama would be released. But Bartlett -- like McClellan -- was emphatic that the White House had no immediate plans to open Bush's entire file, which would include his Guard medical records.