Centerfield

Remember how silly and opportunistic the GOP looked when they were going after Whitewater?

Perhaps. But, as history shows, it was devastatingly effective.

I agree that this can easily be blown out of proportion (e.g. Michael Moore's comments).

And I believe this election should be a vote of confidence/no confidence in Bush based on his record in office.

But I have to disagree with your judgment that the issue of not showing up for duty as expected was fully aired in 2000. Al Gore's supposed invention of the internet got much more coverage, especially around the water cooler.

This time around the guard-duty issue is being covered around the water cooler. There's nothing proven, but there are some large question marks. (Josh Marshall has covered this about as well as anyone.)

Nevertheless, I think the topic is fair game because of the fact that difinitive records DO exist, but have never been released: tax and pay records. If they are released, as the president seemed to say would be fine by him, then the issue will be settled.

If they are not released, a reasonable voter might view this in the same category as Bush's statement that he has not used drugs in the past 15 years (or however many it was) and his reluctance to reveal his DUI arrest.

True -- this is not a huge issue, but it is a reasonable line of inquiry. The political arena is not the courtroom.

Speaking of the National Guard hulla-hullabaloo... what do you all think about the spirited give and take occurring right now over at Calpundit in regard to this? On 2/8/04 Brian Drum pulled a "Smoking Gun Once Removed" followed by a pretty in-depth analysis with some primary documents obtained by a freelance investigator who did a Freedom of Information Act request on POTUS's National Guard service. Brian posts copies of the docs here, and the gist is that supposedly GWB, after skipping a physical and going bar-hopping or whatever else, was discharged from active Guard service and sent to the ARF (apparently "Air Reserve Force" as indicated on a document, though there was initially some confusion and debate about whether this was "Army Reserve Force") or the ORF, "Obligatory Reserve Force."

Now, this was where the discussion became more heated, since by some accounts this was a punitive or disciplinary move, whereas others claim it was just the sort of cush winding-down on the tail end of the service that a lot of Guardsmen with connections took advantage of. And in any case, many claimed, Bush's claim to Tim Russert about continued service would lack veracity if he was discharged to the ARF.

I'm not trying to defend or refute the claims made on Calpundit; I frankly don't know much about all the procedures, jargon, secret handshake rituals, or other minutiae about the National Guard. Although the docs are being treated as a Woodward-and-Bernstein-worthy investigative coup in some quarters, I can't tell whether the FOIA docs here are actually saying something significant, or if they just represent the paper trail meal ticket for some paper-pushers in the Texas Air NG during the 1970s. It seems that Brian has some interesting material here, but I just don't have enough of a background to critically evaluate it. Anybody here (with or without NG experience) able to peer-review those docs and piece together the jigsaw puzzle? At the very least, it *does* seem that Bush gave three years of NG service in good standing; it's the second half of the obligation that's sparking the argument.

The Spanish Armada revealed: Top 10 myths and muddles about history’s most confused and misunderstood battle

I am very curious about this story and what exactly happenend. I don't buy Bush's current story which basically boils down to, "I got honorably discharged, so I must have served honorably."

But what I think you (the original poster) is reacting to is entirely different than the Whitewater situation right now. You are reading blogs. These are read by a small portion of the country, and can be seen more as a collective journalistic work in progress than an account of Dems chasing the story. I would hope that mainstream journalists are also working on this because it deserves a full airing. Time will tell.

I do agree that people should not be over-zealous in jumping to conclusions. This does matter, but not as much as some other things. Unfortunately the image often trumps reality. Bush is going to try to be elected as a visionary, decisive leader. Many people see him as cold politician calculating the best tack on each issue. The exception being Iraq where he and, probably more so his advisors, just totally screwed the pooch. The National Guard story is an image that counters the Bush sales job. It portrays him as person not able to complete a relatively easy tour stateside in a time of war.

I don't like that this is the way it goes, but it is the current reality in electing a President, and taking a moral high-ground will just lead to defeat. So please, make it known you don't like it, but don't expect unilateral disarmament by one side.

Jon is right, this story only makes it look like more and more of what is the truth: the Democrats are reaching because they don't have any issues of their own. The Republicans focused on Clinton's draft record and Watergate and Monica Lewinsky because Clinton was beating them on things that mattered. The reverse is now happening in the President's favor. This latest stunt is simply the next move of a party that knows they can't win, and is getting desperate.

I don't care what Bush did when he was 22.

I DO care if he lied about it, or had the records altered later. I especially care when/if he continues to lie about it now.

It mattered less in 2000, because American troops weren't dying on his say-so, and he wasn't prancing around in a flight suit proclaiming that he won a war. It matters a lot more today -- but still, what matters is the lying.

Actually, what matters to me most is much more fundamental. This is a man who absolutely cannot ever acknowledge making a mistake (his pre-conversion drinking aside). Everything - whether it matters or not - has to be spun so that there was never a failure of any sort, no matter how minor. Or, if there was, it was someone else's fault.

Two things flow from that. One, probably the worst, is that without acknowledging your mistakes, you can't learn from your mistakes. The second is that little lies keep needing bigger and bigger lies to cover for them.

And Jon, I will point out that "innocent until proven guilty" is NOT the way it works in politics. John McCain's black love-child....? Talk about "small viciousness"....

You say "the American people have already judged on this issue." No, the American people judged that this issue didn't matter to them. But that was before The Day That Justifies Everything, and it was also before American servicement were sent off to a war of vendetta that was sold to them on the "imminent threat" of those now non-existent WMDs (and, yes, those exact words by Scott McClellan, deny it all they wish -- just google and you'll find the transcripts).

It's not the action, but the coverup... When will they ever learn?

I just don't get what's so controversial about acknowledging that the public has yet to see the relevant records showing conclusively EITHER that Bush did all his service just like everyone else in the national guard, _OR_ that he got silver spoon treatment.

Democrats like Cleland going off half cocked are embarassing, and so are reflexive Bush defenders wishing to construe spotty records as conclusive, and a glossed-over issue as settled.

I am curious if the people that are commenting on this saw the Bush interview on Russert. I didn't, but I read some of his statements after. It sounded like to me that he said if the records exist, by all means, investigate them. In regards to Iraq it sounds as if he admitted that his statement about WMDs was wrong. From what I understand a commission to review intelligence has been created and contains members of the Carter Administration, a former Democratic Senator, and a former opponent of the President's (McCain) who is also a regular critic of the administration.

What do you people want from the guy? It just sounds to me like he could say or do anything and it wouldn't matter. You'll go so far as to cast your vote for a liberal extremist who has never been anything but a special interest Democrat. I thought this was a Centrist blog.

Matthew, you said "the Democrats are reaching because they don't have any issues of their own."

I won't try to convince you otherwise, but you don't have to listen to Dem's, the conservatives are doing a great job of debunking Bush's fake fiscal policy. Check Andrew Sullivan, for just one.

And the commission? First, check out the background of the co-chair Laurence Silberman, for one. And look at the commission's purview. Do you think it includes the pentagon Office of Special Plans?

Centrist does not equate to blind!

I am not tickled over Bush's fiscal policy either, but I have no faith that John Kerry will do anything other than what he has done throughout his career, which is support more spending.

The Democrats, with exception to Lieberman and at times Edwards (neither of which are the standard bearer for the party or going to be the nominee), are all running on the same issues that the party was running on in the 1950's.

Matthew,

For my part, I just want to know the truth of the matter regarding Bush's service. In his MTP interview Sunday, Bush was a little unclear, because while he said he'd release his records, he also said "we've already released those, by the way." This suggested that he might be leaning towards only re-releasing past non-conclusive documentation. If that was the plan, I think it's been abandoned. But we'll see. My take is that a lot of people finally have their teeth in this now, so maybe we'll finally find out whether there's anything substantive that's been concealed.

If you read this blog over time you'll find that a lot of us have been pretty hawkish on Iraq, and that we haven't spared ANY of the democrats from criticism. I in particular have been very harsh on Kerry.

I think you have a point in that several of our posters sometimes seem inclined to promote candidates from the democratic party. Definitely not all of them. But you ARE right: Bush isn't going to get a free pass here. Several of your posts have cast Bush's actions in the most favorable light possible, and we don't really do that.

As I have said repeatedly before, my personal opinion is that the Bush admin DID do some apple-polishing, but it doesn't trouble me much. And yeah, Bush did appoint some buddies to the Iraq-WMD invstigatory panel(does it have a name yet?), but he's not the first to do so, and won't be the last. It's only normal for a President to want someone he feels he can really trust on such a commission, and it's pretty usual for people to suspect deck-stacking depending on the number of buddies put on board and who gets put in charge.

Yes, I agree it would appear from reading my posts on this site that it appears that I am constantly putting the President in a positive light. I am mostly defending him when there is a lot about his administration that is wrong, and I do think that this is a better country when we question our leaders.

I started reading Centerfield after Will Swann made a comment on my blog, excited that there was actually a place on the web that was not designated for extreme political ideologies.

My only point is that it is time to choose. The Democrats fumbled. They could have picked Lieberman, who I would have probably voted for, or Edwards, who at least pretends to think outside of the box, but they didn't. They picked John Kerry, and I am simply arguing that if you are looking for center oriented public policy, although again centrists are getting left out in the cold and being forced to pick the best of two evils, than the clear choice in the upcoming election is the current President. BUT... I wouldn't be participating if I hadn't had my doubts and was looking for a real good reason to change my mind. I just haven't seen it yet.

It's interesting what Calpundit is doing on these issues (see href=http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003193.html, href=http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html) I'm of a mixed mind about it. It's very good that he looks at actual evidence, and that he doesn't start his articles saying "Bush was AWOL, I knew it all the time." I also think that he's going a little beyond what the evidence really supports, and neglecting to look at strength-of-evidence issues.

Matt Pruitt said:
> Jon is right, this story only makes it look like more and more of what
> is the truth: the Democrats are reaching because they don't have any
> issues of their own. ...

My concern is rather different. I think we have excellent issues to work with - it's the economy, stupid - the bullshit supply-side economic model (reducing taxes raises tax revenue only when taxes are well above 50%) - problems at TSA and Homeland Security - the bad bits of the Patriot Act, the in-some-cases-still-jailed-without-a-trial immigrants, Jose Padilla, threat to American future through the slowing of immigration, etc.. Gerrymandering in TX and CO. No shortage of issues.

Clinton has even pointed a way forward for us long-term - the integration of government services with capitalism and defense of globalisation.

But the more energy we spend on politics-by-investigation, the less time we spend on the real issues. When we talk about those real problems, people listen, and Bush loses popularity. When we keep talking about this investigatory bullshit for more than a short period, well, that's obsession, not leadership. People tune out, especially when we go over the top.