Friday, October 17, 2003

Connecting the Dots So what really happened to George W. Bush during 1972 and 1973? When asked, Bush and his spokesmen say he was honorably discharged from the Texas Air National Guard, ergo he could only have been serving honorably during that time. Given that it is at least conceivable that the son of an influential Congressman might be able to get away with some shenanigans and still be discharged honorably from the National Guard, a greater accounting has been requested. (Actually, you didn't even have to be the son of anyone influential, as Richard Cohen of the Washington Post freely admits.) So after a week of stalling following Bush's promise to open up his records on Meet the Press, the White House has now released 400 pages of documents which they claim is a complete record of Bush's military history. It started as a trickle, first with a complete version of a torn document that purports to show Bush showed up for duty on certain dates, followed by a record of a dental exam at an Alabama base, followed finally by a dump just before a long holiday weekend. Unfortunately, there is nothing new in this latest set of documents. Not surprisingly, there are still many unanswered questions. I have listed some of the ones I think are important, along with their significance. Why is the "torn document" issued by the ARF? The "torn document" first appeared in the original National Guard article from the Boston Globe. It shows Bush's social security number (redacted in publicly released versions) and some numbers that appear to award points for guard duty. The untorn version has W's full name and is issued not by the Texas or Alabama Air National Guards, but by ARF. ARF stands for "Air Reserve Force". So why ARF and not TANG or AANG? Bush has never mentioned serving in the ARF, leading one to believe he may not want it to be known. Why? Possibly because one could be sent from the ANG to the ARF as a form of disciplinary action, as it greatly increased one's chances of being called to active duty. See the previous link for more details. Why isn't the answer to the question "did Bush serve community service?" a simple "no"? Helen Thomas asked White House press secretary Scott McClellen this simple question about the gaps in Bush's National Guard service and got several minutes of evasions in response. A rational person can only conclude that Bush did serve community service during this period, or something akin to it. What is significant about Bush serving community service in 1972? This allegation has been made before, in a completely different context. J.H. Hatfield, in his book Fortunate Son, alleged that Bush was arrested for cocaine possession in 1972, and that his father got W's record expunged by a judge close to the Bush family in exchange for community service, which of course, was also kept off his official record. More on this accusation below. Why did Bush not maintain his flight status by taking his yearly physical in 1972? This is an important question. The taxpayers spent around a million dollars training Bush to become a pilot. By not taking his physical, and being subsequently grounded, he unilaterally decided to throw that money in the trash. It should have set off an investigation, but there is no record of one. If Bush was having drug troubles in 1972, and his father was pulling favors and bailing him out, this question may be the key to getting to the bottom of the mystery. The allegation of a drug arrest in Fortunate Son deserves some discussion. The story was dropped by the press when it was learned that author J.H. Hatfield was discovered to have a criminal record regarding a car bombing. While such a record should certainly call into question the integrity of any individual, the actual facts alleged by Hatfield were never challenged or disproven. Hatfield claimed to have interviewed a director of a community service program in downtown Houston who stated that Bush had been required to perform service under her guidance. Furthermore, Hatfield claimed to have received his initial tip from someone within the Bush campaign, someone Hatfield later revealed to be Karl Rove. Knowing now how Rove operates, it is not difficult to imagine him worrying that the story would break soon and deciding to feed it to the most easily discredited writer he could find. Imagining is not knowing, but in this scenario, Hatfield would have been the perfect dupe. The book itself is largely a disappointing read for those trying to find dirt on W. Hatfield is even-handed to a fault and paints a generally positive portrait of a man who is extremely skilled at translating his family name into money and power. The arrest allegation shows up as an appendix, almost an afterthought, and is accompanied by much agonizing over whether to trust the sources and go with the story. And finally, Hatfield was found dead in a motel room a couple of years into Bush's administration. It is easy to fall into conspiracy theories involving murder, but I for one believe the suicide diagnosis. Like Vince Foster, Hatfield was a man who felt his life had been destroyed by a vicious political machine, and could see no other escape. In the end, it seems fairly clear that Bush got himself in to some kind of trouble (the specific cocaine charge was never strongly substantiated), and was rescued by his father, with discreet community service as the agreed upon punishment. Perhaps W's superiors at TANG got wind of his troubles and agreed to quietly move him to ARF and then wash their hands of the politically-connected son. Whatever the truth is, the dots just seem to sitting out there, waiting to be connected. 9:13:55 PM    comment []

Fox Distorts, The Truth Gets Fried This article in the Washington Post gives clear evidence that Fox News willfully deceives its viewers. The data in the article is given in paragraph form, but I have put it into tables here to make it easier to digest. A survey of Americans was taken to see how many had misconceptions about important current events. The results are as follows: All Americans Belief % Link exists between Hussein and al Qaeda 48 US has found weapons of mass destruction 22 Most people in other countries backed US war 25 One of the three 60 All three 8 Of course, no credible evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda exists, the US has yet to find any evidence of actual weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and support for the US war in Iraq was well below 50% in the vast majority of nations around the world, including Britain and Australia, who actually supplied troops for the effort. What is interesting about the poll is when the data is broken down according to the primary news source of the polled individuals. That data breaks down like this. Percent by Viewership Belief Fox CBS PBS One of the three 80 71 23 All three 45 15 4 PBS viewers includes those people whose primary news source is litening to NPR. Each of these misconceptions works to the benefit of the Administration. Each person who believes one or more of these misrepresentations is that much more likely to support the war, the president, and his reelection. Now, I understand that some people support the war for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with these lies (such as the liberation of the Iraqi people). But in a democracy, the people are supposed to evaluate the performance of its leaders based on the facts. What is clear from these polls is that a distressingly high number of Americans and a criminally high percentage of Fox viewers will make that evaluation based on purely false distortions. Fox is run by Roger Ailes, a former Republican operative. One can only deduce that the accepted strategy within the Republican party is that the only way to win is to keep as much of the American public in the dark as possible. 9:43:55 PM    comment []

	Monday, October 13, 2003

More Required Reading I've updated the Required Reading section with new reviews of a few of the many books that have come out recently. Lefty literature is resurgent these days, and I only cover a small sliver of it, but these are some good ones to check out. 10:08:15 PM    comment []

	Sunday, October 5, 2003

If Rush Lived in the Real World "I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in American politics. I think the media has been very desirous that a conservative president do well. They're interested in conservative politicians and conservative pundits doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in Bush, and he got a lot of credit for things he never did that he really didn't deserve. The spin carried this administration." 9:43:53 PM    comment []

	Thursday, September 18, 2003

Republican Nightmare The Republican slime machine has unleashed the hounds on Wesley Clark. Only one day after Clark announces his candidacy, we've got Rich Lowry, George Will, and Rush Limbaugh immediately jumping into the fray. Their arguments, analyses and command of the facts, are, as always, specious and embarassing. But the importance of these strikes lies not in how obviously these Lying Liars can spin. The importance of these initial shots across the bow lies in the quickness and uniformity of the attacks. The conservative slime machine fears General Clark. Clark barely registers on any polls yet, but the Republicans know that he is a living, breathing counterargument to the unfair perception that Democrats are weak on defense and national security. They know that Bush, with his priviledged assignment to the Texas Air National Guard, a duty he ignored for an entire year, and his botched handling of post-war Afghanistan and Iraq, sandwiching a premature dress-up stunt on the USS Abraham Lincoln, is at risk of looking feeble before the former Supreme Commander of NATO Allied Forces. As well they should. The attacks will increase and intesify, and pretty soon any petense of honest criticism will be relegated to the distant horizon. How Clark handles it will be important. But his advisors include former Clinton and Gore advisors, who know the right wing mud slingers more intimately than anyone. None of this should be a surprise for him. And according to Joe Conason, this campaign has been war-gamed. What I have seen of Clark, he has shown amazing elequence and charm. His response to Tom DeLay calling him a "blow-dried Napoleon" was to expose the obvious humor in DeLay criticizing anyone's hair. Bush's minions are about to roll out the bug guns. I have reason to hope that Clark will be ready. 11:31:18 PM    comment []

	Monday, August 25, 2003

The Foundation of American Law? One of "Judge" Moore's arguments for having a monument to the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court building is that they form the foundation of American law. Presumably, this means that our laws reflect those commandments. Let's take a look: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Since the Bill of Rights prohibits the establishment of a religion, this one doesn't make the cut. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image . . . . Graven images are pretty much legal all the way around in the old U.S. of A. . . . but isn't that Ten Commandments monument a graven image? Just asking. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. Then there's that freedom of speech thing . . . . Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Nope. Honour thy father and thy mother. Good idea, but not exactly enshrined in American law. Thou shalt not kill. Hey! We got one! Thou shalt not commit adultery. The Puritans tried it, but in the end, a bad idea for the laws of men. Thou shalt not steal. There's two. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. I interpret false witness as any lie. We outlaw lies only in a very specific situation: during a legal proceding under oath (perjury). Thou shalt not covet . . . Not only is coveting legal in America, but our entire economic system is predicated on it. There you have it. Two out of ten. Or two and a half if you want to correlate bearing false witness and perjury. And can you name a religion that condones murder and stealing? If the Founding Fathers based American law on the Ten Commandments, they did a lousy job of it. Fortunately, since these rules -- for the most part -- could only be enforced by God and not mere mortals, they were wisely not made the foundation of this nation's laws. 6:30:31 PM    comment []

	Sunday, August 17, 2003

Not Exactly the Founding Fathers Let's look at the Republicans' major accomplishments over the last five years or so: They impeached a sitting president whose only "crime" was trying to cover up an embarassing affair. They stole a presidential election by getting corrupt "Justices" on the Supreme Court to stop the counting of votes in Florida. They are trying to redistrict Texas to their favor even though the courts settled the districts for the current census. They are trying to change Senate voting rules because they feel aggrieved that only 98% of their extremist judicial candidates are getting confirmed. They tried to have Democratic congressmen arrested for employing legal stalling tactics in order to give theselves time to read a bill before voting on it. They are attempting to recall a duly elected governor less than a year since his election because the previous Republican governor deregulated the energy industry and big Republican donors such as Enron were able to bankrupt the state. Raise your hand if you think that the government that this administration will establish in Iraq will have even a passing resemblence to democracy. Didn't think so. 7:43:46 AM    comment []

	Wednesday, July 30, 2003

Priorities Here is an amazing article. Quietly, under the radar, Syria had become one of our most important allies in the fight against terrorism. Our best weapon against terrorism is intelligence, and Syria is in a position to obtain a great deal of information on al Qaida. After 9/11 they had been qietly sharing that intelligence with us. Lots of it. They even thwarted at least one al Qaida attack on a US military base in Bahrain. Syria is officially listed in the US as a state that sponsors terrorism because of their public support for Hezbollah. But Hezbollah is a thorn in Israel's side, not directly in our own, nor has it been directly involved in a terrorist act since 1986. So do we give up this intel on principle? Syria's cooperation with us has saved lives. It is not a clear cut decision. And this cooperation could have been an indication that Syria was turning the corner. They were giving us something that we needed, and giving us both quantity and quality. It should have been looked at seriously. (This type of murky grey area is precisely why Bush's "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric is naive in the extreme. Which was Syria? You could make the case either way. And it is one of the reasons those of us who use our grey matter on occasion cannot stomach this pretender in the White House.) The Bush administration decided to throw it all away. By deciding to invade Iraq without UN approval (and how long would we have had to wait to get it? A month? Two?) and by violating Syrian soveriegnty while incompetently pursuing Baath party loyalists, Bush cut off the flow of information from Syria. This invasion of Iraq, whose justifications are proving shakier by the day, was more important than credible intelligence that had proved itself time and again. What are the administration's real proirities? Are they really serious about fighting terrorism? Or is it more important to keep the American public in a perpetual state of fear and dependence? Is it more important to fight a highly visible yet ultimately counterproductive war rather than do the tough day-to-day job of gathering intelligence and acting on it? What drives the decisions? How can you look at the evidence and not conclude that fooling the electorate is more important than actually securing Americans' safety? 12:01:03 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2004 Bill Spotz. Last update: 2/17/04; 9:30:54 PM.