This is how paranoid and delusional the left is these days. Atrios discusses the Kerry scandal, which was broken to the press by DEMOCRAT GENERAL WESLEY CLARK, and surprise, surprise. Atrios and Hesiod see a Rove plot:
Hesiod notes that something similar was pushed in ’92. Anyway, this does sound like a very Roveian smear – the trademark little details which don’t quite make sense but have a big titillation factor.
They are insane. And, btw- the name to look for is Chris Lehane…. Kos knows it:
Lehane likely had access to Kerry’s internal oppo when he worked for him. Given that Clark was talking about Kerry’s “intern problem”, it would lend credence to this theory. And like I said, I have independent confirmation that Clark did, indeed, make those comments. And given that these allegations have been circulating for several weeks, it’s possible Lehane leaked this hoping it would break sooner. But knowing it was going to explode, why would Clark drop out? It doesn’t seem to make sense.
It makes sense to me- you guys don’t smear and attack for any particular reason other than vindictiveness, near as I can tell. And Chris Lehane is the prototype of the fighting Democrat that you ‘moderates’ so adore. Look at your damn rhetoric while you are peddling the Bush military service smear- “Finally- we are taking the fight to them.” Look at your glee in Dean, a candidate who claimed that the Bush administration knew about 9/11 in advance. He raiuses these smears, and your limp-wristed response is “Hey- he is at least fighting to get our country back.”
Nice to see you guys getting a dose of your own medicine in this tawdry infighting. Funny you think it is surprising and has to come from a Republican- I guess in all of your hero worship you have forgotten Gore’s vile race-baiting of Bradley in the last primary season.
*** Update ***
Oliver is drinking the kool-aid too:
I’m sure the timing with Bush’s AWOL dodges are purely coincidental and in no way indicative of alliances between the GOP, Drudge and other interested parties.
Is it an unwillingness to admit how dirty Democrats fight, a desire to try to tar the GOP with anythin they can, or just general naivete and foolishness that drive these statements?
Rick
We know they’ve forgotten Gore’s branishing of Willie Horton against Dukakis.
And the burning Black churches/James Byrd dragging death “issues” used against Republicans? Never happened.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
My favorite part was where the Gore campaign called South Carolina primary voters and informed them that McCain had a mixed-race child.
Jack Sparks (burn rate)
Common sense indicates this isn’t a GOP job. The AWOL issue has peaked, and frankly, not many people actually cared about it. By March 1, it’ll be a dead issue. Further, the GOP stood to benefit the most by the Kerry-adultery story coming out in the summer, maybe right after the Democratic convention, not now, when it can merely help Edwards, who appears to a more formidable opponent than the Senator who voted against the M-1, Bradley, and the Apache.
This is pure party-infighting, and all we have to do is sit back, shut up, and enjoy the ride.
Norbizness
If the story that Clark is about to endorse Kerry is true, does this hypothesis vanish?
caleb
Kimmitt,
Didn’t they call his wife a drug addict as well?
Maybe they were talking about Rush? ;-)
Tongue Boy
Projection, pure and simple. That single work explains just about of the over-the-top rhetoric about Bush spewed by “mainstream” Democrats.
caleb
Hmmmm…
Why would Clark do this after releasing the Kerry smear? (alledgedly)
I mean, this has been known for some time
Then it appears on Drudge.(sarcasm) I know of a lot of democrats who go to Drudge to smear their foes.(/sarcasm)
Jack Sparks (burn rate)
Drudge never said Clark was the source for the story, merely that he had commented upon the existence of the investigation. Nothing inconsistent with Clark noting a scandal was brewing and then endorsing Kerry.
Jack Sparks (burn rate)
Here’s proof:
A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST, THE HILL and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked.
[snip]
In an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: “Kerry will implode over an intern issue.” [Three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the startling comments.]
Seems pretty clear to me Clark wasn’t breaking the story, merely noting it was going to break.
Mark L
Actually, it would be pretty stupid for the Republicans — and especially the President — to break the Kerry infidelity story right now.
The White House popped the AWOL bubble yesterday with Bush’s records. The AWOL story had evolved to the point where it shows the press and Democrats to be totally clueless as to what the Guard does, and what Guard service consists of. Having the press and Dems bark after the AWOL story for a few more days would have been all to the President’s advantage, as it would have really angered the undecided — and even those in the Guard who normally vote Democrat — against the press and the Dems.
It makes sense that the Kerry story is an inside Dem job — either by Dean, Edwards, or possibly the Clintons. (Remember the Clintons? Hillery has put her chips on 2008. If John “F” Kerry wins in 2004. . . )
Anyhow, why would the President want to crowd Powell off the evening news?
Hesiod
Let’s try some logic, shall we? Lehane was floating this story for a few weeks. Still, you’d think the Clark campaign would make this a bigger deal when they wre STILL IN THE RACE!
No respectable journalist touched this, for obvious reasons. And then suddenly, on the day Bush is getting hammered all over the place on his military records (or lack thereof), plus he’s putting down a mutny among GOP Congressmen over Greg Mankiws’ “Exporting US Jobs is GOOD” report…DRUDGE breaks the story.
Drudge, who might as well be mainlining Rovian propaganda from the White House and the RNC.
Plus, to throw people off the obvious scent, he tossed in a few quotes from Wes Clark. [Who is ENDORSING Kerry oday, just to make Drudge and Rove look even more pathetic].
Timing, as they say, is everything. And the timing says “KARL ROVE” all over it. Drudge got his marching orders.
I’d call you stupid, but that would be pointless. Facts and logic refuse to penetrate your cranium.
Charlie (Colorado)
Yes.
Just Passing Through
“Is it an unwillingness to admit how dirty Democrats fight, a desire to try to tar the GOP with anythin they can, or just general naivete and foolishness that drive these statements?”
All of the above, Couple that with woefully ignorant understanding of background detail and a kneejerk tendency to spin the most superfical and unsupportedtalking points into rabid the Bush hatred of the day and you have Atrios, Hesiod, and 90% of their commenters.
Witness hesiod’s comment before this one. He spins a tale based on what he thinks MIGHT have happened must have happened because it’s so ‘obvious’ to his stark paranoia. He closes with an admonition that his use of moonbat ‘facts and logic’ will never get John’s agreement. The one statement in his comment that is patently true.
Atrios has a 500+ thread simultaneously dealing with the issues of theDrudge story and the AWOL flap that reads like a Dali painting looks. Surreal, unconnected, unfocused, and totally skewed in perspective.
These people roll out of bed in the morning already fuming over just how much they hate Bush.
HH
What facts do you have saying this is from Rove? Oh yeah, you don’t have any. Logic? Well, everything we know thus far logically points to Democrats… you have to take an amazing LEAP of logic right now to say it’s Rove. But that’s your way.
Randy Paul
Jack Sparks:
Proof? All you did was regurgitate what Drudge wrote. As for the Washington Post, here’s a link to a story in Editor and Publisher. read this quote:
That’s proof that Drudge is wrong when mentions the Post.
Slartibartfast
“Let’s try some logic, shall we?”
It’s refreshing to see you trying new things, Hesiod. Next thing you know, you’ll actually acquire some skill.
Grant R
This is soooooo obviously not Rove work.
This info would’ve been infinitley more devastating if it had come out after Kerry had sealed up the nomination. Not to combat insignificant, wild awol accusations. If it truly was rove work it wouldve hit the press about a month before the elections.
A side note: now that the Dems have made a big deal out of patriotism, if Kerry ceases to be a viable candidate are they going to embrace snow bunny Dean?
Or will Edwards have it sealed?
Armchair Pundit
How about this view from Sully:
“I was always a little suspicious about Terry McAuliffe’s raising of the Bush National Guard AWOL issue. I wondered: why are they doing this now, rather than wait till later? Now I wonder if it wasn’t a pre-emptive strike. Was it an attempt to ensure that Bush and his aides had decried “gutter politics” in the week that the Kerry story was going to break? I don’t know. But the timing is suspicious. Hyper-paranoid thought: were the dreaded Clintons behind this?”
There you go.
Jack Sparks (burn rate)
Paul,
My point was only that Clark was not the source of this story. Inasmuch as the people claiming that he was had only the Drudge story to rely on, my reliance on same was perfectly appropriate. Perhaps “proof” was too strong a word, but I stand by my point – on the basis of all available evidence, Clark was not the source of this story.
Care to disagree?
Randy Paul
I never said he was.
Ricky
Morning? LOL! What, you think they have jobs? :)
Just Passing Through
My mistake.
These people roll out of bed in the AFTERNOON already fuming over just how much they hate Bush.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Add me to the list of people who think Clark wouldn’t be pushing this the same week he withdraws, and with an endorsement of Kerry expected.
I think his comment about an intern implosion meant that the rumor was such common knowledge, it was sure to surface (i.e,, be planted in the media) at a later date.
Anything to get off the front page dental records that (1) are from the wrong state according to Bush’s previous explanations and (2) don’t show fulfilled ALL the requirements. Why didn’t he get that missed physical while he was at it?
If Clinton had produced a DIFFERENT blue dress of Monica’s and said, truthfully, that it was clean, what exactly would that prove?
I have to say, I have no idea what’s hiding in those records, but they obviously scare the crap out of GWB.
Charlie (Colorado)
Andrew, the most likely thing that’s hiding in those records is that there’s no more records. The “privacy waiver” is hot air — apparently this operative who got the records back in 2000 didn’t have any difficulty (unless, of course, he obtained them unlawfully … but surely he wouldn’t have done that, right?)
Every form and record that anyone has managed to mention — fitness reports, physicals, DD214, and so on — have been shown. Even weird things like payroll records and such which wouldn’t even be in the normal records. Every time someone has said “well, such and such a record would settle it”, the production of those records hasn’t settled it. We’re down to his damn dental records, but what we see now is the assertion that there must be more, and since there aren’t more, there must be a coverup.
Just consider the logic of it, for crying out loud. The accusation was originally that Bush was a “deserter” or “AWOL”. Those are specific charges, and are clearly not true on the face. Then the accusation morphed into that he was, well, not AWOL, merely “absent”. The basic reason for this being that there were holes in 30 year old records, and a malicious misquote. The mere fact that he received an Honorable Discharge isn’t enough … but, we hear, just show his pay records and all will be fine.
Then they find the pay records (could you produce pay records from your employer 32 years ago? Assuming you’re old enough to have had an employer 32 years ago? I know I’d have trouble.) The pay records show that he exceeded requirements in all years, including the “questionable” ones.
Ah, but they don’t show exactly two days of service, exactly one month apart.
Now, the fact is that the Guard doesn’t work that way; any number of people have explained, with good authority for their expertise, that the records clearly indicate a perfectly normal service record, and that they simply don’t indicate anything unusual. There is simply no evidence whatsoever for anything unusual.
But — we hear — there’s no proof that just because he mustered, got credit, got paid, that he was actually there.
At this point we’re getting into the metaphysical. But what the hell — how do we know? Well, we can refer to his then girlfriend, but she never say him actually drilling. We can find someone who worked for him on the campaign who saw him in uniform and remembers him leaving for drills, but she didn’t actually take him to the base. We’ve got his dental records for crying out loud.
But that doesn’t prove anything. After all, he might have … I dunno, traveled to Alabama from Texas for two weeks, diddled the girlfriend, snuck on base for the required annual dental checkup (in uniform, he wouldn’t be able to do it out of uniform, the Air Force is funny about that), bribed someone to commit a federal crime by filling in his name on the signup sheets, and still just not shown up for drill.
At some point there, we’ve proceeded beyond reasonable doubt to the domain of being completely out of your fucking mind.
I know I’d have a helluva time reconstructing things from that period. That was my last year of high school… but could I prove that I made every ROTC maneuver? I don’t know how. I couldn’t refer to my high school records — I already know that they don’t keep anything that long but the final transcript. No day by day attendance records. There was the newspaper article when I got a cadet medal, but I could have gotten that through political pull, I suppose. (Why not? That’s how LBJ got his Silver Star.) There are probably pictures of me at the Military Ball, and that sort of thing — but I went to summer drill for two weeks that year; do you suppose they still have those records?
Not to mention the difficulty I would have later in life, when I was working in intelligence and actually was operating covertly. You might as well claim I was in a Turkish prison for all that I’d be able to prove otherwise.
The point is that the demands for “proof” have become completely unreasonable: I doubt seriously that anyone could satisfy them. This is only emphasized by the “moving the goal posts” aspect: the way that any specific request, quickly and responsively answered, is followed with an argument why that isn’t enough either.
Now, we’ve got someone who has a long-standing grudge, and who claims, based on 20 year old heresay, that the files were “sanitized”.
What’s the point of presenting anything further? If it’s exculpatory, it’s not enough; if it’s in any way questionable to the ignorant, people like Kevin Drum guess at the worst interpretation they can come up with and ignore people like Smash trying to interpret the records for him; and if there’s nothing it’s just the coverup.
I’m sorry: deranged is the only word for it.
Or, at least, the kindest word for it.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Charlie. just today we got new records that yesterday you said didn’t exist: the White House admitted that unnder the blackouts on the records was information on GWB’s arrests and auto accidents. (More than he seems to have acknowledged in the past, and where did he get the waiver allowing him to join the TANG with such a record?)
I’m at a total loss to see what the dental records prove, beyond h is showing up at the DENTAL clinic for one day. Can you explain why this implies he showed up for DUTY? You mention the signup sheets—I thought that was one of the records people were still looking for. After all, the other pilots in Alabama say they were expecting him, and he never showed up. My guess is there’s no checkmark next to W on any signup sheets. But if there is, that would be much more persuasive than \dental records.
Charlie (Colorado)
Andrew, you have just demonstrated that it took the White House more than four days to find records from thirty two years ago.
Wow, I’m impressed.
Oh, and we found out that he’d had a couple of speeding tickets and fender benders.
Huhn. A nascient fighter jock who got a speeding ticket. That never happens.
In the mean time, the guy who claimed the records had been “sanitized” has been debunked — specifically, as a crank with a grudge whose story isn’t supported by any of the peope he refers to as witnesses. The original story’s big support (BGEN Turnipseed) is saying he was maliciously misquoted. The Dallas Morning News is reporting that — contrary to assertion — Bush took a position as a pilot, which since it required two years active duty anyway, as well as passing all the tests was not very popular and was going unfilled. (In other words, no need for family pressure, which both the LA Times and the Dallas Morning Herald couldn’t find evidence of anyway.) And people are showing up who actually saw him drilling with the 187th in Birmingham.
Charlie (Colorado)
Oh, sorry — No, Andrew, I can’t tell you that the dental records actually demonstrate that he reported for duty, although I can tell that you haven’t the foggiest clue about anything military by the fact that you asked.
But, since you asked, here’s the reasoning: to believe otherwise would require us to believe that he traveled from Houston to Birmingham; got into uniform (because, unlike dependents, military personnel needed to be in uniform to access standard services); went on base; got his teeth examined; and didn’t sign in.
My guess is that your ignorance of — and, perhaps, distase for — things military extends to the point that you think that he would even want to go on base and not sign in. In that you would be mistaken: you don’t sign up and become a pilot officer without becoming at least a little enamored of the attention. Pilots are rock stars; it’s kind of fun to get saluted. Even if you hated the things they made you do as a TDY officer from somewhere else — and you might; he probably got all the crappy “let George do it” paperwork jobs no one else wanted — the last day you’d refuse to sign in for would be the day you needed to catch your dental exam, butcause that could be goldbricked into most of a day out of the office, if you were so inclined.
So maybe rather than being deranged, you’re just ignorant. Fine — go read up on it, there are lots of bloggers with more military years than I’ve got who will happily explain things.
But don’t continue in willful ignorance; that worse then being deranged.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Charlie, I don’t appear to have made myself very clear: the fact George Bush made it to his dental appointment on ONE day does very little to dispel rumors he didn’t make it as often as he should have. (Oddly enough, a day his previous chronology said he was living in Texas, if that seems hard to believe, take it up with him.) We seem to agree on the lack of probative value.
Charlie (Colorado)
Andrew, you didn’t actually adress my argument — why would he travel to Birmingham, dress up, get a dental exam, and not sign in? — but in the mean time, his ofcice mate in the 187th is talking.
Quoth he:
Charlie (Colorado)
This just in: the WH has released another 300+ pages of records, just fedexed in from the repository here in Colorado. Also allowed reporters access to his medical records.
I predict another goalpost move by 2100 EST.
M. Scott Eiland
“I think an apology on your part (and Kevin’s, and Atrios’, et al) is in order; I look forward to the sudden rushing sound as the hurtling goalpost moves.”
Or the start of loud whining how it’s unfair that this new information wasn’t released before they all made asses out of themselves. . .
Charlie (Colorado)
Good pickup, Scott. The Calpundit crowd is already bitching about when it was released.
Charlie (Colorado)
Further, deponent sayeth not.
M. Scott Eiland
“Good pickup, Scott. The Calpundit crowd is already bitching about when it was released.”
*Scott sits back, pops open a cold one, and revels in the waves of schadenfreude*
Someone might want to tell those poor SOBs that needlenose pliers are good for getting those nasty hooks out of their gills. ]:-)
Charlie (Colorado)
Andrew J. Lazarus
Charlie, you and so many others keep saying there are no more records, and Bush somehow keeps finding more records to release. Hunh? Can you get your defenses straight?
I haven’t had time to read the whole story, but the first paragraph says that none of them pertain to the months in question. The statement from his officemate is real evidence. The rest, including dental records for just one day mean nothing. (So he went to the dentist and signed in for one or two days?! You’ll have to explain more slowly why his attending the dentist shows anything about days other than ones that had dentist appointments. If I’ve missed some arcana of military dentistry, please advise.)
S.W. Anderson
Remembering Reagan operatives, including the infamous partisan hack, Laurence Silberman, who engaged in secret dealing with the Iranians, to time release of the American hostages until after the election, so as to disadvantage Jimmy Carter . . .
Remembering the Willie Horton ad . . .
Remembering what Bush operatives did to Sen. John McCain in 2000 — the one about the supposedly illegitimate black daughter that turned out to be his dark-skinned adopted child . . .
Remembering what a small army of radical conservative crazies did nonstop for nine years, trying to destroy Bill Clinton.
And you say the left is paranoid and delusional?
OK, but just because someone’s paranoid doesn’t mean there aren’t lowlifes out to get them.
Charlie (Colorado)
Andrew:
What I actually said:
Charlie (Colorado)
As I also said:
M. Scott Eiland
“Remembering Reagan operatives, including the infamous partisan hack, Laurence Silberman, who engaged in secret dealing with the Iranians, to time release of the American hostages until after the election, so as to disadvantage Jimmy Carter . . .”
Oh look, we have an October Surprise conspiracy devotee. There’s a two for one tinfoil sale at Safeway this week–might want to stock up.
CleverNameHere
The rest, including dental records for just one day mean nothing.
Well, since “nothing” accurately describes the evidence produced that he DIDN’T fulfil his duty, I guess you mean that the dental records are strong proof that he DID fulfil his duty?
Anyway, this is just hilarious. Every manner of proof you’ve asked for has been given, from documentary evidence, to witness testimony. If we flew you back in a time machine and made you sit next to Bush during the Alabama meetings, you’d demand to know how you could be sure we weren’t in some alternate dimension where Bush wasn’t “AWOL”.
CleverNameHere
OK, I give up. How do you do block quotes on this site?
Charlie (Colorado)
<blockquote>stuff</blockquote>
gives
Charlie (Colorado)
(Sorry to do this in multiple posts, by the way, but I was having technical problems last night. %&^#$&#@ Comcast. Read “today” here as yesterday, the 13th.)
In the mean time, Andrew, you’re dancing. It’s not pretty.
According to the story this evening (on MSNBC) the package we saw today arrived by FedEx today. So there were no more records yesterday; when they got more today they released them.
In the mean time, in Bush’s defense we’ve got at this point:
-his pay stubs
-his attendance records
-his girlfriend
-his officemate
-his complete personnel file, with “top ten percent” evaluatinos and glowing comments
-his flight instructors
-his recorded volunteering for Viet Nam duty
-other people who saw him going to and coming from drills
-dental records showing he was in Birmingham
While on the other hand, the anti- side has:
-three or four people who don’t remember Bush being present, 32 years after the fact, when he was a transient who was there for something like six days total, and one of whom who says he was misquoted about Bush in any case
-One disgruntled ex-Guard officer who has been contradicted by the very people he claimed as his other witnesses
-And a whole succession of times when the “anti” side said “Oh, we just need X to see that we were mistaken” — followed by excuses why that wasn’t good enough either, once X was presented.
In other words, everything the “anti” side has proposed as dispositive has been presented and shown to confirm that Bush was not AWOL, not a “deserter”, and did everything he was obligated to do, while the anti side has misquotes and rumors. Also known as “bupkis”.
As I said, the only explainations for continuing to maintain Bush did anything wrong are derangement, or intentional and malicious slander.
You pick.
Maybe you could just change your screen name and hope to live it down.
Far North
Let’s see, the McCain smear in South Carolina…..the Max Cleland smear in Georgia……………..
Don’t talk about the “dirty” politics of Democrats as if it were exclusive to them.
Nothing is more stunning in politics than the hypocrisy of the new century conservative.
Charlie (Colorado)
I diagree with you about Max Cleland — no one called himj unpatriotic, just wrong. Being too close to a grenade doesn’t make you right.
As to “dirty politics” — unless you’re claiming that people lying about an opponent is okay, you should be affronted by the Bush thing too. But then why get all huffy about someone’s claims about McCain?