I'm waiting to see what journalists are able to make of the president's Friday night military service record document dump. I don't have copies of them. So, like you, I'm waiting to hear what they find.
Yesterday, though, there was a new development when one of the president's fellow Guardsmen, John B. Calhoun, came forward to say that he clearly remembered him showing up for his required drills in Alabama through the summer and fall of 1972.
"We didn't have the planes that he could fly," Calhoun told the Associated Press. "But he studied his manuals, he read flying safety regulations, accident reports -- things pilots do quite often when they are not getting ready to fly or if they don't have other duties."
Interestingly, though, as the Houston Chronicle notes this morning, the documents released Friday night show "Bush's transfer to the Alabama squadron wasn't approved until September 1972, months after Bush's presence as recalled by Calhoun."
Oops.
Now, needless to say, if we were still operating under the rules that prevailed in the mid-1990s, James Carville would have been appointed Independent Counsel in the late summer of 2002 to investigate Halliburton. He'd have had the Intel shenanigans, the Plame matter and the Niger documents added to his brief since then. A cowed AG would have given him the Guard matter around the middle of last week. And in a couple days some FBI agents would be showing up on Calhoun's doorstep ready to squeeze him as silly as any freshly sliced wedge of lime in close proximity to a bottle of Corona.
Lucky for him Dems don't play so rough.
--Josh Marshall
A number of folks have written in to ask why the exchange between Helen Thomas and Scott McClellan reported yesterday on TPM doesn't appear in the press briefing transcript at the White House website or in the televised version on CSPAN.
Simple.
There are actually two press briefings at the White House each day. Both are on the record. But a public transcript is prepared for the second (and posted on the White House website); and it's televised on CSPAN. Neither is done for the first. Because of that difference, the first -- which usually takes place between 9 and 10 am -- is often more contentious and free-wheeling than the second, which takes place just after noon.
In most cases, when I report these exchanges on TPM, they come from the early morning briefing, the "gaggle".
--Josh Marshall
This guy says he remembers Bush at drills in Alabama.
These two say they never saw him and think they would have if he were there.
Yesterday the AP contacted more than a dozen former members of Bush's unit and none remembered seeing him.
"I don't remember seeing him. That does not mean he was not there," said Wayne Rambo, a first lieutenant with the 187th Supply Squadron at the time in question.
--Josh Marshall
Here's a fascinating AP story in <$Ad$>which the reporter went back to talk to people who were in the mix in that 1972 Alabama Senate campaign to find out their recollections of the future president. Some, it seems, remember him as a big drinker with little interest in military service, others remember him as a hard worker who did his Guard duty.
Not surprisingly, I suppose, the range of opinions seems to conform at least in part to the current political views of the people recollecting their memories of the time.
But this passage stuck out to me.
Jean Sullivan, a former RNC national committeewoman and Alabama GOP leader, is one of Bush's staunchest defenders in the article. She worked on the 1972 Blount campaign along with the president.
Some within the Alabama Guard were resentful because Bush was from Texas and was spending only the minimum amount of required time on duty, said Sullivan. "It was just some idiots," said Sullivan.Mad about rumors surrounding Bush, whose father was U.N. ambassador at the time, Sullivan said she called a Guard commander to explain that Bush was doing all he could while working on the campaign.
"The man called me back and apologized. I thought it was gone forever," said Sullivan. "And then I started hearing all this stuff a couple of weeks ago."
So there was already disgruntlement even then from "some idiots". Sullivan was mad about the rumors that were circulating. So she called up the base commander, or someone in authority, to give him an earful and ask him to get the rumors from the "idiots" under control. Then he called back and apologized to her.
Is this version of events really helpful to the president?
I guess at least it'll put to rest those critics who say he shirked his duty and had to have his dad's political friends cover for him.
--Josh Marshall
Scott McClellan seems intent on saying that <$Ad$> a dental exam the president had at Dannelly Alabama Air National Guard base in January 1973 proves he fulfilled his Guard duty that year in Alabama.
That, of course, and the ambiguous pay stubs -- a number of which seem to show he was in Texas.
This is, of course, all in addition to the fact that the president has gone back on his promise to just make this whole thing easy and release all his military service records -- something he, through his aides, now refuses to do.
But look at this testy exchange this morning about whether the president was required to perform community service during the time he was in the Guard ...
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 --
Q: Can you find out if he actually had --
Scott McClellan: Helen, I don't think we remember every single activity he was involved in 30 years ago.
Q: No, this isn't an activity. Was he forced to do community service at any time while he was on --
Scott McClellan: What's your interest in that question? I'm sorry, I just --
Q: Lots of rumors. I'm just trying to clear up something.
Scott McClellan: Rumors about what?
Q: Pardon?
Scott McClellan: Rumors about what?
Q: About the President having to do community service while he was in the National Guard, take time out for that.
Scott McClellan: I'm not aware of those rumors. But if you want to --
Q: Could you look it up? Would you mind asking him?
Scott McClellan: That's why I'm asking what's your interest in that? I just don't understand your interest in that.
Q: It's what everybody is interested in, whether we're getting the true story on his Guard duty.
Scott McClellan: Well, you have the documents that show the facts.
Q: I'm asking you to try to find out from the President of the United States.
Scott McClellan: Like I said, it's well known the different jobs he had and what he was doing previously, that we know. That goes back to --
Q: I didn't say "previously." I said, while he was on Guard duty.
Scott McClellan: But you're asking me about 30 years ago. I don't think there's a recollection of everything he was doing 30 years ago.
Q: Well, he would know if he had to take time out.
Scott McClellan: Again, I mean, the issue that was raised was whether or not the President was serving while he was in Alabama. Documents reflect that he
was --Q: Well, this is another issue.
Scott McClellan: -- hold on -- that he was serving in Alabama. That was the issue that was raised. We went through, four years ago, other issues related to this.
Q: So you won't answer the question or you won't try to find out?
Scott McClellan: Well, I'm asking you, what's your interest in that question? I'm just curious, because rumors --
Q: Did he have to do any community service while he was in the National Guard?
Scott McClellan: Look, Helen, I think the issue here was whether or not the President served in Alabama. Records have documented --
Q: I'm asking you a different question. That's permissible.
Scott McClellan: Can I answer your question? Sure it is. Can I ask you why you're asking it? I'm just -- out of curiosity myself, is that permissible?
Q: Well, I'm interested, of course, in what everybody is interested in. And we have a very --
Scott McClellan: Let me just point out that we've released all the information we have related to this issue, the issue of whether or not he served while in Alabama. Records have documented as false the outrageous --
Q: I asked you whether he had to do any community service while he was in the National Guard.
Scott McClellan: Can I walk through this?
Q: It's a very legitimate question.
Scott McClellan: And I want to back up and walk through this a little bit. Let's talk about the issue that came up, because this issue came up four years ago, it came up four years before that -- or two years before that, it came up four years before that --
Q: Did my question come up four years ago, and was it handled?
Scott McClellan: Helen, if you'll let me finish, I want to back up and talk about this --
Q: Don't dance around, just give us --
Q: It's a straightforward question.
Q: Let's not put too fine a point on it. If I'm not mistaken, you're implying that he had to do community service for criminal action, as a punishment for some crime?
Q: There are rumors around, and I didn't put it in that way. I just --
Q: Could you take that question? I guess apparently that's the question, that he had to take time out to perform community service --
Scott McClellan: That's why I wanted to get to this because --
Q: -- as a sentence for a crime.
Scott McClellan: No, that's why I wanted to get to this because I want to step back for a second. I want to go back through a few things. Look, the -- I think we've really exhausted the issue that came up. The issue that came up was related to whether or not he had served while he was in Alabama. Records have documented as false the outrageous, baseless accusation that he did not serve while in Alabama. The conspiracy theory of one individual, that the National Guard cleansed documents, has been discredited.
Q: How so?
Scott McClellan: Read The Boston Globe today.
Q: Well, we want answers from you, not --
Scott McClellan: Read the Boston Globe. No, the answers are from the people that would have knowledge of that. But read --
Q: Why do you think this person made those allegations?
Scott McClellan: Hang on, hang on.
Q: What? Just read The Boston Globe --
Scott McClellan: Just read The Boston Globe. Read The Boston Globe. I would draw your attention to that. What I think we're seeing now is just politics. And we're not going to engage in it, because there are great challenges facing our nation, and there should be an honest discussion of the actions the President is taking to make our world safer and better and make America more prosperous and secure.
You want me to go --
Q: -- the personal record of a President is --
Scott McClellan: No, hang on, Helen, hang on. I've said from this podium, if we have new information that comes to our attention that relates to this issue, we have made it clear we will share that information. You're asking me to go and chase rumors. There was a conspiracy theory --
Q: I think --
Scott McClellan: Hold on, hold on, Helen. There was a conspiracy theory made by one individual, when everybody he accused of being involved in that said, it's ridiculous, didn't happen.
Q: This is not based on a conspiracy theory.
Scott McClellan: And there was a lot of attention given to this individual, and he's been discredited. There's a Boston Globe article on it this morning. And there are some --
Q: That says what? Your point --
Scott McClellan: You can go read it. I mean, we've got other things to move on to. I mean, you can go read it. But there are some, unfortunately, who simply are not interested in the facts. Again, the documents -- the records document that he did serve while in Alabama. And now there are people that are bringing up issues that were addressed four years ago.
Q: But you still haven't answered Helen's question. She asked you a simple question.
Scott McClellan: There are people that want to replay the 2000 campaign all over again, Bill, and --
Q: You still haven't answered her question about community service.
Scott McClellan: -- there are too many important -- there are too many important policies and decisions that are being made that we need to discuss.
Q: Why does a "yes" or "no" elude you on this?
Scott McClellan: I didn't say that. I said that these were all issues addressed four years ago. If there's additional information --
Q: This issue quite obviously wasn't addressed four years ago.
Scott McClellan: Oh, issues -- these issues were addressed four years ago.
Q: This issue was? The community service issue was addressed four years ago?
Scott McClellan: The issues -- the issues that we're going to here --
Q: I don't recall --
Scott McClellan: This is called chasing a rumor. And I'm not going to engage in this kind of politics, Bill.
Q: -- finding out whether a rumor is true or false.
Scott McClellan: No, this issue, absolutely --
Q: Why can't you say whether or not he performed community service?
Scott McClellan: Absolutely, this issue came up four years ago. And if you all want to play politics, then go call the RNC, call the campaign.
Q: The best defense is offense. We know that. Just, all you've got to say is you don't know.
Scott McClellan: Helen, it was -- this issue was addressed four years ago. I think people that were involved in the campaign will know --
Q: -- if they know --
Scott McClellan: -- that the issue that you're trying to bring up was addressed four years ago. It's about chasing rumors.
Q: It isn't a question of four years ago. The issue has come up now, very large.
Scott McClellan: I'm not going to get into chasing rumors.
Q: Headlines.
Scott McClellan: I'm not going to get into chasing rumors.
Q: So you refuse to answer the question?
Scott McClellan: You're saying that people said he was forced to do something, and you're asking me to chase a rumor.
Q: Everything is politics today, of course.
Q: She asked you a "yes" or "no" question.
Scott McClellan: Look, if you all want to -- this is just politics. That's what this is. And if there's any more information I have to share with you all, I will always -- I will do that.
Q: Scott, I have a question of this individual, and I confess, I haven't read the Boston article. But who -- what do you believe was this person's motivation, that if they have been discredited, for making these allegations?
Scott McClellan: Just -- I would read The Boston Globe. Everybody that he accused of being involved in this has said it was totally ridiculous. And there are others that --
Q: So are you saying -- was it politically motivated?
Scott McClellan: There are others that are quoted in The Boston Globe today, that you might want to see what they said.
Q: Speaking of politics, has the President authorized his campaign --
Scott McClellan: And we've got to --
Q: -- to release a video attacking Senator Kerry?
Scott McClellan: You need to talk -- you need to talk to the campaign. But let me go to the week ahead because we've used up more than 15 minutes.
Q: So the President did authorize --
Q: Scott, I've got --
Scott McClellan: I'm going to go to the week ahead.
Houston, do we have a problem?
--Josh Marshall
You don't think president Bush has had a rough ride over the last few weeks? Take a look at this new ABC/Washington Post news poll which has him losing a presidential match-up to John Kerry by a 52%-43% margin among registered voters.
Now, registered voters aren't 'likely voters', though figuring out who counts as a 'likely voter' is difficult so many months out from an election. But that still means that the president is getting knocked by almost ten points by an opponent who is, to most Americans, still largely an unknown quantity.
And the more ominous news comes down in the details. Put simply, a majority of Americans now believe that the president bamboozled them on Iraq. In the more temperate phrasing of the Post: "A majority of Americans believe President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war." The precise numbers are 21% who say he lied and 31% who say he deliberately exaggerated.
Only 52% find the president "honest and trustworthy". And to borrow the title of the last book of the great J. Anthony Lukas, for Bush, that means big trouble.
Every president has characteristic strengths and weaknesses. For better or worse, by the end of his term of office, Bill Clinton's reputation as a truth-teller was in tatters. But that was never his strong suit with voters anyway. The measure of his enduring strength with voters is best guaged in a question pollsters usually frame as 'does candidate X care about/understand the problems that affect people like you.'
Clinton always did very well on that question. It's the politics of empathy -- a topic which, when it comes to Clinton, one could literally write a whole book.
People never warmed to President Bush as a literary critic or a raconteur. And he's usually done okay, but not great, on the 'care about/understand' question. His strong suit has always been honesty and trusthworthiness -- that and the closely related quality of 'leadership'. If he loses that, politically speaking, he's finished.
Ironically, the Post notes that President Bush's ratings on honest peaked at 71% in the summer of 2002. I say 'ironically' because the summer of 2002 was really not a high point for honesty or trustworthiness. But I guess that's what folks are starting to realize.
--Josh Marshall
Credit, I always say, where credit is due.
And with that in mind, tonight we're awarding Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R-NM) the first annual Heather Wilson "I think the American people are a bunch of god-forsaken idiots" Award.
Last night, Wilson was on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 show, carrying water for the president on the WMD shenanigans. Fair enough, I guess. Everyone's gotta try to make the best of a bad situation.
She would have at least gotten an Honorable Mention for a particularly loopy point about a connection between al Qaida and 'Iraq'. But she hit it out of the park with this one.
After detailing all the reasons why the president's pre-war rationales for war make sense in retrospect, she uncorked this beauty. "And to me," she told CNN's Heidi Collins, "the most important thing was his biological weapons program, which we've now confirmed he was continuing to pursue up to the day of the invasion, and the ability to deliver those biological weapons against Americans on American soil."
An on-going biological weapons program? Really ... Continuing research into delivery systems for biological weapons attacks on the United States mainland?
She really needs to bring her data to David Kay and the president. The president, I think, would find Wilson's new findings really helpful right now.
In all seriousness, where do they get these jokers? Lie, lie, lie.
Then there's Condi Rice, who gets this year's Honorable Mention.
Condi was on Larry King last night. And I had really high hopes she would take home the big prize since with these two you pretty much know it's going to be a train wreck. Sort of like Barney Fife interviewing Dr. Evil.
As it happened, it was a pretty placid affair. But there was at least this. We'll call it the "certain stocks" defense. (itals added)
It is true that certain stocks of weapons that we thought were there that frankly the intelligence services around the world thought were there, that the United Nations, the inspectors, as late as March of 2003 believed that they were there saying that it wasn't credibility, that Iraq couldn't account for its weapons of mass destruction.Yes, we've not found those stocks, but what we have found is hundreds of weapons of mass destruction related activities hidden from United Nations inspectors. We found and interviewed people who've talked about how they were hiding these programs from the United Nations.
If it's not immediately clear why this line from Condi represents the silliest and most shameless sort of mumbo-jumbo, see this excellent column by Fred Kaplan in Slate.
If you see statements from anyone who you think should knock Rep. Wilson off her throne, please drop me a line.
--Josh Marshall
There are several new story lines opening up tonight on the Guard issue. In addition to the bizarre dental records release noted below, a number of news outlets are running with the allegations of former Texas Guard official Bill Burkett, who has said for some time that the president's Guard records were "cleansed" by campaign staffers back in 1999.
The most detailed run-down seems to be in USAToday.
Kevin Drum notes how the authors of the piece have a (good) history with the source, Burkett, thus arguably lending his story more credibility.
In general, Drum's site, Calpundit.com, continues to be the invaluable source in making sense of all the different moving parts of this story -- which documents mean what, who says the president did what when, etc.
--Josh Marshall
Can I say this is getting a little bizarre?
Thank you.
This is getting a little bizarre.
Scott McClellan says no blanket release of the president's military service records. No medical records. No disciplinary records, if they exist.
But dental records? Bring it on!
Late on Wednesday, according to this story in the Associated Press, the White House released "a copy of a dental evaluation President Bush had in the National Guard in Alabama during the Vietnam War to rebut suggestions from Democrats who have questioned whether the president ever showed up for duty there."
The White House says that this dental exam at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Alabama on Jan. 6, 1973 provides further proof that the president completed his duties in Alabama. Why it proves that, I'm really not sure.
Then there's this: "The White House obtained the dental record, along with other medical records it did not release, from the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, Colo., McClellan said. The record was accompanied by a statement from Dr. Richard J. Tubb, the president's current physician, who stated that he read Bush's records, which covered a period from 1968 to 1973, and concurred with the doctors' assertion that Bush was "fit" for service. "The records reflect no disqualifying medical information," Tubb said.
What's going on here?
--Josh Marshall
White House gets in trouble on the National <$Ad$>Guard story.
White House can't get out ahead of the story.
White House starts to panic.
White House leaks the story that the president will endorse a constitutional ban on gay marriage and civil unions.
A) Coincidence or B) An effort to change the subject?
We imply; you decide.
(Oh, by the way, a bunch of the reporters asking McClellan the questions think it's B. But don't let that influence your choice.)
--Josh Marshall
On Meet the Press, President Bush promised Tim Russert he'd authorize the release of all his service records, right?
Not so, says Scott McClellan: "No, I think the question was payroll records, payroll records that would show you served. It was relating to the issue of whether or not you served."
So, those ambiguous payroll records are all he's going to release.
Is the president willing to release any medical or disciplinary records that might clear up the contradictions found in the attendance and payroll records? Thus McClellan ...
"These were all issues that came up four years ago," McClellan told the White House press corps this morning, "as I talked about yesterday, here in this room. I think what you are seeing is gutter politics. The American people deserve better. There are some who are not interested in their facts. They are simply trolling for trash. And there are great challenges facing this country, and the President is acting decisively to meet those challenges. Instead of talking about the choices we face when it comes to policy decisions about our nation's highest priorities, some are simply trolling for trash for political gain. And the American people deserve better. They deserve an honest debate about the choices we face. They deserve an honest discussion and look at what type of leadership the Commander-in-Chief is providing in a time of war, in a time when we are confronting dangerous new threats. It is very clear from the records that the President fulfilled his duties. He was honorably discharged. That's all documented."
I think that's a 'no', right?
That little speech was preceded by this exchange with one of the reporters in the room ...
Q: Quickly, Scott, National Guard records; supposedly there are additional documents in the President's personnel file. Are they being reviewed with an eye to possibly releasing additional documents?Scott McClellan: Well, if there was new information that came to our attention, we would certainly let you know about that.
Q: Has the President's file been forwarded to Washington for review?Scott McClellan: I don't know the status of where it is. That was, I think, the Department of Defense. It's my understanding the Department of Defense asked that those records be sent here, and we expect that we will receive some information, as well.
Q: So they are reviewing it?
Scott McClellan: -- receive that information, as well. I'm sorry?
Q: So DOD is reviewing his file?
Scott McClellan: I don't know what they're doing with it. I'm just telling you it's my understanding that they have requested that that information be sent to the Department of Defense. We expect that we will have that information, as well.
Can't come clean. Won't release the records he said he would. Sorta seems like there's a problem lurking in there, don't it?
--Josh Marshall
The president hits the 50% approval mark and he comes out for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions.
What lever does he pull when he hits 45%?
--Josh Marshall
Spin, spin, spin. Dodge, dodge, dodge. Withhold, withhold, withhold.
Can you think of another verb? No? Me neither. So let's get started.
On Meet the Press, the president was asked if he'd authorize the release of all his service records.
All of them.
And he said, "Yes, absolutely."
He promised. But he keeps on not doing it. He's sure trying to make it look like he is. But he sure ain't.
For some reason he just can't quite bring himself to sign off on the release.
The idea here is that the president waives his rights under the Privacy Act and tells the relevant authorities, 'Release all my service records to whichever reporters or organizations want to see them.'
But he just refuses to do it.
The payment records out today do give some evidence of what the president was doing during the year in question. But to say they raise further questions is something of an understatement.
It's long been known, for instance, that in the late spring of 1973, Bush's commanding officers in Texas reported that they couldn't write an evaluation of him because "he has not been observed" at the base in Houston. That didn't raise any red flags because, though, because they believed he was then serving in Alabama.
Yet these new records seem to say that Bush actually was doing drills in Houston.
In fact, as the Washington Post notes, on the very day that his commanding officers were writing that he hadn't been seen on base -- May 2, 1973 -- these new payment records say he was actually on base logging in hours.
Go figure.
The president could clear this up by just authorizing the release of all his service records like he said he would. Now we're on to day three. But he still won't do it.
Drip, drip, drip.
--Josh Marshall
Given the president's record as a businessman, and since he's now run the country hopelessly into debt, isn't it about time he sells the country off to some rich friends who will swallow the loss so he can move on to greener pastures?
--Josh Marshall
A couple quick points. First, if you're following this Bush military <$NoAd$>service issue, you should be reading Kevin Drum's column. Kevin's all over the nitty-gritty details of the relevant documents. And while some of his points -- as he himself says -- remain speculative, he's on a trail that could turn this whole story upside-down.
In any case, be sure to visit his site.
Also, here's this morning's gaggle on the new limited, White House-selected records release ...
QUESTION: Scott, has the White House come up with any more documents or information to buttress the President's assertion that he fulfilled his obligations in the National Guard?MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we have provided some additional information from the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado. The records will be released shortly, and the records that we will be releasing include the annual retirement point summaries, which we previously made available during the 2000 campaign, and these payroll records documenting the dates on which he was paid for serving. The point summaries, as I have discussed with you all, document that he fulfilled his duties. These records clearly document the President fulfilling his duties, and we will be releasing those very shortly.
QUESTION: Are the payroll -- we haven't seen the payroll records before, but we've seen the point --
MR. McCLELLAN: Nor had we, yes.
QUESTION: We have not?
MR. McCLELLAN: No.
QUESTION: But we have seen the point summaries before; is that what you're saying?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Well, we had made them available during the 2000 campaign to those who asked.
QUESTION: So the payroll records include, like, where he was being paid and date and, like, the specifics --
MR. McCLELLAN: You will have them shortly and you'll be able to look at them; there are several pages of documents. I'm pulling them together. Yes, we will make them -- we will make them available.
QUESTION: But they weren't -- it wasn't released --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, we did not have this. We were not aware that this information existed during the campaign, on the payroll records.
QUESTION: Scott, those payroll records won't reflect whether he actually appeared for duty; is that right? I mean, they'll just show that he got paid, which there was an --
MR. McCLELLAN: You are paid for the days on which you serve in the National Guard --
QUESTION: But there was an --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that's why I said these records clearly document that the President fulfilled his duties.
QUESTION: Well, there was an opinion piece in the Post this morning in which the author said he didn't show up at all and he continued to get paid for several months.
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the records clearly document otherwise.
QUESTION: Can you tell us how you --
MR. McCLELLAN: And we also will include a statement from Mr. Lloyd, who's now retired from the Texas Air National Guard, who lays out some of the facts about the President's point summaries.
QUESTION: Can you tell us how you came upon these documents, if they haven't been seen since -- the President said since 1994 people have been looking for this.
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, actually, we -- that's why I said it was new information that came to our attention. The Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado, it is my understanding, on their own went back and looked for these records. Now, during the 2000 campaign we had reached out to the Texas Air National Guard and it was our impression from the Texas Air National Guard that -- you know, they stated they didn't have them and it was also our impression from them that those records did not exist.
QUESTION: -- on their own, or the Department of Defense requested them?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, the --
QUESTION: Because the Department of Defense that they requested the records --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not familiar with what the Department of Defense has requested, but it is my understanding from -- we've talked with the Personnel Center, and the President has authorized the release of these records. We now have them. They did send them to us. But it is our understanding in talking with the Personnel Center in Denver that this issue -- that this was -- you know, as I talked about some of the outrageous accusations that were being made again this year, that had previously been made, they apparently on their own went back and looked for these records, when the issue was being raised again.
QUESTION: The Department of Defense has said that they requested them.
MR. McCLELLAN: You'd have to talk to the Department of Defense about it.
QUESTION: Scott, how do you square the --
MR. McCLELLAN: But I think the Personnel Center may tell you that they went ahead and had gone back to look at these records.
QUESTION: How do you square the records from the Texas Air National Guard with the idea that he was supposed to be attached to a unit in Alabama at the time?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he was still a member of the Texas Air National Guard. He was -- he received permission, or temporary permission to perform what is equivalent duty with the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Alabama, when he was there in the latter part of that year, the October-November time frame.
QUESTION: Right, so he was actually --
MR. McCLELLAN: So he was still serving as a member of the Texas Air National Guard.
QUESTION: So regardless of what state that he was performing his duty in, the records would still be issued by the Texas Air National Guard?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, these are records from the Personnel -- I mean, we're going to just make available exactly what they gave us from the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado.
QUESTION: But are these an indication that he served in Texas at that time, or in Alabama?
MR. McCLELLAN: This documents that he was paid for the days on which he served. And you will have the dates --
QUESTION: But in which state --
MR. McCLELLAN: It will show the dates on which he was paid.
QUESTION: But in which state?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Which state was he serving at the time?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, we'll have the records here for you shortly, so you'll be able to look at those documents yourself.
QUESTION: Are you asserting that these documents put the issue to rest?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I previously said it was a shame that this was brought up in 1994, it was a shame that it was brought up in 2000, and it is a shame that it was brought up again. I think you'd have to go and ask those who made these outrageous accusations if they stand by them in the face of this documentation that demonstrates he served and fulfilled his duties. The President was proud of his service in the National Guard. He was honorably discharged because he fulfilled his duties.
QUESTION: Exactly how did the documents get to you that you said you were not aware existed? And how about the letter from Mr. Lloyd? Is that something that he voluntarily sent in, or did the White House ask for it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we had a discussion -- we had a discussion with him, and he's previously been on record stating that -- stating some of these very facts, that the President met his -- met the requirements needed to fulfill his duties. So he's previously been stating that. But we had discussions -- I'll check the exact specifics on that. I think we may have reached out to him so that he could again say what he had said previously.
QUESTION: Scott, if I could read you --
MR. McCLELLAN: But in terms of the personnel records, like I said, that was something that it came to our attention that the Personnel Center in Denver --
QUESTION: You did not request it, it came to you?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, when we reached -- I'm trying to -- let me double-check, but we found out that they had some additional records and contacted them and the President is the only one that can authorize a release of his records. And we received those records and the President has authorized the release of those records. As he said, he wants to make everything available.
QUESTION: When did you receive the records? When?
MR. McCLELLAN: Late yesterday.
QUESTION: Scott, if I read you correctly, this is not going to answer the question of where he was serving at that time.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, during -- he received -- it was, like I said, in the October-November time period he was in Alabama. He was performing equivalent duty in Alabama.
QUESTION: But you seemed to indicate, though, that these records
will not indicate where he was.
MR. McCLELLAN: But he was still a member of the Texas Air National Guard.
QUESTION: Right, but you seemed to indicated --
MR. McCLELLAN: They'll indicate the dates on which he was paid for his service.
QUESTION: But they won't indicate where --
MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't read anything into it until we release the records, which will be very shortly. Then you'll have them, then we can talk about them.
QUESTION: But they will not stipulate where he was serving?
MR. McCLELLAN: We can be clear on it when we release the records, John. That's what I'm trying to tell you. We're going to release the records. You'll see that he was paid for the dates on which he served --
QUESTION: Somehow I don't think those records are going to tell us where he was serving.
MR. McCLELLAN: They will show that he was paid for his service. And you get paid for the days on which you serve.
QUESTION: Right, but they won't say where he was.
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we're going to release the records shortly. Just hang on.
QUESTION: Who in the White House has been handling it? Is it the Counsel's Office, or who --
MR. McCLELLAN: Dan Bartlett has been involved in this.
QUESTION: He reviewed the documents last night?
MR. McCLELLAN: He previously, during the 2000 campaign, tried to gather as much information as was available.
QUESTION: And has he been the one who has been dealing with it now? In other words, if these came to the White House last night, Dan Bartlett was burning the midnight oil reading these last night?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know that he was burning the midnight oil. He received the information.
QUESTION: Scott, when does "soon" mean? Does it mean --
MR. McCLELLAN: Very soon.
QUESTION: Like in an hour? Or are we talking about --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if I can get off this podium, then I can get all that information together for you and we can release it.
QUESTION: Can you tell us once again --
MR. McCLELLAN: Several documents to release.
QUESTION: Can you tell us once again Lloyd's name and what his objective is?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll have that for you. You'll have his statement, it'll have his exact name, you'll have everything here shortly.
QUESTION: Any explanation as to why he served the minimum hours required?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, you have to look at the different time periods. And it showed that he fulfilled his duties, John.
QUESTION: But, still, it's the minimum requirement. You can go to college, you can get a C, or you can go to college and get a 4.0.
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know which time period you're referring to. I mean, the President fulfilled his duties. He was proud of his service, John. He fulfilled his duties. And there are some that have made outrageous accusations. And I think you need to ask those individuals if they want to continue to stand by those outrageous accusations in the face of documentation that clearly demonstrates the President fulfilled his duties.
QUESTION: Was he just busy doing other things, or --
MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President fulfilled his duties. And if you want to question other people who fulfilled their duties, that's your prerogative. I won't --
QUESTION: Do you know of any other documents that exist that are pertinent to this subject?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Are there any other known documents --
MR. McCLELLAN: This is what we know that is available. And that's why we're making it available to you.
QUESTION: Is there anything else that you know that exists?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, this is what we know that is available that exists.
QUESTION: I know you know it's available, but is --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't. No, I don't.
QUESTION: In other words, you don't know if there's anything available from --
QUESTION: Anything else?
QUESTION: -- that would have come from Alabama, that would be in the Personnel Center?
MR. McCLELLAN: No.
QUESTION: You don't know of anything else that's pertinent to the subject --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said yesterday that if there's additional information that we would keep you posted. And that's exactly what I'm doing here today.
QUESTION: Scott, if there is additional information, will the President release it? Does he want it all out?
MR. McCLELLAN: He said -- he answered that question on Saturday, when it aired on Sunday.
More to come ...
--Josh Marshall
Late word from the White House is that they're releasing some pay stubs which will verify the president's attendance at Guard duty in Alabama.
We'll see what they say. But as Richard Cohen notes in his column today, it wasn't that hard at the time to play hooky and still get paid.
More to the point, this is still the White House selectively releasing records. As nearly as I can tell the president is still refusing to waive his Privacy Act rights and allow the government to release all his military service records to the press, without having them filtered through the White House.
We should have more information on this shortly. Check back soon.
--Josh Marshall
This lede from an article in tomorrow's Washington Post tells you all you need to know about the president's promise on Sunday to release all his military service records ...
The Defense Department has requested that President Bush's payroll records from his service in the National Guard be sent to Washington from a DOD archive in Colorado, to ascertain whether they can be released to news organizations and public interest groups that have formally requested them in recent days, according to DOD officials.
This is exactly the point. Whatever privacy considerations are at issue here are ones the president can simply waive. Yet it seems pretty clear from that graf that he hasn't. Otherwise, it's not clear to <$Ad$>me what hold up there would be on releasing all those records to news organizations.
And another matter. The White House is already trying to wriggle out of the president's commitment to release all the records about his military service.
When asked about this on Monday, Scott McClellan said (itals added): "You know, we made everything we had available during the 2000 campaign." And then later he said "Well, everything we had we made available. And like I said, if there's more, we'll do our best to keep you updated on that."
Sorry. But that's not the question. Press secretaries are in the business of choosing words carefully -- especially at rough moments. And what McClellan is saying here is that the campaign released all the records it had on the president's service.
Now, needless to say, that places a rather high degree of trust in the White House and/or the Bush campaign that they'd willingly turn over any truly damning documents, if such exist -- especially when they're in charge of defining what's relevant. But even if we discount the possibility of dishonesty, what McClellan is saying is simply beside the point.
We're not interested in getting a full look at the Bush 2000 archive on the president's military service. We're interested in the United States government's archive on the president's military service.
And it seems the president still refuses to allow this. To make this happen what he would have to do would be to formally waive the rights he enjoys under the Privacy Act which prohibits the Pentagon and its various subdivisions from releasing certain classes of information about his service.
Tim Russert asked the president the question directly. The president answered it unequivocally: he said he would release everything. Now his press secretary is trying to nullify the president's promise with silly word games. If my friends in the White House press corps fall for this one it will almost be beyond belief.
--Josh Marshall
I've been telling you since early January about the <$NoAd$>House special election coming up on February 17th to elect a new member of Congress from Kentucky's 6th District. The race pits former Attorney General Ben Chandler (D) against state Rep. Alice Forgy Kerr (R).
The Chandler campaign has been trying to frame this as a potential bellwether election. And it looks like it's turning out that way.
Stu Rothernberg had this to say on Monday in Roll Call...
Unless voters in Kentucky’s 6th district suddenly have a change of heart, the Republicans are headed for a rocky Feb. 17 special election in the Lexington-area House district. Former two-term state Attorney General Ben Chandler (D), not state Rep. Alice Forgy Kerr (R), has the advantage in the final days before the election.But worse than the loss of a single House seat, a Republican defeat would suggest some problems for President Bush and his party.
This isn’t exactly what Republicans expected to happen when the seat became open, following Republican Ernie Fletcher’s election as governor in November.
GOP strategists planned to make the special election a referendum on a popular president and a contrast of ideologies in a conservative district. That way, they figured, they could elect Kerr to Congress even though the district has a Democratic registration advantage and is politically competitive.
If Chandler picks up that seat next Tuesday it'll be a major headache for the president. Every race has local dynamics -- and the relative qualities of the two candidates play an important role in an election for an open seat. But, in the current climate, a defeat for the president's candidate -- and that's what she is -- will be viewed as a sign of his broader political weakness -- perhaps not unlike Harris Wofford's bellwether Senate victory over Dick Thornburgh in 1991 signalled the cracks in the president's father's air of invulnerability.
--Josh Marshall
There's little doubt now that Plame investigation is heating up. Tomorrow's Washington Post has a piece with a run-down about the who's been before the Plame grand jury and who's been interviewed by the FBI. The Times' piece says that "prosecutors have conducted meetings with presidential aides that lawyers in the case described as tense and sometimes combative."
If you think about it, it's sort of astonishing that this story has still received so relatively little attention given that -- as the Times notes -- multiple White House appointees have been told they are 'subjects' of a criminal inquiry.
(The Times actually uses the term 'employees.' But from the context it seems to me that the people being referred to are more properly styled 'appointees'.)
I suspect we're pretty close to one of the big papers having enough of the pieces in place (and well enough sourced -- probably more than well enough sourced, given their skittishness) to sketch out the true outlines of the investigation and just who the investigators believe the culprits are.
I hear mutterings that a certain someone has already gotten a 'target letter.' So I don't think it'll be long before we know the key details of what's going on.
But there's another small note in the Post's piece that may deserve greater attention.
The Post says ...
A parallel FBI investigation into the apparent forgery of documents suggesting that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger is "at a critical stage," according to a senior law enforcement official who declined to elaborate. That probe, conducted by FBI counterintelligence agents, was launched last spring after U.N. officials pronounced the documents crude forgeries.
Now, most people have treated the forged documents affair as somehow separate from the swirl of political maneuverings taking place in the fall and winter of 2002. The fact that these crudely forged documents weren't more rapidly dismissed by the White House gets a lot of attention. But it's commonly assumed that the forgers themselves (and those who actually produced the documents during the run-up to war) were just hoaxsters out for money, outside players with no key political role in the larger drama.
I've been following this story for months. And I've always suspected that that assumption is incorrect. At the end of October last year I noted that a close look at the timeline of events in October 2002 points to the conclusion that the person who got those documents into the hands of Italian journalist Elisabetta Burba had some knowledge -- either direct or indirect -- of highly secret debates then going in between the Bush White House, the CIA and members of the Blair government in the UK.
This is a circumstantial argument, and one that is certainly not conclusive. But see the the October 31st post to see what I'm talking about. See this earlier post for another part of the puzzle.
My plate's been full for the last few months. And I haven't been able to track down as many leads as I'd like. But there are some pretty big clues sitting right there in plain sight. And if those FBI agents have put that puzzle together too ... well, let's just say keep an eye on that story. Maybe I can still beat them to the punch.
--Josh Marshall
I seldom write posts that don't make their way, in <$Ad$>one form or another, onto the site. But occasionally I'll write a lengthy one, edit it, wrestle with it, then decide that something about it just doesn't work and discard it entirely. That happened last night in a long post I wrote trying to make sense of just why the President Bush's approval numbers dipped so suddenly with no clear trigger.
Part of the reason I ended up not liking the post was that in the course of writing a post describing how there was no clear single explanation I happened upon something that seemed like a clear and at least relatively simple explanation.
This AP article notes that President Bush's fall in the polls coincides very closely with David Kay's initial comments stating that there almost certainly were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Here are the key grafs ...
Bush's job approval rating dropped 10 points from Jan. 25 through Jan. 31, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey. The tracking poll takes a nightly sample and rolls together two or three nights' findings at a time to produce periodic reports.Support for the war in Iraq also dipped in that period, from a majority saying the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, 53 percent, to 46 percent during the last few days of January saying it was worth going to war and 49 percent saying it was not.
The Annenberg study found Bush's approval dipped from 64 percent right after Bush's Jan. 20 State of the Union address to 54 percent in the late-January period. An AP-Ipsos poll found Bush's approval dipped 9 points during January to the high 40s, the same finding as several other polls released at about that time.
Falling ten points in a week is a precipitous drop -- and it seems to have been picked up in a number of polls, even if the rest of the surveys weren't able to pinpoint when it started quite as precisely as Annenberg.
To those who've been closely following the on-going weapons search and what's been happening on the ground in Iraq, Kay's announcement was only news at the level of theatrics -- the historical value of the official statement of what's been obvious for many months.
I don't think most people following this story figured it would have nearly so dramatic an effect as the Annenberg study indicates. I certainly didn't. Indeed, I focused on the parts of Kay's comments and testimony which struck me as attempting to exonerate the administration.
But this may be a case in which close attention to the news helped create a real blind spot. As we've noted here many times the White House has gone to great lengths to avoid publicly acknowledging the reality that we were totally wrong about the weapons.
The plan was always to say that the search continued and to dangle hints that anyone who doubted that Saddam had weapons might end up looking very foolish indeed when the weapons turned up. Even now high White House officials tell reporters off the record that they will continue to say that the search is still on-going so as to avoid putting these uncomfortable words in the president's mouth.
This is not only amazingly cynical (a free willingness to continue deceiving the public just as they did during the run-up to the war). It is, or was, it seems extremely effective.
By not coming clean and resting on the public's desire to trust the president, the White House was able to stave off the political impact of the collapse of the central argument for going to war. In that context, Kay's statements were a very big deal indeed, and the public reaction makes all the sense in the world.
For some time now, it's been conventional wisdom that most voters weren't overly troubled by the failure to find any weapons in the country, especially so long as other aspects of the war were going at least tolerably well. That assumption may have been very wrong.
--Josh Marshall
On a replay this evening I watched the president's Meet the Press interview in its entirety. On balance I'd say he and his advisors made a mistake scheduling this interview.
It's not lost on me that I'm probably not the best one to evaluate his performance, given my critical stance toward his administration. But, with that caveat, what I saw was a president who was either unwilling or unable to address the essential points of his domestic and foreign policy record.
Most of his responses were disjointed collections of slogans and administration talking points, with a number of disingenuous or outright dishonest points tossed in.
Peggy Noonan had a column up this afternoon arguing that speeches are about philosophy and vision, while interviews are about policy and particulars. Bush is good at speeches, she says, not so good at interviews.
I have a different opinion.
I'm rewatching a segment right now where the president goes on about a highway spending bill. He seems to have the policy issue and the facts down fine.
The issue, I think, is that right now the president doesn't have a particularly good story to tell or a particularly good explanation for why almost nothing he's said would happen (budget, Iraq, etc.) has happened. That's a problem.
So when he goes on an hour-long interview he doesn't sound very good. And since he's not willing to confront the debacle of the weapons search, the fiscal mess, or what's happening on the ground in Iraq he comes off sounding evasive, incoherent and out of touch with what's happening on his watch.
--Josh Marshall
I was able to see only the second half of the Russert interview <$Ad$>this morning, though I'll read the transcript this afternoon.
One comment for now on the Air National Guard question ...
Superficially, I think Bush came off okay, largely because Russert failed to press the president sufficiently on some deceptive responses.
The key issue was the release of his military records.
Several times during the exchange the president said that he had released his military records back in 2000.
That's not true. He's never released those records. And no one disputes that.
But Russert returned to the point and the final exchange went thus ...
MR. RUSSERT: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, absolutely.
We did so in 2000, by the way.
Now, what to make of this?
The president gives a flat-out, unambiguous answer: he'll release all his military service records.
Then he tosses in that next line: "We did so in 2000, by the way."
As I noted above, this is false: he didn't release those records in 2000.
What I think the president was trying to do here was to give those watching the interview the impression that he's willing to completely open up his records. Yet at the same time he's tossing in this false statement so that when reporters follow up and ask where those records are, his aides will say that what he meant was that they'd release those records they released in 2000 --- which is to say, none of them.
As I say, on the surface, this seems like a clever dodge that may buy some time. But if my prediction above turns out to be accurate, it will amount to their wanting a pass on the president's flat commitment because he happened to follow it up with a patent falsehood. And when you think about that a few times you'll see it just doesn't quite add up.
The bottom line is that the president told Russert that he'd release all his service records. That's the press corps' hook. And in the relatively near future, as much as they may wriggle, his aides will either have to come forward with those records or go back on the commitment the president made in front of the whole country.
--Josh Marshall
