And You Thought I Was Kidding

You thought I was joking when I outlined the other day how Kevin Drum was meme-u-facturing regarding Bush’s military records being scrubbed. Kevin has another long-winded post up, and from that post, Atrios concludes:

I think we can say with increasing confidence that the Bush military records were, to some degree, “scrubbed,” in violation of federal law. If true, that’s probably a much more damaging story than whatever they were trying to cover up in the first place.

Of course, who does Atrios link back to? Why the Calpundit’s specious bullshit, of course. The Mighty C on the Wurlitzer indeed. Let’s check out the Calpundit’s post:

First, let’s review his claims:

He accidentally overheard a telephone conversation in 1997 between Joe Allbaugh, Bush’s chief of staff, and General Daniel James, Adjutant General of the Texas National Guard. Allbaugh told James that Karen Hughes was preparing a biography and needed information on Bush’s military service, and then added, “We certainly don’t want anything that is embarrassing in there.”

The next day he heard a similar hallway conversation. General James told General John Scribner that Bush’s people were coming out, and General Wayne Marty added, “and make sure there’s nothing in there that’ll embarrass the governor.”

Ten days later, Burkett’s friend and fellow guardsman, George Conn, led him to the base museum, which was run by General Scribner. Once there, Burkett saw a trashcan sitting on a table, and when he looked in he saw 20 to 40 pages of documents with George Bush’s name on them.

At the time all this happened he mentioned his concerns to three fellow guardsmen: George Conn, Harvey Gough, and Dennis Adams.

That is it. No evidence. No paperwork. One man’s word (David Brock, anyone?). Nothing that any reasonable human being would hang his hat on- but then again, we aren’t dealing with reasonable human beings. The reason Kevin had to write such a long post on this issue is because most normal people would come to the conclusion that there simply is no there, there. But not our intrepid Bush-hater. Let’s watch him finesse this so that it becomes believable and useful enough that he can push it off into the mainstream. No wonder this is such a long post by Kevin- this will take some work.

Kevin lays the groundwork for the manure he is about to shovel:

Unlike the basic National Guard story, which has been fuelled largely by odd discrepencies in the documentary evidence, there is no documentary evidence regarding Burkett’s story. We just have his word for it, and needless to say, all the people he has accused of cleaning up Bush’s records vigorously deny it.

To judge the truth of Burkett’s story, then, all we can do is ask certain questions: Is Burkett’s story internally consistent? Has it stayed consistent over time? Do other people corroborate it? Does Burkett have a track record of telling the truth? Does he have any axes to grind?

The short answer is that I think Burkett is probably telling the truth.

No mention that the reason people may be denying the story vigorously is because it is false, but then again, Kevin believes the charges. In the fantasy world of ‘moderate’ Democrats, that really is all that matters, isn’t it? But on to Kevin’s guidelines for corroboration.

Meme Guideline #1-“Is Burkett’s story internally consistent?”

I am assuming Kevin used statistical terminology to give this horse-shit a patina of objectivity and respectability, but really, internal consistency has nothing to do with the charges. What Kevin means is that no part of his story contradicts any other part. In KEvin’s words:

Burkett’s full story is here, and as far as I can tell it’s internally consistent. No part of his story seems to be directly contradicted by any other part.

Surprise, surprise! Using the power of magic, we have magically created a false criterion and, Voila!- we passed it! The rest of the Calpundit’s piece really is as insultingly stupid as this, but since for some odd reason, people respect his drivel, I shall labor on with my analysis.

Meme Guideline #2- “Has his story stayed consistent over time?”

Shorter Calpundit- “Enough for me! Impeach Bush!”

Longer Calpundit- Oh. Who Cares. Go read it yourself.

At any rate, I find this rule for corroboration to be particularly amusing. Apparently, no one has ever repeated a lie in the history of mankind, and if they had, according to these rules, it would no longer be a lie (particularly if no part of the lie contradicts any other part of the lie, as according to the 1st guideline).

For example, when I was 4, I said “The sky is purple.” According to our intrepid sleuth Mr. Drum, if I repeat that every year for several years, why- it becomes factesque!

Meme Guideline #3- Do other people corroborate Burkett’s story? Other evidence?

Here the Calpundit really swings for the bleachers:

Generally yes:

– Harvey Gough told me on Friday that Burkett told him in 1997 “that folks from downtown had been over to Mabry, they came over