Archives for 2004

Oliver doesn’t want to play by the new rules the Democrats have created. According to him, the Kerry ‘affair’ story should be over. The Calpundit agrees:

Did John Kerry have an affair with an intern? Drudge says yes. Kerry says no. The intern says no. And her parents, who thought Kerry was a “sleazeball” a few days ago, now say they plan to vote for him for president.

I guess we can stick a fork in this one….

Gee. Bush says he was not AWOL and not a deserter. The military says he was not AWOL or a deserter (in the form of a DD-214), his pay and attendance records show he was not AWOL, and several people have come forward to corroborate his story. I wonder where Kevin will stick his fork on this issue?

Personally, I don’t think there is much to the Kerry story- but I try to be fair- even to people whose politics I don’t like. And, I might note, I think it is only fair that Kerry get the same treatment from our media elites that the Senior Bush received.

Poor OliverPost + Comments (16)

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

And You Thought I Was KiddingPost + Comments (13)

All of Bush’s records have been released, and my guess is that they will not be enough to mollify the chattering classes and the Bush-haters. Why do I guess that? Because this is a smear, not any sort of fact-based criticism.

Records Have Been ReleasedPost + Comments (11)

I guess we can add NASA and space policy to the ever-growing category titled:

“Things Josh Marshall Knows Nothing About But Feels Very Comfortable Talking About at Length.”

I will let Rand Simberg, no partisan grenade thrower, explain why:

So how do supposedly competent commentators get it so wrong?

Well, in the case of Joshua Micah Marshall, the author of the drive-by hit job on the president’s policy, it can be attributed to a combination of ignorance about space policy (a subject that he rarely comments on), and a well-established animus to President Bush, as exhibited on an almost daily basis in his weblog. The ignorance is demonstrated by the fact that he never even mentions in his comment the loss of Columbia a year ago, let alone suggests that it might have something to do with new space policy a few months after the release of the investigation of the report on that event.

Neither knowledgable or even casual observers of space policy would make such an omission, because it is clear that the formulation of the new space policy was accelerated, if not initiated, by it. The status quo was clearly no longer acceptable after it, because it was equally clear that the long-term continuation of a manned space program was not possible with a fragile fleet of three shuttle orbiters.

Hatred of Bush, dislike of Republicans, and a distaste for this administration are what passes as informed commentary these days. Josh Marshall long ago joined the list of ‘moderate’ Democrats who had lost their credibility and who are now nothing more than a Rallian laughingstock.

If Rand wanted to read something really funny, he would read some of the know-nothing Marshall’s thoughts about Korea. And remember, Bush is the dumb one.

Another NotchPost + Comments (26)

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?

The Weird World of The Democrat MindPost + Comments (48)