Opinions, Context & Ideas from the TPM Editors TPM Editor's Blog

Im clearly not a

I'm clearly not a forensic expert on document analysis. So I don't have any way of knowing or even coming up with a reasoned opinion about the authenticity of these documents published by CBS.

But one point of criticism doesn't seem as clear as many are presenting it. I'm talking about the suggestion that a superscripted "th" marks these as clearly the product of a word-processing program.

In an article today in Weekly Standard, for instance, Steve Hayes writes that ...

... in some references to Bush's unit--the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron--the "th" is a superscript in a smaller size than the other type. Again, this is typical (and often done automatically) in modern word processing programs. Although several experts allow that such a rendering might have been theoretically possible in the early 1970s, it would have been highly unlikely. Superscripts produced on typewriters--the numbers preceding footnotes in term papers, for example--were almost always in the same size as the regular type.


This AP article also quotes a person presented as a handwriting analyst making the same point.

But if you look at this document from <$Ad$>the official Bush records it shows a list of descriptions of various times Bush served. (See the paranthetical at the bottom of this post for specific notes on where to find this in the pdf I linked to.) Thus, we can assume that the same document was typed on by different people and different machines over time. This document has one entry with a superscripted "th" and another further down on the page with a non-superscripted "th" -- which of course suggests that both kinds of typewriters were being used in the Texas Air National Guard system at the time.

It doesn't look like the same script used in the Killian memos and it strikes me that in this case the typeface looks monospaced rather than proportional. But clearly some typewriter with a superscript was in use. I'll leave it to others to discern the meaning of all this.

This debate has quickly spiralled in so many different directions that I can't keep track of all the different points of suspicion folks have raised about these documents. But this suggestion about the superscripts at least seems not to add up.

(To find the reference in question, click here to see the document on the USAToday website. Then scroll down to page three of the .pdf document -- which is the first vertically-oriented page. If you look at the second entry on that document -- dated "4Sep68" you'll find a superscripted "th".)

It continues to be

It continues to be hard to get a read on exactly where this race is from the polls -- at least that's the case if you go on the basis of toplines. The Rasmussen daily tracking poll has it as a one point race today. And a new Fox poll -- usually a GOP friendly poll -- has the race at a two point margin among likely voters. On the other hand a CBS poll out today has an 8 point Bush lead among registered voters. And I'm told the ABC/WaPo poll that's coming out shortly is in that range or even worse for Kerry.

Hmmm. Thats an innovation.In

Hmmm. That's an innovation.

In this morning's press gaggle, one of the reporters asked the following question: "This was a direct order he defied, right? I mean, he did have a direct order that he defied?"

The White House then applied a footnote to this question -- noted with an asterisk -- which referenced this explanatory footnote: "The memos that were released, in fact, show the President was working with his commanders to comply with the order."

This is a bit stunning.

Now it's not enough that we have a transcript in which the press asks questions and McClellan answers them or rebuts their implications. We get editorial notes explaining what the reporter really meant or disputing the question after the fact so that no one can follow up and call them on a demonstrable distortion.

Can't we just go back to the good old days when McClellan's office just edited the transcript after the fact? It was so much simpler.

Reader comment ...Josh Heres

Reader comment <$NoAd$>...

Josh,

Here's a note from a long-time social progressive/economic conservative who has gone increasingly progressive since Bush took office:

Bush's Guard service is a loser for the Dems even if the dereliction stories are entirely true, which they likely are. The problem is that nobody cares other than Democrats who despise Bush, and they seem like just a petty reaction to the Swift Boat ads. I would love for this election to be about the environment, choice on abortion, separation of church and state, invasion of privacy/Patriot Act, the economy, and the culture of fear the Bush admin is creating. But it's about Iraq and terrorism. Unfortunately, Kerry has done a terrible job of getting out any cohesive and compelling message about either. Here's what he needs to hammer for the remainder: 1. Bush is A TERRIBLE LEADER IN THE "WAR ON TERROR". He has failed in the hunt for Osama, misdeployed resources, and put off allies who are key to our long-term success against terrorism. Look beyond the macho swagger of Bush and see that he is completely screwing up this incredibly important long-term battle. 2. Bush and the neocon puppet masters deceived the nation into Iraq, then completely blew the execution of a horrible war, costing us more than a thousand soldiers and billions of dollars, killing countless innocent Iraqis, and creating a disastrous and extremely dangerous situation for America for years to come. 3. Bush has blown the economy. 4. Kerry is the man to put America and the world on course for a better future.

Kerry must not only make these points, he must be pissed off about them. Undecided voters are not compelled to vote by Kerry's suggestion that he can do Bush better than Bush. They, and the party voters we need to inspire to actually cast ballots, will respond to Kerry's passionate belief that Bush is seriously taking this country down a bad path and that Kerry can take us on a safer, more prosperous path. Unfortunately, Kerry's voting record on Iraq prohibits him from taking the real winning stand that the Iraq war was a horrible mistake. So he must refocus on the idea that Bush is a horrible president whose decisions are having disastrous consequences. Kerry has to want to lead this country, and he needs to show Americans that he wants badly to lead this country.

Thanks for your great work. Scott

The conservative blog Powerline

The conservative blog Powerline has a roiling debate or series of charges that the documents published by CBS last night are forgeries.

The basis of the claim is that the sort of proportional font spacing evidenced in the memoranda wasn't available at the time in question. It only came later with word processors and computers and laser printers. Basically, they say, all people had back then were old fashioned block-type typewriters.

On the face of it, that sounds logical to me. But the editor of the site has now posted the comments of at least one reader who says such machines were actually widely available at the time.

It seems worth noting that the White House accepted the documents as genuine and even began releasing them to other journalists yesterday evening -- though it's not clear to me whether they were releasing their own copies or simply passing on what CBS had given them.

The deeper point is that CBS reported that they had handwriting experts scrutinize these documents to ascertain their authenticity. It seems hard to imagine they'd go to such lengths to have experts analyze them and not check out something so obvious as seeing if they'd been written by a typewriter that was in existence at time. (Hard to imagine or, if true, unimaginably stupid.)

One way or another, I doubt we'll have to speculate about this for very long. This question about what sort of typesets were available in 1973 should be easy enough to settle.

A few follow-on points

A few follow-on points about this Guard business.

First, I note over at Andrew Sullivan's site that Andrew asks whether anyone is coming forward or can come forward with a refutation of Ben Barnes' story. This makes it probably as good a time as any to note again that not only has the Bush camp not disputed Barnes account, they have positively affirmed it. (I go into some of the details in this post from a week or so back.)

Another point: Dan Bartlett, as you can see in the transcript published below, is sticking to the claim that there was no reason for President Bush to show up for the flight physical in question because it was no longer relevant to the duties he was performing (or not performing). But the records published by CBS -- and summarized here in the Post -- show Bush received a direct order to submit to that physical by a given date and refused or failed to do so.

Bartlett seems to be saying that it doesn't matter that Bush didn't follow the order because the order didn't make any sense.

Now, I'm no military man. But aside from orders that contravene the laws of war, the Geneva Conventions or the US constitution, I don't think an officer or an enlisted man is allowed to disobey an order just because he comes up with some logic by which he decides the order doesn't really make sense. An order is an order, right?

Wartime situations can also provide extenuating circumstances for disobeying an order, as in cases where the exigencies of combat render an order moot or create a situation where the recipient of the order can say that circumstances had changed so radically that the issuer of the order wouldn't have issued it had they known, etc. etc. But I assume we can stipulate that this wasn't a live combat situation.

And here we get down to a specific and perhaps touchy point. Why wouldn't Bush show up for that physical? An Air Force pilot's physical is a bigger deal than the one civilians get on a routine basis. But still, it's not that big a deal. Even if he didn't think it was necessary, why disobey a direct order to get around it?

And on this point let me make a more general suggestion. The White House's story has changed many, many times on the Guard matter. And they've been careful -- and wisely so -- to avoid make definitive statements that would limit their room for maneuver after future revelations.

There are now two news organizations actively at work (and at least one of them is pretty far along) on a story about just why Bush was having those problems in the Guard in 1973. With that in mind, now my might be a good time to press a few more specific questions. At least one major news organization -- and I suspect others -- is working on a story that touches directly on why Bush might not have been willing to take that physical.

A sage piece of

A sage piece of commentary from Kevin Drum that <$NoAd$>shouldn't get lost in the mix ...

This story is a perfect demonstration of the difference between the Swift Boat controversy and the National Guard controversy. Both are tales from long ago and both are related to Vietnam, but the documentary evidence in the two cases is like night and day. In the Swift Boat case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence indicates that Kerry's accusers are lying. Conversely, in the National Guard case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence provides additional confirmation that the charges against Bush are true.


That really is the heart of the matter. But in telling fashion it's a distinction many miss.

The complete text of

The complete text of CBS's interview with Dan <$NoAd$>Bartlett ...

Q: So, Dan, you've had a chance to look over these documents, to have a good look at them, discuss them. What do you say?

DAN BARTLETT: Well, I think, generally, it's obvious that it's election season now. But every time President Bush gets near another election, all the innuendo and rumors about President Bush's service in the National Guard come to the forefront. And the fact that it's coming up now at a time when President Bush has taken a lead in the polls -- it's not surprising that people like Ben Barnes, long-time activist, Democrat activist, who is a vice chairman of John Kerry, would be making these recycled charges of President Bush.

The fact of the matter is that the files that have been provided by this President to the public demonstrate that he served his country, he logged hundreds and hundreds of hours as a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. After four years of flying, he requested and received permission to do training in Alabama. He got that request. He did it in a non-flying capacity because they weren't flying his aircraft. He did his drills. He came back. He met his drills then when he came back. And that's why he received an honorable discharge. So -- and many of the documents you have here tonight affirm just that, that President Bush asked for permission and received permission to do just that.

Q: It's interesting when you talk about Ben Barnes, because I wasn't even talking about that. I was talking about these documents. What about these two official documents signed by Jerry Killian is rumor and innuendo?

DAN BARTLETT: Well, it's impossible for anybody to read the mind of a dead man. Jerry Killian writes memos to himself in this file --

Q: I'm not talking about the memos to himself. I'm talking about the two official documents.

DAN BARTLETT: The two official documents that notified that he did not take the flight exam, which is exactly -- it is explained in your document that he did not take the flight exam because he was going to Alabama in a non-flying capacity because, in Alabama, they weren't flying the same plane that President Bush was trained on.

Q: But what about these two documents is rumor and innuendo?

DAN BARTLETT: Well, again, the surfacing of these charges by many people who have partisan purposes behind it, the ads that are coming that denounce President Bush -- Ben Barnes, who has spoken to your program about his alleged involvement in President Bush's entry into the National Guard -- all of these things are coming out now, as they do every year when President Bush goes through an election. But these documents state exactly what we said, and that is President Bush didn't take the flight exam because he was going to a unit that didn't fly his plane. And in that very document you're showing it says that he was working out with the staff to find a unit that he could train with, but it was going to be in a non-flying capacity.

Q: Dan, you said it's interesting the way that these things suddenly surfaced during an election campaign. Should these have not been part of the record that the White House released of the President's military service earlier this year?

DAN BARTLETT: Well, in fact, my understanding is that is a part of another person's personnel file, Jerry Killian's. That is not the President's personnel file. He only has control over his own files that he has ordered for the full release, and we have fully released every document that the Department of Defense has regarding President Bush's service.

Q: But these are two official memorandums. Any idea of why these would not be in the record?

DAN BARTLETT: I can't explain why that wouldn't be in his record, but they were found in Jerry Killian's personal records themselves, is what I've been told. But it reaffirms exactly what President Bush said. Everybody knows President Bush didn't take his flight exam. After flying for 400 -- more than 500 hours in the cockpit, President Bush, after his fourth year in service, asked for permission to go in a non-flying capacity to Alabama. There was not reason for President Bush to take a flight exam if he wasn't going to be flying.

Q: Okay. So you seem to paint that as an option, that he could have taken the flight exam if he wanted to continue to fly, but didn't really have to take it. But this first document, dated 4th of May 1972, specifically says, "You are ordered to report for a physical examination." So he either ignored, or didn't fulfill a direct order, not an option.

DAN BARTLETT: Well, in fact, the memorandum shows -- the other memorandum in your possession shows that he spoke to the commander who made that order to talk about his personal situation in the fact that he was going to Alabama. So at every step of the way, President Bush was meeting his requirements, granted permission to meet his requirements. And that's why President Bush received an honorable discharge.

Q: You've also said that the President was removed from flying status because he failed to meet the physical requirements, he didn't take the physical. Yet the second memo from Lt. Colonel Killian, dated the 1st of August 1972, says, "He was suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to Air Force Air National Guard standards and failure to meet an annual physical exam." So there's two reasons in there that he was removed from flying status, not the single reason that the White House has talked about, that he didn't meet the physical requirements. It says here he didn't meet performance requirements.

DAN BARTLETT: No, the records have been clear for years that President Bush did not take a physical because he did not need to take a physical because, obviously, the choice was that he was going to be performing in a different capacity. That might be official language, but the bottom line is President Bush did not take that physical, so that does not suggest, nor is there any evidence that President Bush did. And the reason why is as I stated, that it was clear, as it says in your own documents, that President Bush talked to the commanders about the fact that he'd be transferring to a unit that no longer, or did not fly the plane that he was trained -- he was trained and a fighter pilot on F-102, which he flew for four years. And in this case, he was going to a unit in Alabama that didn't fly that plane.

Q: The White House has also set the -- the White House has also talked about the idea that it wasn't necessarily that important that the future President continue his flight training because they were phasing out the F-102. Yet in this very same memo, Killian writes, "I suggested we fill this critical billet with a more seasoned pilot." It would suggest that your view of how important the F-102 was, and Killian's view of how important the F-102 was are somewhat at odds with each other.

DAN BARTLETT: I don't agree with that characterization. Again, we're trying to suggest the comments were the orders of somebody who is no longer alive. But the fact of the matter is, is that just because they weren't flying the F-102 anymore doesn't mean they were not flying a new, modern aircraft. The point was, is that it didn't make sense for the Texas Air National Guard to train President Bush in a new aircraft at the end, toward the end of his service, when he was being given permission to attend Harvard Business School. It's a critical billet. Any slot for a pilot is critical. But the critical nature of it is that there was an ongoing mission at that unit. It just, in the future, was not going to be in the F-102.

Q: All right. Now, this goes to Killian's personal file -- I want to point that out. A couple of points that he makes -- he says that the President has come to him to talk about how he can "get out of coming to drill," suggesting that he's trying to avoid something. He also says that he advised the future President of the Air National Guard's investment in him and his commitment to the Air National Guard, which Killian seemed to suggest he would be shirking if he were to transfer out.

DAN BARTLETT: For anybody to try to interpret or presume they know what somebody who is now dead was thinking in any of these memos, I think is very difficult to do. What we do know, and what we know from people who are alive today, is that President Bush performed his duties well as a pilot, that he sought and received permission -- in those very same documents, it says what he was doing. He was not getting out of drills, he wasn't going to be physically there to do the drills because he was going to be in another state to perform his civilian occupation, which was very common in the Guard then, and it is very common in the Guard today -- that it's a civilian occupation which allows them to also fulfill their military obligation. And President Bush was working with the commanders at that point, at that time, to find out how he could fulfill his duties, as well as meet the duties in civilian life. That's one of the beauties of the National Guard system, that you can do both.

The bottom line is, is that President Bush would not have received the honorable discharge that he was granted when he returned from Alabama if he had not met his requirements.

Q: Now, in terms of reading what the intent and the point of view of these memos was, Colonel Bobby Hodges, who was the commander of the 147, Killian's immediate superior, said just this week that these documents accurately describe how Killian felt. And Robert Strong, the administrative head of the Air National Guard, said, "These documents are consistent with what he saw on the job every day, and consistent with the man he knew Killian to be. So there is certainly some opinion out there among former members of the military that these documents do indeed describe how Killian felt, what Killian thought about the situation.

DAN BARTLETT: Well, again, these are people --

Q: So it's not really open to interpretation --

DAN BARTLETT: Well, it is. It is. And when you're talking about a memo to somebody's self, this is a memo to his own file, people are trying to read the mind of somebody who is no longer with us.

The fact of the matter is, is that the files and the President's documents, official record, speaks for itself. The fact is, is that he received an honorable discharge. He was given permission at every step of the way, when President Bush had a request, whether it was to fulfill his civilian occupation or to do his training, to make sure he met the requirements, he received the permission necessary to do it. And that, I say, is why he received his honorable discharge.

Q: Do you know if the President handled his transfer to the Alabama National Guard strictly through Killian? Or did it go through other people, as well?

DAN BARTLETT: I'm sure not just -- I'm sure the group -- the commanders there are involved in the paperwork for all their pilots.

Q: But do you know if he talked to them, or had anybody else talked to them?

DAN BARTLETT: Again, I can only go by what the documents show. All of the documents, up and down the chain of command, approved his permission -- gave him permission that he sought and received, up and down the chain the command.

Q: Killian writes and voices an opinion here that he believes that the President was talking to someone upstairs about his transfer.

DAN BARTLETT: Again, that is conjecture on a part of somebody who is no longer with us.

Q: Well, that's why I asked you -- that's why I asked you if you knew.

DAN BARTLETT: No idea.

Q: Okay.

DAN BARTLETT: But the bottom line is, is that up and down the chain of command, he received the necessary permission to fulfill his obligations.

Q: Also, one other opinion, and again, an opinion, in a memo titled "CYA" that Killian wrote to himself that he believed that there was pressure coming from upstairs, General Staudt, of the Air National Guard, to "sugarcoat" the President's record, and that Killian wasn't about to do that.

DAN BARTLETT: Well, again, it was Colonel Killian at the time who approved, as did other members in the chain of command, President Bush's service, approved his drills, approved -- gave him permission to go to Alabama.

Again, we are trying to read the mind of somebody who has been dead for more than 10 years. The fact of the matter is, there are people alive today that show and demonstrate that President Bush performed his duties and received his honorable discharge because he did perform those duties as he was told to do so. At any given time, somebody -- a commander or anybody -- could have told him, you're not fulfilling your obligations, and he would have met them. But he did meet them. And that's why he was given an honorable discharge.

Q: Killian writes that he was backdating the Officer Efficiency Training report. Anything irregular about that?

DAN BARTLETT: Well, again, these are cryptic lines of saying, backdate, won't rate these things. Again, what we're asked to do is to try to read the mind of somebody who is no longer with us. I think we ought to look at, and what the public can look at, is a full file, hundreds and hundreds of pages that demonstrate that President Bush fulfilled his duties.

Again, this is -- this is part and parcel for what happens during a presidential campaign. People come forward for whatever motives to put forward innuendo or to raise rumors about President Bush's service. But the official files tell the facts. And the facts are President Bush served, he served honorably, and that's why he was honorably discharged.

Q: Are you questioning at all the veracity of these documents, or just the point of view?

DAN BARTLETT: I think it's the point of, after 32 years ago, and all of the politics that has taken place, it does seem -- raise questions that some documents would be given to the media at 55 days before the President's election, right when he takes over in the national polls -- the same time that a partisan Democrat, who supports John Kerry, comes forward with a recycled charge like Ben Barnes has done, to try to raise concerns or to attack President Bush on his Guard service.

President Bush has made it clear that Senator John Kerry served admirably. In fact, he said, he served more admirably because he went into harm's way. But President Bush is proud of his service. He's proud of the fact that he flew fighter jets and trained as a pilot for four years. He's proud of the fact that he got the permission to meet his requirements. And he's proud of the fact that he was honorably discharged.

And the fact that people are raising politics at this time is part of the game. But it doesn't ignore the facts. And the facts are there in his file. He met his requirements. He satisfied his commander's requirements. And that's why he was given an honorable discharge.

Q: Is your suggestion that these documents, at least a couple of them, could have been fabricated?

DAN BARTLETT: I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that the fact that documents like this are being raised when, in fact, all they do is reaffirm what we've said all along, is questionable. And what's questionable is at the same time that these documents are raised is the very same time that Democrats are leading a new ad campaign against President Bush and his service in the Guard, the same time that a partisan Democrat who is aligned with John Kerry makes his public attacks against President Bush and his Guard service. It's not a coincidence.

Q: Let's talk about Barnes for a second. Here's a guy who, in the year 2000, signed an affidavit to say that, as Speaker of the House, he got -- in Texas -- he managed to procure a position for the President -- a coveted position -- in the Texas Air National Guard at the request of a Bush family friend. True or untrue?

DAN BARTLETT: What Ben Barnes has said and what he testified under oath is that he knew of no knowledge or any information that President Bush or his father was involved at all in trying to get him into the Guard. The commander who was in charge --

Q: That's why I said, "at the request of a family friend."

DAN BARTLETT: But the important part is that the commander in charge, General Buck Staudt, the person who really had control over who came into his unit or not said, it's flat out not true. Now, the fact that Ben Barnes, who's a partisan Democrat, who left office under scandal in Texas in 1971, has his own issues. For him to come up after 32 years, during the 2000 presidential election, and now during the 2004 election when he supports John Kerry, I think completely discredits the veracity of his claims.

Q: So you could say just because a person has issues that they're not to be believed? I mean --

MR BARTLETT: Well, people -- his chief of staff, who worked for him at the time, another assistant who worked for him at the time, also have said publicly that they did nothing to help George W. Bush get into the Texas National Guard. I chalk it up to politics. They play dirty down in Texas. I've been there. I see how it works. But the bottom line is, is that there is no truth to this.

Q: This is dirty politics.

DAN BARTLETT: Oh, I think it is. I think the fact that 55 days before an election, that partisan Democrats are recycling the very same charges we hear every time President Bush runs for reelection, is dirty politics. It's the type of politics President Bush has tried to end by shutting down the 527s, which Senator John Kerry won't join him in doing. So we do believe it's part of the dirty politics. Recycling old accusations that aren't true, a partisan Democrat who's vice chairman of the fundraising efforts for John Kerry to come forward now and make these types of claims, I think smacks of dirty politics.

Q: Let me ask you one more question. Why didn't the President sign up with a National Guard Reserve Squadron when he moved to Massachusetts to attend school at Harvard?

DAN BARTLETT: Well, he was given permission to attend school at Harvard Business School, and he received his honorable discharge to do so. If there are any requirements he were not meeting, the National Guard at the federal level, the state level, and the local level, they all knew where he was. He was in Cambridge, Massachusetts, going to school. And if they felt that he needed to be called up, or if there was any reason for him to fulfill service or go on active duty, they knew where he was and they knew he could serve.

So I don't think there was any question, and that's much ado about nothing. The fact of the matter is, President Bush received a permission to go -- to go to school in the first place.

Q: But should he have sought out a reserve unit, and at least offered his services, if not outright join up?

DAN BARTLETT: I'm confident that President Bush followed the strict instructions in which the Guard gave him when they gave him his honorable discharge. So he went to school. The Guard knew, at federal, state, and local level, where he was, what he was doing, and if they wanted him in an active duty capacity, they knew exactly where to find him.

Q: Dan, thanks. I don't have anything else.

DAN BARTLETT: Appreciate it.

CAMERAMAN: Could I just get a little bit of a long question, please, sir?

Q: Yes, absolutely. You know, I'd love to talk to you about where the campaign's going and things like that.

DAN BARTLETT: Off air? (Laughter.)

Q: I guess I'll have to talk to you about that off air. But I guess -- you know, you've talked all about the policies and things. I don't know what else that I could try to mine from you on that particular front. The only thing --

DAN BARTLETT: I can't -- I can't say.

Q: Yes. The only question is, it has been raised, and it's almost impossible to verify the truth of what people are saying, that the President's record was scrubbed by -- I think you were a part of the allegations, I can't remember who else was at this point, it's in my notes somewhere, and that the reason why two of these documents were not in the record was because they were removed from the record, and it just so happens that Killian managed to keep his --

DAN BARTLETT: We -- at every -- for 10 years, I have been involved in this. And for 10 years, we have requested, directed. When he was Governor of Texas, I guess you don't have as much leverage, but when you're Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States and you ask for something, you ought to get it. And at every step of the way, we ordered, instructed the Department of Defense, the National Guard to turn over every single document. And we released every single document. We've made -- in an unprecedented fashion -- his medical records available. We've given everything we have. And as soon -- as we proved yesterday -- we get anything new, we will give it to the public. We've asked for it, we want it, and we want to release it.

Q: Have you asked the Pentagon to go back and try to find these two --

DAN BARTLETT: Of course. We will ask them for every single document they have.

Q: All right. Great. Thank you, Dan.


Questions, questions, questions ...

Certainly it is one

Certainly it is one of the lesser threads in this controversy, but let's note for the record that RNC Chair Ed Gillespie told what was almost certainly a knowing falsehood today in an email sent out to the GOP faithful and printed in ABC's The Note.

Writes Gillespie ...

"And tonight on CBS, longtime Democratic operative Ben Barnes -- a friend of, major contributor to and Nantucket neighbor of Senator Kerry's and vice chair of the Kerry Campaign--will repudiate his statement under oath that he had no contact with the Bush family concerning the president's National Guard service. (Anyone surprised that Barnes would contradict a statement he made under oath probably doesn't know his long history of political scandal and financial misdealings.)"


The reference here is to <$Ad$>a sealed deposition Barnes gave in a civil case in 1999 in which he stated basically the essence of what he said tonight on CBS, but went to great lengths to note that he had no direct contact with the Bush family. The request, he said, came from a mutual friend of Barnes and the elder Bush, a guy named Sid Adger, now deceased.

(This point -- the lack of any direct contact -- has always been a point of great importance to the Bush camp.)

And yet, Barnes didn't contradict that earlier statement at all.

As the Times notes in Thursday paper, both with respect to 60 Minutes and an interview with the Times: "Mr. Barnes maintained, as he has since 1999, that he had contacted his friend who headed the Texas Air National Guard, Brig. Gen. James Rose, not at the behest of anyone in the Bush family, but rather a Houston businessman, Sidney A. Adger, a friend of the Bushes who has died."

Indeed, press reports have been saying for days that Barnes would not contradict that point. Thus Michael Dobbs wrote the following in the Post wrote only a few days ago: "Friends said Barnes will expand on the remarks in his interview with "60 Minutes" while taking care not to contradict sworn testimony from 1999, in which he said that no member of the Bush family had directly asked him for help."

One might certainly speculate that even if there had been direct contact with the Bush family, that Barnes might choose not to reveal it, since he's sworn to the contrary under oath. But that's all speculation.

The point is that he didn't. It's been reported for days that he wouldn't. And Barnes telegraphed that fact widely in Texas political circles. And yet Gillespie said he would. And it would seem that he did this not just on the basis of no evidence, but with manifest evidence to the contrary. All of which is to say that he made it up because making it up worked to his advantage.

Alas, I guess there's no getting around the fact that Gillespie lied through his teeth.

Heres my quick transcription

Here's my quick transcription of one of the memoranda CBS has just posted on <$NoAd$>their website. It's the last in the series of memos from Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer ...

18 August 1973

Memo to File

SUBJECT: CYA

1. Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I’m having trouble running interference and doing my job. Harris gave me a message today from Grp regarding Bush’s OETR and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it. Bush wasn’t here during rating period and I don’t have any feedback from 187th in Alabama. I will not rate. Austin is not happy today either.

2. Harris took the call from Grp today. I’ll backdate but won’t rate. Harris agrees.


Perhaps someone can unpack this for us? Who's Harris? Who's Hodges? Why isn't "Austin" happy? What document is getting backdated?

Some of these questions are no doubt answered in the encyclopedic Bush AWOL project website. (Hodges, if memory serves, was above Killian in the chain of command. Where precisely, whether he was his immediate superior, I'm not sure.) But clearly there's quite a story to tell packed in this short memo. Perhaps some intrepid journalist can explain it all for us.

Late Update: Part of the work has been done in this must-read piece by Eric Boehlert in Salon. Here's one passage that caught my eye ...

On Oct. 1, 1973, Bush received an honorable discharge from the Texas Air National Guard in order to move to Boston and attend the Harvard Business School, where he was still obligated to find a unit in Massachusetts to fulfill his remaining nine months of duty, or face being placed on active duty. Once again, Bush made no such effort. But the Air Force in Denver, acting retroactively, in effect overturned Bush's honorable discharge and placed him on "Inactive Status" effective Sept. 15, 1973. When Bush left Texas, his personnel file was sent to Denver for review. The ARPC quickly realized Bush had failed to take a required physical exam, his Texas superior could not account for his whereabouts covering nearly a 12-month period, and due to absenteeism Bush had failed to "satisfactorily participate" as a member of the Texas Air National Guard. Bush's "Inactive Status" meant his relationship with the Air Force (and the Guard) was severed and he was therefore eligible for the draft.

Soon afterward, large gaps began appearing in Bush's paper trail. Lukasiak concludes that only last-minute intervention, likely from Bush's local Houston draft board, saved him from active duty, as well as finally securing his honorable discharge, removing his "Inactive Status." Ironically, that means strings were pulled to get Bush out of the Guard in 1973, just as they were pulled to get him enrolled in 1968.


As I said, that's one passage that caught my eye. But it's really worth reading the whole thing all the way through -- particularly with reference to President Bush's honorable discharge.

And, finally, let's not miss the obvious point here. This isn't about what President Bush did 30+ years ago. Or at least it's not primarily about that. The issue here is that for a decade President Bush has been denying all of these things. He did so last January. He did so again as recently as last month. He's continued to cover this stuff up right from the Oval Office.

LiveWire