Politics

More and more, people are getting to the bottom of Bush’s military record — the real one, that is, not the glossed-over propagand-ized version he’d like us to believe.

The Columbia Journalism Review is calling for more detailed investigations into the “torn document” giving details of Bush’s service record:

The now-infamous “torn document,” which the Bush administration produced in the spring of 2000 is a statement of service credit that Bush apparently earned for guard service in 1972-73. However, most of the dates and Bush’s name, except for the “W,” have been torn off.

At first, this document was often included in media summaries of Bush’s National Guard service. However, it has been notably absent from many recent accounts, simply because most reporters find it so incomplete as to be useless.

…But now that Bush has gone on record saying that he will release all records necessary to settle this issue, it’s up to the press corps to decide just how high or low to set the bar of disclosure necessary to get to the bottom of things.

The mainstream media will be a bit late to the game, though, as Calpundit already has a good look at the document in question — not the torn version, though…

To make a long story short, Bush apparently blew off drills beginning in May 1972, failed to show up for his physical, and was then grounded and transferred to [the Air Reserve Force] as a disciplinary measure. He didn’t return to his original Texas Guard unit and cram in 36 days of active duty in 1973 — as Time magazine and others continue to assert based on a mistaken interpretation of Bush’s 1973-74 ARF record — but rather accumulated only ARF points during that period. In fact, it’s unclear even what the points on the ARF record are for, but what is clear is that Bush’s official records from Texas show no actual duty after May 1972, as his Form 712 Master Personnel Record from the Texas Air National Guard clearly indicates….

Bush’s record shows three years of service, followed by a fourth year in which he accumulated only a dismal 22 days of active service, followed by no service at all in his fifth and sixth years. This is because ARF duty isn’t counted as official duty by the Texas guard.

So Bush may indeed have “fulfilled his obligation,” as he says, but only because he had essentially been relieved of any further obligation after his transfer to ARF. It’s pretty clear that no one in the Texas Air National Guard had much interest in pursuing anything more serious in the way of disciplinary action.

Truly a sterling service record for our Commander in Chief.

(via Daily Kos)

Well, it looks like it’s official — Kerry has taken both Washington and Michigan, with Dean in second place.

What worries me the most about this is that it will be spun into Dean’s death knell (for instance, the Seattle PI’s story headlined “Kerry whips Dean in Washington“). Even Dean has been saying that without a win in Wisconsin, he’ll likely be dropping out of the race. Personally, I’d see this as a real shame.

It’s fairly widely recognized by many people, even if they’re not Dean supporters, that many of the issues being brought up in all of the campaigns were initially brought up by Dean. If he had not started asking many of the questions that all of the candidates are now asking, we could be facing a very different campaign season (and quite possibly one with far less of a chance of ousting Bush from office).

Personally, I’d love to see Dean stay in the race even if he doesn’t pick up Wisconsin. Even if he can’t get the money to campaign the way he has been, I think it would be great if he could do essentially what Sharpton has been doing the entire time — don’t worry about spending the thousands and millions of dollars on high-profile ads and television spots. Instead, just doggedly hang in there, show up for the debates, and make sure that his voice gets heard and that the questions that need to be asked are asked and don’t get brushed under the carpet.

It’s all too easy for me to see Dean call things to a halt after a loss in Wisconsin, and suddenly have Kerry revert to being “just another politician”. Much of the reason I’ve been (and am) a Dean supporter had nothing to do with “electability”, but was entirely because he struck me very much as someone who actually wanted to make a change for the better, and wasn’t going to be bothered with beating around the bush or pandering to special interests merely to get into office. Kerry has never made an impression on be other than being yet another politician.

It feels like Kerry wants to be President so he can be President, while Dean wants to be President so that he can make a difference.

Sharpton doesn’t stand a chance of getting the nomination, but he’s still in the race. Edwards and Clark have worse numbers than Dean, but they’re still in the race. Heck, Kucinich has fewer confirmed delegates than Sharpton does, and he hasn’t dropped out yet! As long as Dean is in one of the top three spots (and he’s currently in second, though few media reports are likely to point that out), I think he should stick it out — scale back operations if necessary, but don’t disappear. Don’t let Kerry slide back into old habits. Keep being the prickly burr under the saddle that’s keeping the rest of the delegates on their toes.

I really think that the two biggest factors driving the record turnout of voters in the current caucus/primary season have been Bush’s incompetence and Dean’s dogged determinism in speaking the truth, not mincing words, and doing the best he can. I’d hate to see that element disappear just because the media has dubbed him “unelectable”.

iTunes: “Soul Crying Out” by Simple Minds from the album Street Fighting Years (1989, 6:07).

No comment.

Robsix and Hurin, knock yourselves out. ;)

(More seriously, I’ve been enjoying the debate on the ‘Why I Hate George W. Bush‘ thread. While obviously I agree more with some points than with others, It’s been entertaining to watch things keep going [and usually fairly civil]. I keep meaning to jump in myself, I just haven’t gotten around to it yet. Have fun, though!)

(Graph from Music for America, via Daily Kos)

Bush has announced his budget, and the Chicago Sun-Times takes a look:

The president’s budget reveals his priorities, what he truly cares about. It is not a reassuring picture.

The president’s first priority remains tax cuts, largely for the wealthy. Millionaires are pocketing \$30,000 a year in tax breaks from this president. The president wants, first and foremost, to make his tax cuts permanent — no matter what that means for the deficit, for investments in our future, for already obscene extremes of inequality in what once was a middle-class nation.

Tax cuts for the wealthy come first — before jobs, before schools, before health care, before poverty, before the war on Iraq, before dealing with the deficits. Bush proposed these tax cuts when the economy was soaring and the budget was in surplus. He demanded them when the economy tanked and the budget went into deficit. He insisted on them even as he led the nation into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And now, with record deficits, a jobless recovery, costly and endless occupations, he wants only to make them permanent.

…With schools inundated with record numbers of students, Bush won’t even keep his own promise to fund his education reforms. With university tuitions soaring and community colleges getting cut, he abandons his campaign pledge to increase Pell grants. His much-advertised community college budget doesn’t even make up for what has been lost.

Bush devotes less than 3 percent of his budget for education. Educating the next generation is less important to the president than providing for the inheritances of the next generation of wealthiest Americans.

Surprised? No. Annoyed? Greatly.

Just scanning the Google News related headlines, it looks like nobody seems to think Bush has a clue what he’s doing. Kos looks at the reaction too, noting that even Republicans aren’t happy with this.

I wish this were a joke.

Tony Blair and George Bush have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for waging war on Saddam Hussein.

…The leaders were put forward for the accolade by right-wing Norweigian politician Jan Simonsen, who made his nomination public.

(via Dave Winer)

An absolutely beautiful article at The Nation looking at the media’s inability to cope with the fact that Judy Dean is exactly what she appears to be — a normal, well-adjusted independent woman in a healthy, loving relationship with her husband who doesn’t want to abandon her medical practice to be trotted out at every political opportunity during the campaign season.

The ongoing public inquest into Dr. Judith Steinberg makes me see, however, that we need First Ladies: Without them, American women might actually believe that they are liberated, that modern marriage is an equal partnership, that the work they are trained for and paid to do is important whether or not they are married, and that it is socially acceptable for adult women in the year 2004 to possess distinct personalities–even quirks! Without First Ladies, a woman might imagine that whether she keeps or changes her name is a private, personal choice, the way the young post-post-feminists always insist it is when they write those annoying articles explaining why they are now calling themselves Mrs. My Husband.

…it’s only when a wife has her own identity that her choices are scrutinized. If Dr. Judith Steinberg was simply Judy Dean, if she spent her life doing nothing so important it couldn’t be dropped to follow her husband as he followed his star, no one would question her priorities. No one thought less of Barbara Bush because she dropped out of college to get married, like those Wellesley girls in Mona Lisa Smile. No one reprimands Laura Bush for abandoning her career as a librarian and spending her life as her husband’s den mother. No one asks Hadassah Lieberman or Elizabeth Edwards or Gertie Clark how come they have so much free time on their hands that they can saddle up with their husbands’ campaign for months, or why, if they care so much about politics, they aren’t running for office themselves.

…What if the media tried on for size the notion that having an independent wife says something good about a candidate? For example, maybe, if his wife is not at his beck and call, he won’t assume the sun rises because he wants to get up; maybe, if his wife has her own goals in life, her own path to tread, he won’t think women were put on earth to further his ambitions; maybe, if he and his wife are true partners–which is not the same as her pouring herself into his career and his being genuinely grateful, the best-case scenario of the traditional political marriage–he may even see women as equals. Why isn’t it the candidates who use their wives to further their careers with plastic smiles and cheery waves who have to squirm on Primetime?

Damn straight.

(via Doc Searls)

iTunes: “Brandenburg Concerto in F Major, No.1, BWV1046, I. Allegro” by Rees, Jonathan/Scottish Ensemble from the album Bach: Brandenburg Concertos, Violin Concertos (1998, 4:11).