September 21, 2004


Dems admit bad documents, but push charges (UPI, 9/20/04)

Democrats Monday acknowledged some documents it touted in attacking President Bush's U.S. military record were false, but continued to push other evidence.

"Now that we know what's not true, let's focus on the facts," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a statement regarding CBS's News' apology for broadcasting a Sept. 8 story about Bush's military service based on documents of dubious merit. [...]

"The American people already know that strings were pulled to get President Bush into the Guard; and while in the Guard he missed months of service and was grounded. ... But what we still don't know is why Bush didn't fulfill his duty to his country or why he has continued to lie to the American people about it," he said.

Democrats had used the CBS report in their charges that Bush did not fulfill his duty in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

And so the Democrats continue to push a topic that, thanks to the incompetence of CBS, has now been permanently discredited in the public mind. Consider this: If you knew nothing about the people running the Kerry campaign, would you suspect that these guys had ever been involved in politics before?

Posted by Matt Murphy at September 21, 2004 7:36 AM

It is hard to understand why the Dems think some minor questions about Bush's actions 30+ yrs ago are going to be the magic item to defeat Bush. It would have worked in 2000 but in 2004 Bush has 4 yrs as president for people to judge him. And OJ is right - the "the documents are fake but accurate" theme doesn't pass the smell test with the public.

Posted by: AWW at September 21, 2004 7:57 AM

The charitable explanation here would be McAuliffe & Co. had gotten away with the "always complain/never explain" type of defense so many times during the Clinton administration, they can't help themselves from going to the well one more time, even though the rock that strategy rested on -- confidence thebig media would never probe their claims too deeply -- has been blown out of the water thanks to CBS' involvement in this whole kerfuffle.

But if you want to be a true cynic about the actions of so many people like Lockhart and McAuliffe who come out of the Clinton organization -- one that would be devistated by a Kerry victory -- then you could even say that while they may not have this entire thing game-planned down to the most minute detail, the overall results of the scandal on the Kerry campaign and the seemingly tone-deaf responses to the confirmation of the fraud are probably to their liking.

Posted by: John at September 21, 2004 7:57 AM

To John's point - If the Clintonistas are trying to sabotage Kerry to clear the way for Hillary in 2008 I don't think they are doing a very good job. First, with Lockhart and others now involved in the Kerry campaign their fingers are all over it and they can be linked to its failures. Second, at the rate they are going Kerry is going to get whomped and, if a few recent polls can be believed, may even lose NY. Bush winning NY and a strong challenger in '06 (Rudy, Pataki) could mean Hillary doesn't hold her seat which would hurt her '08 run.

Posted by: AWW at September 21, 2004 8:05 AM

Oj: In answer to your question: Yes; I'd suspect, correctly, that they worked for the Dukakis campaign.

Posted by: Chris at September 21, 2004 8:43 AM

The American people already know that strings were pulled to get President Bush into the Guard; and while in the Guard he missed months of service and was grounded.

I'm consistently amazed by what has to be done to prove something that everyone already knows.

Posted by: Chris B at September 21, 2004 9:03 AM

They know that everyone already knows, but are dumbfounded why no one cares.

Posted by: BJW at September 21, 2004 9:45 AM

St. Hillary never planned to run in '006. Sometime after 03 November she is going to let it be known that she's running, because the country needs her. By getting elected the first time, she's already one up on Buchanan, Jackson, Perot, Forbes, Keyes, Sharpton and all the rest who think of the Presidency as a political entry level position. (Then again a term in the Senate wasn't much help to Edwards or Mosley-Braun, was it?)

By the summer of '006 will announce she won't run for reelection because she learned one lesson from from Kerry, and that is a Senator needs to run full time. This way she avoids having to deal with a Guiliani or Pataki head on while looking principled. More important, the money she raises during the next two years won't be wasted on retaining a Senate seat against a strong challenger.

The problem with this sceneario, as pointed out above, is that too many of the people she will be relying on are being tainted this time (if not by Algore four years ago.) An interesting factor will be her unwillingness to answer hard questions or do unfriendly interviews.Kerry is showing how that strategy doesn't always work.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 21, 2004 12:05 PM

>If you knew nothing about the people running
>the Kerry campaign, would you suspect that
>these guys had ever been involved in politics

Either that or they did a little too many "recreational pharmaceuticals" during their Perfect Glory Days of The Sixties.

Enough bad batches'll do that to ya.


Posted by: Ken at September 21, 2004 12:22 PM

Thanks for posting, OJ -- I did such a good job some people here apparently think I'm you!

Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 21, 2004 12:58 PM

Question for Terry McAuliffe: are you spending any of your millions on electing John F. Kerry?

Or is it just union money?

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 21, 2004 2:08 PM

Maybe their experience is in Massachusetts politics, when you can start partying after you win the Democratic primary.

Posted by: Bob Hawkins at September 21, 2004 3:37 PM