FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2004
MUST-SEE MTP: Sunday morning, Bush does the full hour on Meet the Press. But which Tim Russert is going to appear? An incomparable preview tomorrow.
MUST-READ ERIC B: Maybe now you see what we mean about that tricky torn document! In yesterdays Salon, Eric Boehlert moved the story forward about the crucial doc. The famous document is the only real evidence suggesting that Bush didnt miss a full year. So why did Jo Thomas judge it valid when she covered this story for the New York Times? Boehlert interviewed Walter Robinson, who reported the story for the Boston Globe:
BOEHLERT: The Times got spun by [Bush aide] Dan Bartlett, Robinson at the Globe told Salon. He and others note that if the documents provided by the Bush campaign proved he did Guard duty upon returning to Houston in January and April of 1973, then why, on Bushs annual effectiveness report signed by two superiors, did it say, Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report, which covered the dates between May 1, 1972, and April 30, 1973?I had a lot of arguments with Dan Bartlett and never got spun by him, says Thomas, now an assistant chancellor for public affairs at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. But if he gave me some documents that proved his point, Im not going to ignore them.
Does Robinsons quote means what it seems? If it does, then Robinson seems to think the famous torn document may have been somehow illegitimate. This raises the possibility that the Bush campaign deliberately presented a fake military document as part of its defense of Bush. But did you hear a single word about this during Campaign 2000? Or during the four more years that have passed? Does Robinson think the torn doc was a fake? His statement to Boehlert raises more questions than it actually answers.
Lets put Robinsons words into context. During Campaign 2000, the press corps worked itself into a frenzy, trying to prove how dishonest Gore was. And no one played the game better than Robinson. On September 19, 2000, he presented his ludicrous doggy pill storya story developed through the auspices of none other than Bush aide Dan Bartlett! (See below) In his report, Robinson said that Gore had made a disturbing false statement about the cost of doggy pillsand he pretended to think that this troubling matter showed Gores disturbing character problems. It now seems that Robinson thought, at the very same time, that the Bush camp might have been peddling a phony military document. But until yesterday, we had never heard Boo about this concern, from Robinson or anyone else in the major press.
Lets sound a note of caution. From reading Boehlert, it isnt clear what Robinson thinks about the torn document. What does he mean when he says that Thomas got spun by Bartlett? Its always possible that the torn document was bogus, but the Bush campaign didnt know. But what does Robinson currently think? And why so little exploration?
Walter Robinson was deeply troubled by Gores remark about doggy pills. But neither he nor his colleagues said Boo about that mysterious torn document. Is the torn document legit? At the HOWLER, we dont know. But if it isnt, serious questions arise. For four years, your press corps avoided them.
DEEP DOO-DOO: Weve never told the full story of the doggy pill claptrap. To help put this current flap in perspective, well present some HOWLER HISTORY next week. Prepare to see how far the Robinsons would go to come up with troubling lies by Al Gore. And yes, as Evan Thomas later noted in Newsweek, Dan Bartletthe of the famous torn documentwas Robinsons helpmeet on the doggy-pill tale. For Thomas text, see below.
SWISS CHEESE FAMILY ROBINSON: Why didnt scribes pursue Bush AWOL during Campaign 2000? In a new posting, Robinson is quoted on the subject by Editor & Publisher. His explanation has more holes than a crisp, ten-ton vat of Swiss cheese:
EDITOR & PUBLISHER: Robinson said the timing and atmosphere in the 2000 campaign was different from today and may have played a part in the lack of follow-up to his story at the time. Bush was running to replace a president who had taken steps to actively avoidand some would say evademilitary service, he pointed out. Whatever Bushs sin was, he wasnt the first president to shirk his military duty, Clinton was.The press always covers up for the press. But have you ever read such absolute nonsense? I dont know if editors (at other papers) even saw the story in 2000, Robinson says. Amazing, isnt it? After all, Robinsons lengthy, detailed report first appeared in May 2000! And it appeared on the front page of the Boston Globe, one of the nations best-known papers! And somehow, when Robinson published his doggy-pill doo-doo, the nations editors heard in a flash! It was only when Robinson went after Bush that the eds seemed to be on vacation.
And how about Robinsons second point? Did the eds avoid the Bush AWOL story because it appeared after Bush had the nomination sewed up? Is that the silliest explanation yet? The corps flogged endless stories attacking Gores character after his nomination was settled. Have you ever heard this improbable rule? Once we know whos actually running, all reporting on the hopefuls must stop?
In fact, everyone knows why this story was avoidedbut Robinson has no plan to tell you. As weve told you for the last four years: This story was avoided because the press was savaging Gore to pay back Clinton. They spent twenty months inventing stories designed to prove their favorite theme: Al Gore is a liar, just like Bill Clinton. And their treasured script just wouldnt fly if Bush was out there telling whoppers and spinning the press with phony docs. No one with an ounce of sense doesnt know this part of our history. But the press has no plan to tell itnot yet. Nor does Mr. Probity, Walter Robinson.
IT ALL MAKES SENSE TO BARON TOO: Marty Baron is playing dumb too. Heres what he told Ed & Publisher:
EDITOR & PUBLISHER: Globe Editor Martin Baron, who was not at the paper in 2000, said he was not surprised that other papers did not follow the Globe story then, but added: It is not our job to worry about that. We did our job. That original story holds up great. I dont believe it has ever been challenged.Nothin to look at! Just move along! For unstated reasons, Baron doesnt find it strange that other papers ducked the story. But then, Its not our job to worry about that. Truer words have never been spoken.
KEEPING THE RUBES DUMB AND HAPPY: Meanwhile, over at Foxs Special Report, theyre keeping the rubes dumb and happy. Did Bush miss a full year? Did he miss eighteen months? Last night, the all-stars finally had their shot at the topic. But Fred Barnes hid beneath his chair. Fred said that Bush missed some meetings:
BARNES: Ill have to say Kerrys heroic Vietnam duty does take a little bit of the edge off the ideas that he is weak on national security. But what is going to be the issue is his record on national security, his votes against all these weapons systems that are being used now in Iraq.Everyone did it, Fred said. He then took oodles of time off the clock with a rambling discussion of his own army service. Of course, when Morton finally got his turn, he knew how to frame this thing too:
KONDRACKE: Well, he was absent, I wont say without leave, but he certainly was absent for some meetings. And Fred is exactly right. I mean the most definitive account was in the Boston Globe by Walter Robinson in 2000, it is exhaustive and it sort of goes through month by month. And indeed, he did do this hurry-up service at the end, 36and I think that sort of absolves him of all this.Finally, Mara got her go. Maras supposed to throw in a few facts. But she turned the whole thing back on Kerry:
LIASSON: 9/11, not Vietnam, is going to be the national security issue this year. Now, do I think Kerrys war record helps him? Yes. Does it inoculate him against the charges that he is weak on national security, which have already started? No! I mean look at Max Cleland. He gave a hellhe sacrificed a lot more of himself than John Kerry did in Vietnam and it didnt inoculate him. So I dont think that is going to be some kind of a perfect shield for Kerry. But I think the fact that this is coming up so early in the campaign gives you a little idea of what is coming up later.One thing that wont be coming up later? Facts about Bush from this store-bought crew! For the record, Special Report reported the facts of this matter one time this week. Carl Cameron did the honors on Monday:
CAMERON: [Wesley] Clark began to slip in the polls when he refused to repudiate remarks by filmmaker Michael Moore, who accused President Bush of being a deserter when Mr. Bush was in the National Guard decades ago. Mr. Bush missed a couple of months of service and made it up as Guardsmen are allowed to do. Now, Senator Kerry is refusing to repudiate similar remarks by some of his surrogates, including former Georgia Senator Max Cleland and the chairman of the Democratic Party. Asked just a short moment ago, whether he would make the war and George Bushs service in the National Guard an issue, Kerry said he hadnt made up his mind yet. Brit.Thank you, Carlfor saying that Guardsmen are allowed to do what Bush did. At any rate, if youre a Fox watcher, you now know the facts. Bush missed some meetingsa couple of monthsjust as his commanders expected.
BARTLETTS EXAGGERATIONS: Who got spun by Bush aide Dan Bartlett? Shortly after the 2000 election, Evan Thomas wrote an instant history of the campaign in Newsweek. Here was his intriguing account of the source of the doggy-pill doofistry:
EVAN THOMAS (11/20/00): In one of his routine attacks on the drug companies for overcharging seniors, Gore claimed that the arthritis medication used by his mother-in-law, a drug called Lodine, had cost three times as much as the same medication used to treat Gores dog, Shiloh. Sniffing a story that was too good to be true, Walter Robinson, a veteran reporter for The Boston Globe, called a Bush operative named Dan Bartlett. Bartlett was spokesman for the rapid-response unit in Austin known as the Candygram Committee. (The name was taken from an old Saturday Night Live sketch in which a man-eating land shark knocks on the door, squeaking, Candygram! An early sobriquet, the Stink Bomb Committee, was dropped.) Not quite as nimble as Gores Kitchen, the Candygram Committee had been on the defensive for much of September, but now it pounced.More on this inane story next week. But noits not at all clear that Gore had been caught exaggerating, as well show you. (Robinson had found a congressional study that cited exactly the same prices as those cited by Gore.) But please note: All this activity happened six months after Gore sewed up the Dem nomination. And when Robinson published his ludicrous story, the nations editors somehow heardand somehow, they knew they should pounce.