I'm just the guy that can't stand cant. ___________

 
A TIME TO REFLECT ON THE STRENGTHS OF DEMOCRACY AND BUSH

Now that the one of the most contentious presidential elections of recent times is over, it is time for all pundits (even self made ones) to muse about the strengths of democracy and the potential for Bush to learn from his mistakes and have a successful second term.

Bush's victory in this presidential election should remind us just how strong our democracy is. Few democracies have been as successful as America has in producing leaders that are truly representative of its people. Thus, our presidents have run the gamut from noble statesmen to small-minded hacks, from capable administrators to irresponsible bumblers, from honest men of integrity to deceitful charlatans. Seeing Bush elected to a second term has reminded me how America has been strong enough to survive the misrule of the mendacious and the incompetent throughout its history. I am hopeful that we will see an even greater example of the strength of America's democracy after Bush completes his second term.

Discussing how Bush has the potential to make America peaceful, secure, prosperous and united is a more difficult task given that his policies to date have achieved the opposite in each case. Difficult or not, the Self Made Pundit is willing to consider the strengths of the Bush administration.

While the Self Made Pundit has been critical of Bush at times, the Self Made Pundit has also applauded Bush every single time that he has deserved such praise in his administration.

Now that Bush has won a second term, we should be fair-minded and consider what strengths Bush has and how those strengths give him the opportunity to improve life in America and the rest of the world. In this spirit, I will devote the remainder of this column to discussing Bush's positive qualities of leadership and all of the reasons to hope that Bush's second term will be an improvement on his first:









posted by Gary at 4:55 PM

 
FOUR MORE YEARS OF MISRULE AT THE DOORSTEP

What can I say the morning after President Bush appears to have won over the majority of American voters?

I don't know how so many people could have voted for the worst president ever.

I think you have to live in a fantasy world not to realize that among the 43 U.S. presidents, George W. Bush is without a doubt one of the most dishonest (probably the most dishonest but I don't want to slight Nixon) and the most incompetent (Buchanan merely let the country slide into the Civil War, Bush pushed us into the Iraq quagmire).

Perhaps Bush's fantasy world is such a pleasant place that voters decided to join him there. To give President Bush his due, the fantasy world he has created is much better than the reality he has given us. The fantasy of a resolute leader is so much more pleasant than the reality of an unnecessary war incompetently handled, decreasing employment, increasing poverty and exploding deficits.

So, should Senator Kerry meekly accept the results and concede? Not if he wants to remain a member of good standing in the reality-based community.

My radical advice is that we try something different this presidential election and not declare a winner until all the voters have been counted. All of the thousands of provisional ballots in Ohio should be counted and, if there are meritorious grounds, there should also be a recount.

If America is strong enough to withstand four years of misrule by President Bush, it can withstand a few days or even weeks of uncertainty about the outcome of the presidential race.

While I put the chances of Kerry somehow gaining the lead in Ohio at only slightly less than 1%, I think Kerry should not concede and should go down fighting for the last vote. Considering the Bush crew's history of underhanded campaign tactics, the results in Ohio cry out be checked. There should be no concession by Kerry until every vote has been counted and, if warranted, there has been a recount.

I'm wondering what Kerry could have done differently to have won it last night. I think Kerry might have made it if only he had emphasized the issue of traffic. It worked for me -- that's the issue I emphasized in my successful campaign to be elected to the board of trustees that governs the small village in which I live.

Barring a miracle in Ohio, here's to four more years of being ruled by a demented monkey. Just to be clear, that's a reference to Bush, not me. My term is only two years.

posted by Gary at 9:30 AM

 
KERRY'S THE ONE

While the Self Made Pundit has unfortunately been too busy (with work and his own campaign at the local level) to do much blogging of late, there's always time for wild speculation!

Using the most advanced techniques of psephology (in other words, hunches based on decades of obsessing about elections), the Self Made Pundit is ready to call the election for Kerry.

The polls out yesterday mostly showed a swing to Kerry. Fox (!) had Kerry going from a 5 pt. deficit to a tie Suday to a 2 pt. lead yesterday. Gallup, which gave Bush a 5 pt. lead last week is now calling it 49-49 among likely voters and Kerry ahead by 2 among registered voters. I continue to believe that the likely voter models are going to be less reliable than registered voter surveys this year due to the Democrats' successes in registering and getting ticked off at Bush.

My final prediction (unless I change my mind this afternoon) is that Kerry wins by more than 4 pts, with the breakdown something like this:

Kerry: 51.2% with 316 Electoral Votes (Gore states plus OH, FL, NH, NV)
Bush: 47.0% with 222 Electoral Votes
Nader & others: 1.8%

I view Congress as a little trickier to predict with the size of Kerry's victory determining the final outcome:

Senate: Democratic net gain of 1 or 2

House: Democratic net gain of 8 to 14

I can't believe that unprecedented numbers of voters have been standing in line for hours for four more years of the same incompetence.

posted by Gary at 1:34 PM

 
KERRY'S SPEECH WAS MERELY GREAT

As a dispassionate and nonpartisan observer of politics, I want to calmly evaluate John Kerry's speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president last night.

So, the question is just how great was Kerry's speech?

Was it (a) the greatest achievement of mankind; (b) the greatest political speech ever given by a presidential candidate; or (c) only great enough to convince undecided voters that Kerry would be vastly superior to the worst president ever?

Being a pundit who strives for balance and objectivity, I think the answer is merely (c).  While the speech is likely to advance the cause of mankind by helping to strip Bush of the power to mislead the nation into unnecessary wars, in terms of  mankind's achievements the speech definitely takes a back seat to the eradication of smallpox.  And while the speech did a superb job of contrasting Kerry's strength and dedication to fighting for average Americans with Bush's dismal record and dedication to fighting for average corporations, Lincoln's speeches have to get the nod.

To be fair to Kerry, however, I have to say it is one of the best political speeches I have heard in my lifetime.  The speech showed that Kerry has the potential not just to defeat the worst president ever but also to lead and to inspire.

Heck, the speech was even great enough to call this wayward blogger back into action to point out the mendacity, hypocrisy, incompetence and sheer stupidity of the Bush administration for the duration of the campaign.

The Self Made Pundit reporting for duty, sir.


posted by Gary at 10:14 AM

 
THE PECULIAR RULES OF THE BUSH AND CHENEY INTERVIEW

As President Bush and Vice President Cheney make their unusual joint appearance before the commission investigating the September 11, 2001, attacks today, the commission’s efforts to get at the truth will be complicated by the peculiar rules that Bush has placed on the interview.

These rules have more to do with saving Bush from embarrassment than anything else.

In one of the most pathetic implicit admissions of incompetence ever made by a president, Bush has refused to be interviewed separately, as requested by commission. The restrictions do not end there. Today’s Washington Post notes some of the restrictions demanded by the White House:

The president and vice president agreed to meet privately with the 10-member panel on the condition that they appear together.

....

The White House will not record or transcribe the interviews .... The Sept. 11 panel is prohibited from recording the interview but will be allowed to have one staffer taking notes.

As The New York Times notes in an editorial today, the rules that Bush is imposing on the commission’s interview of him range from the questionable to the ridiculous:

It would have been a pleasure to be able to congratulate President Bush on his openness in agreeing to sit down today with the independent commission on the 9/11 attacks and answer questions. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush conditioned his cooperation on stipulations that range from the questionable to the ridiculous.

The strangest of the president's conditions is that he will testify only in concert with Vice President Dick Cheney. The White House has given no sensible reason for why Mr. Bush is unwilling to appear alone. (When asked at his recent press conference, the president gave one of his patented nonresponses: "Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them.")

While Bush’s demand to have Cheney at his side is certainly odd, it is debatable whether that is the strangest rule that Bush (Or is it Cheney?) has laid down for the interview. Through contacts at the White House, the Self Made Pundit has obtained the complete list of rules for the Bush and Cheney interview. It appears the Times was underestimating just how peculiar these rules are.

Here is the complete list of The White House's Rules for the September 11 Commission’s Interview of Bush and Cheney:

1. Bush will appear only in the presence of Cheney.

2. If Cheney leaves the room to go to the bathroom, Bush may also leave the room or hide under the table, at his option, until Cheney returns.

3. Bush will not be put under oath to tell the truth.

4. Bush will not be expected to tell the truth.

5. The interview will be private, in a secure White House room behind closed doors.

6. The Commission members may not turn on the light in the room.

7. The Commission members may not turn down the sound on Bush’s stereo, which will have the volume turned to 11.

8. The interview will not be tape-recorded or transcribed.

9. Only one staff member may take notes.

10. The staff member taking notes may not use any mechanical devices, pens or sharpened pencils.

11. While the staff member taking notes may use an unsharpened pencil, he may not use paper.

12. Only commission members – and not the staff – may ask Bush and Cheney questions.

13. Commission members may not ask Bush any questions while Cheney is taking a drink of water.

14. Commission members may not ask Bush any questions that would require him to pronounce the words “strategy,” “nuclear,” “subliminal” or any other word of more than two syllables.

15. Commission members may not ask Bush any hypothetical questions, such as whether his joint appearance with Cheney would be barred under his proposed Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriages.

16. Commission members may not ask Bush any trick questions such as what he knew or did.

17. Commission members may ask Bush what he felt or what was in his heart.

18. Commission members may not ask Bush any personal or embarrassing questions, such as why in August 2001 he took the longest presidential vacation in more than 30 years after receiving numerous warnings of an impending terrorist attack, including a Presidential Daily Briefing memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US” on August 6, 2001.

19. Commission members are requested to act respectfully and remember they are interviewing the president of the United States.

20. Commission members are requested to try not to cry as they look at Bush and remember they are interviewing the president of the United States.


posted by Gary at 11:14 AM

 
BUSH’S SECRET WAR PLANS SABOTAGED THE WAR ON TERROR

Bob Woodward’s new blockbuster on President Bush’s secret decision soon after the 9/11 attacks to plan for war with Iraq reveals that one of America’s biggest obstacles to winning the war on terror is Bush himself.

Woodward’s new book – “Plan of Attack” – reveals that Bush ordered aides to develop a secret war plan for Iraq in November 2001, at a time when he was neglecting to commit sufficient military forces to crush Al Qaeda and capture or kill Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Faced with an opportunity to devastate the terrorist group that had murdered some 3,000 people on American soil, Bush got distracted and used the opportunity to settle old scores with Saddam Hussein, a boxed-in and defeated enemy of America. As the Associated Press reports:

President Bush secretly ordered a war plan drawn up against Iraq less than two months after U.S. forces attacked Afghanistan and was so worried the decision would cause a furor he did not tell everyone on his national security team, says a new book on his Iraq policy.

Bush feared that if news got out about the Iraq plan as U.S. forces were fighting another conflict, people would think he was too eager for war, journalist Bob Woodward writes in “Plan of Attack,” a behind-the-scenes account of the 16 months leading to the Iraq invasion.

....

“I knew what would happen if people thought we were developing a potential war plan for Iraq,” Bush is quoted as telling Woodward. “It was such a high-stakes moment and ... it would look like that I was anxious to go to war. And I'm not anxious to go to war.”

Bush and his aides have denied accusations they were preoccupied with Iraq at the cost of paying attention to the al-Qaida terrorist threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. A commission investigating the attacks just concluded several weeks of extraordinary public testimony from high-ranking government officials. One of them, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, charged the Bush administration's determination to invade Iraq undermined the war on terror.

Woodward's account fleshes out the degree to which some members of the administration, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, were focused on Saddam Hussein from the onset of Bush's presidency and even after the terrorist attacks made the destruction of al-Qaida the top priority.

Woodward says Bush pulled Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld aside Nov. 21, 2001 – when U.S. forces and allies were in control of about half of Afghanistan – and asked him what kind of war plan he had on Iraq. When Rumsfeld said it was outdated, Bush told him to get started on a fresh one.

The book says Bush told Rumsfeld to keep quiet about it and when the defense secretary asked to bring CIA Director George Tenet into the planning at some point, the president said not to do so yet.

Even Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was apparently not fully briefed. Woodward said Bush told her that morning he was having Rumsfeld work on Iraq but did not give details.

Bush’s decision to begin preparations for war with Iraq in November 2001 help explain why at that time he did not commit sufficient forces in Afghanistan to crush Al Qaeda and capture or kill bin Laden.

Soon after Bush ordered Rumsfeld to prepare a fresh plan for war with Iraq, America learned in December 2001 that its Afghan allies were fighting Al Qaeda forces – including bin Laden – in the mountains of Tora Bora. Rather than commit sufficient American forces for a decisive victory over Al Qaeda, Bush was content to rely on the local Afghan forces to confront bin Laden and his troops. The result was bin Laden and most of his forces slipped away through the mountains.

It appears that Bush was more concerned with settling old scores in Iraq than in eradicating the Al Qaeda threat slipping away in Afghanistan. Bush may have feared that committing sufficient forces to Afghanistan to finish off Al Qaeda would threaten his desired war with Iraq. Bush’s secret plan for war with Iraq became the enemy to an effective war on terror.

Now, I suppose some people might criticize Bush for deciding to march into a war of choice – not necessity – without first engaging in a national debate about whether such an elective war was in our national interests.

Some people are probably going to criticize Bush for making such decisions without involving his own national security adviser and the director of the CIA in the analysis of whether a war with Iraq was wise.

And there are certainly going to be people criticizing Bush for neglecting to finish off Al Qaeda before tying American forces down in an elective war in Iraq.

But, while I believe Bush has been a miserable failure in the war on terror (not to imply that he has not been a miserable failure in any other area), as an open-minded pundit, I must admit that an argument can be made that such criticisms are unfair.

Perhaps it is unfair to criticize Bush for failing to engage in a national debate on whether to go to war with Iraq. After all, as Bush told Woodward, “I knew what would happen if people thought we were developing a potential war plan for Iraq .... [I]t would look like that I was anxious to go to war. And I'm not anxious to go to war.” So Bush was more interested in his image than in democracy. Is that such a big deal?

It probably is unfair to criticize Bush for not involving the Director of the CIA and his own national security adviser in the analysis of whether a war with Iraq was wise. As the Bush administration’s disastrous and bumbling job in trying to pacify Iraq for the past year demonstrates, Bush never engaged in any lengthy analysis before launching his Iraq adventure. Thus, Tenet and Rice weren’t really excluded from much.

And it is certainly unfair to hold Bush to standards – such as wisdom or even minimal competence – that he could never meet. Bush is an incurious, ignorant ideologue who is incapable of thinking strategically or even considering the likely consequences of his acts.

As Bush himself acknowledged in one of his rambling and evasive responses towards the end of Tuesday night’s presidential press conference, “maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be ....”

I guess Bush must have been on his feet when he decided it was more important to invade a marginalized Iraq than to crush the greatest terrorist threat to America.

Thanks to his secret plan, Bush got his war against Iraq, even if it was at the expense of the war on terror.
posted by Gary at 11:26 AM

 
SCIENTIFIC SUPER TUESDAY PREDICTIONS: A mathematical analysis of my gut feelings leads me to predict a Kerry blowout today with Kerry winning 10 out of 10 states.

Even if -- a big if -- Edwards finishes a close second in one or two states (perhaps GA and/or Minn.), that won't be enough to keep him alive given the likely magnitude of Kerry's victory tonight. The only question is whether Edwards will now admit that he has been eliminated or limp into Southern Super Tuesday next week for another round of punishment.

Since only a fool would predict the general election results this far out, I won't predict the winner of the Kerry-Bush race. However, at this point I actually give a slight edge to Kerry. As a matter of physics, there are only so many lies that the American public can absorb. Fortunately, since Bush ignores the scientific community whenever it says what he doesn't want to hear, he has failed to grasp this elementary scientific principle. I suspect the Bush administration might have pushed its luck and exceeded the saturation point for mendacity a year earlier than they would have liked.

If I were foolhardy, I might even predict that Kerry will win 50% to 48%, taking all the Gore states plus NH, WV, Ohio and Nevada. Not being foolhardy, I'll only speculate that Bush will have to become far more creative in his deceptions and evasions if he hopes to become the first two-term Bush.

Perhaps a mission to Jupiter might do the trick.
posted by Gary at 3:00 PM

 
THE KERRY-EDWARDS SHOWDOWN: As the Democratic contest for president effectively becomes a two-person race between Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards, many voters are likely to base their decision on which one is the most likely to beat Bush.

For the pragmatic voter in a Democratic primary or caucus, one of the most important attributes in a candidate is the ability to beat Bush. For the idealistic Democratic voter, one of the most important goals to accomplish is ending the misguided policies of Bush – in other words, picking the candidate most likely to beat Bush. Thus, for many Democrats voting for the strongest presidential candidate is both the idealistic and the pragmatic thing to do.

The conventional wisdom has been that Kerry is the strongest candidate. Lately, however, some pundits have argued that Edwards would be the stronger candidate, based on exit polls showing Edwards getting a greater share of the votes of independents and Republicans that have voted in some Democratic primaries.

Although I think the conventional wisdom is often wrong, this is not one of those times. While I think Edwards has some great strengths as a natural campaigner, I don’t think he would be as strong a candidate against Bush as Kerry would be.

The argument that Edwards would be a stronger nominee than Kerry because Edwards has recently outpolled Kerry among independents and Republicans in a few recent primaries suffers from a huge flaw. This argument depends on the assumption that a Democrat that is attractive to independents and Republicans during the Democratic primary season is also going to be attractive in the general election. This assumption is fallacious.

Kerry and Edwards and are now campaigning in the cocoon of the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Once the eventual nominee ventures out into the harsh world of Republican attacks, the dynamics will be vastly different. Bush will do his best to make national security the central issue of the election and to paint the Democratic nominee as weak and uninterested in protecting America from terrorism.

Historically, national security issues have played pivotal roles in nearly all presidential elections since the early days of World War II. In recent presidential elections such national security issues have hurt the Democratic candidate. The perceived weakness of the Democratic candidates on national security issues contributed to losses in 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988. In 1976, the combination of Watergate, the recent Vietnam debacle and a recession made domestic issues more important. And Gerald Ford (who disastrously claimed in a debate that he did not think that Cold-War Poland was dominated by the Soviet Union) did not come across as particularly strong in any case. The 1992 and 1996 elections were the first post-Cold War elections and national security played far less of a role in those campaigns than in any other presidential election since 1936.

In light of 9/11 and America’s invasion of Iraq, national security issues are likely to resume their historic importance in deciding the 2004 presidential election. This is especially true given Bush’s obvious intent to exploit fear of terrorism. Thus, credibility on national security issues will be essential for the Democratic nominee for president.

Bush is bound to try to make the 2004 election a referendum on national security since he has no record of domestic achievements on which to run. His record on jobs and the economy is the most dismal of any president since Hoover. He has presided over the greatest turnaround in America’s economy since the Great Depression. The only hope that Bush has of a second term is by exploiting a fear of terrorism.

Kerry’s combination of being a war hero, an anti-Vietnam War activist and a Senator for 20 years (not to mention his gravitas) gives Kerry credibility in discussing national security. I actually think Kerry’s activism against the Vietnam War after being a hero in that war can be a plus since it shows both judgment and character. With this background, Kerry stands in stark contrast to Bush, who showed in dealing with Iraq that he foolishly believed that the way to appear strong is to rush into a war without regard for the consequences. John Edwards, with his one Senate term and background as a trial lawyer, just won't have that same credibility.

Bush – the self-styled “war president” – is going to do his best to instill fear in voters and run as the protector of the homeland.

Given his background (not to mention his gut instincts as a fighter), I think Kerry will have greater success in combating this fear mongering.
posted by Gary at 2:23 AM

 
DID BUSH COME CLEAN ON HIS NATIONAL GUARD APPLICATION?: A comparison of Bush’s previous statements about his arrest record and today’s reports about his National Guard application reveal that Bush may have failed to disclose his full arrest record to the Guard.

According to today’s reports, in his 1968 application, Bush revealed to the National Guard that he had been arrested once, for a college prank. Previously, however, Bush has admitted that before he joined the Guard, he had been arrested twice – once for the prank and once for rowdiness.

In an article posted Wednesday night, USA Today pointed out that Bush had acknowledged being arrested twice before being asked about his arrest record on his National Guard application:

Two forms in Bush's publicly released military files – his enlistment application and a background check – contain blacked-out entries in response to questions about arrests or convictions. Bush acknowledged in biographies published in 1999 that he was arrested twice before he enlisted in the Air National Guard: once for stealing a wreath and another time for rowdiness at a Yale-Princeton football game.

In an article posted last night, however, USA Today reports that the White House has now revealed that Bush only revealed one arrest (as well as four traffic citations or tickets) on his National Guard application:

The White House disclosed information in documents Thursday showing that President Bush had been arrested once for a college prank and was cited for two automobile accidents and two speeding tickets before he enlisted in the National Guard.

The accidents and tickets were disclosed for the first time in response to questions about a portion of Bush's military record that had been blacked out when the file was made public during the 2000 presidential campaign.

The traffic violations are significant in the context of Bush's military career. At the time Bush enlisted in the Texas National Guard, the Air Force typically would have had to issue a waiver for an applicant who had multiple arrests or driving violations.

An officer who served at the same time as the president, former Texas Air National Guard pilot Dean Roome, was required by the Air Force to get a waiver for a $25 speeding ticket when he enlisted in the Air National Guard in 1967.

There is no record of an enlistment waiver in Bush's military file.

The USA Today article makes no mention of the discrepancy between Bush’s reporting one arrest on his application and his previous admissions that he had been arrested twice by the time of his application.

Based on these two USA Today articles, it appears that Bush may have failed to reveal his full arrest history to the National Guard.

So, the new Bush-National Guard question for today is did Bush come clean on his National Guard application in reporting on his arrest record?

Let’s see if the White House can answer this question without raising additional questions about the curious National Guard tenure of George W. Bush.
posted by Gary at 1:37 PM

 
THE SHADOW PRESIDENT: I think I have solved the riddle of President Bush’s mysterious tenure in the National Guard 30 years ago.

Bush was not just a dissolute wealthy playboy who blew off his National Guard duty and went AWOL for large chucks of time in 1972 and 1973. The truth is far more disturbing.

I believe the man we have known as George W. Bush for the past three decades is really none other than the Shadow.

Yes, the Shadow ... that mysterious crimefighter of years past whose supernatural power to cloud men’s minds enabled him to become invisible and combat evildoers outside the confines of the law.

Call me mad if you like, but the signs that President Bush has long had the Shadow’s power to cloud men’s minds are unmistakable. In fact, the evidence of Bush’s secret identity is even more substantial than the evidence that Bush actually showed up for his National Guard duty or that pre-war Iraq posed an imminent threat to America.

The inscrutable and shadowy Bush claims to have satisfactorily competed his National Guard duty by attending drills in Alabama and Texas in 1972 and 1973. Yet neither Bush’s superior officers nor his fellow Guardsmen recall seeing Bush at any point after May 1972.

While you would think it would not be difficult to find former comrades of Bush to brag about the good old days of working and training side by side with the future president, there seems to be no one that saw Bush perform any Guard duties during that time period. As today’s New York Times reports:

Inside the Alabama Air National Guard an informal search is on for someone, anyone, who recalls encountering First Lt. George W. Bush in 1972.

At Fort George C. Wallace, the Montgomery headquarters of the Alabama National Guard, officials have responded to growing scrutiny of President Bush's military record by searching through records for proof of his service in the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group. Former comrades from the 187th have been calling and e-mailing one another, always with the same basic question: Did you see him?

So far, it appears that their efforts have come to naught. Indeed, in interviews this week with The New York Times, 16 retired officers, pilots and senior enlisted men who served among hundreds with the 187th in 1972 all said that they simply could not recall seeing Mr. Bush at Dannelly Air Base, the sprawling compound adjacent to Montgomery's airport that is home to the 187th.

Those interviewed either held key supervisory positions at the base or were members of the fraternity of pilots and navigators who often congregated in a lounge on the second floor of Dannelly's main hangar. They worked in different units of the 187th, including the maintenance squadron, the supply squadron, the headquarters staff, flight safety and the flight operations center.

Yet try as they might – nearly all voiced strong support for Mr. Bush – none remembered crossing paths with him. Nor had any heard of anyone else in the 187th who recalled seeing him.
....

[T]he interviews this week deepen a mystery that first surfaced during the 2000 presidential campaign when The Boston Globe reported that there was no record that Mr. Bush showed up for Guard drills between May 1972, when he moved to Alabama from Texas to work on a United States Senate race, and May 1973. Mr. Bush had been ordered in September 1972 to report for "equivalent training" to William R. Turnipseed, the 187th's deputy commander of operations, but The Globe quoted Mr. Turnipseed in 2000 as saying that Mr. Bush never reported to him.

In response to The Globe's article, Mr. Bush's election campaign appealed for members of the Alabama Air National Guard to come forward and vouch for his service, and a group of Vietnam veterans in Alabama offered a $1,000 reward for anyone with proof that Mr. Bush served. No one has come forward.

Even Bush has been unable to name even one person that saw him perform Guard duties in Alabama. In fact, Bush claims to recall practically nothing about what he did as a Guardsman after May 1972:

For his part, Mr. Bush has never offered any detailed descriptions of what jobs he did at the 187th. "I can't remember what I did, but I wasn't flying because they didn't have the same airplanes," he told reporters in 2000.

According to the Bush administration, the only record indicating that Bush actually showed up at the Alabama base is a dental record showing Bush got his teeth cleaned at the base on January 6, 1973.

If we accept Bush’s claim that he continued performing his required National Guard duties after May 1972, the only logical explanation is that he really is the Shadow and was using his power to cloud men’s minds to perform those duties unseen, with a stray dental record the only evidence of his passing through. Perhaps Bush had his power cranked up a bit too high and clouded his own mind, which would explain his inability to remember anything he did on those occasions.

Now think about the uncanny similarities in how the Shadow operated and how Bush governs. Just as the Shadow did, Bush manipulates perceptions and reality to achieve goals outside the strictures of established and accepted rules. For example, Bush led this country to war with Iraq by brushing aside the U.N. and clouding people’s judgments with dire warnings of non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Once we permit the possibility that Bush has the power to cloud men’s minds, the rest of his mysterious career becomes not quite so baffling.

Consider Bush’s disastrous business career in which each business failure led to a more lucrative position. What other explanation could there be other than Bush was using his power to cloud the minds of the wealthy benefactors who kept baling him out. Surely Bush wasn’t merely trading on his privileged background as the son of George H.W. Bush.

Bush’s hypnotic power would also explain why the SEC performed such a perfunctory investigation of Bush’s sale of Harken Energy stock – while he was a director of Harken – shortly before the price plummeted. Bush was again using his power to cloud men’ minds, not merely being given a pass because his father was president.

Bush’s supernatural ability would also help explain how the news media let Bush get away with the most outrageous lies in the 2000 election, such as his repeated claims that most of his tax cut would benefit average Americans when the great majority of it was slated for the super rich. Reporters and pundits could not tell that Bush’s numbers didn’t add up since their minds were being clouded.

Bush displayed his power again on Meet the Press this past Sunday, when he clouded Time Russert’s mind to prevent Russert from asking follow-up questions as Bush told whopper after whopper. For example, Bush falsely claimed that his administration has held the line on discretionary spending better than the Clinton administration, despite the undisputed fact that such spending has gone up at a far greater rate under Bush.

Bush continues to use his power to cloud men’s minds. How else can one explain the ease with which Bush reneged on his pledge to release all of his National Guard records just days after making that promise to a national television audience on Meet the Press? If the press were thinking clearly, there would now be an outrage over this broken promise and obvious attempt to coverup.

The evidence of Bush’s nefarious ability was always there for us to see, if only our minds weren’t clouded.

The only other explanation is that Bush has abused his privileged position to evade responsibility for his entire adult life. But for this explanation to be true, it would also mean that numerous voters and members of the news media were easy marks for a not-too eloquent con-man.

While the theory that Bush has evaded responsibility through a combination of his own duplicity and others’ laziness and gullibility – and not through his supernatural powers – strikes me as somewhat far-fetched, I suppose it at least offers a ray of hope. Bush’s record has been so dismal and dishonest, I question whether even this consummate con-man can fool enough voters for a second term unless he really does have supernatural powers.
posted by Gary at 11:06 AM

 
THE TRUTH BEHIND BUSH'S NATIONAL GUARD SERVICE: The Self Made Pundit is typing these words from an undisclosed location after having been undercover for the past three months investigating the shocking truth behind President Bush's mysterious National Guard service.

Was Bush really a dissolute wealthy playboy who blew off his National Guard duty and went AWOL, or is the truth something far more sinister?

I believe that I am now only hours away from solving not only the riddle of Bush's "missing year" in the National Guard but other Bush mysteries so horrifying I dare not even hint at them. I need only to lay my hands on one last dental record to reveal whole sordid story.

Though it may cost me my life, I must return to blogging.

But I fear I have already said too much and dallied too long at this seedy internet cafe near the docks of this city I dare not name.

If Operative X-7 is still alive and reading this blog, be prepared to take speedy action if I do not post again in the next 48 hours. You know the safety deposit box in which I have hidden the evidence we've uncovered to date. Take whatever steps you deem necessary to reveal the truth and avenge my name. Just remember that when you ask for the safety deposit box you must speak in a lisping Hungarian accent. And of course, don't forget to walk with a limp and to wear the red wig and monocle. And try to be inconspicuous.
posted by Gary at 10:13 AM