Tim Russert goes AWOL

I'm not sure why Tim Russert, host of NBC's Meet the Press, has the reputation for being the bulldog interviewer that he has.

Well, I know why: He's very much the bulldog when it comes to Democrats and liberals.

With conservatives, well, he has a long track record of letting them off the hook. I know this from personal experience: One of my jobs at MSNBC (1998-2000) involved taping, transcribing and excerpting Meet the Press every Sunday.

And this Sunday's interview with George W. Bush was perfectly consistent with this trend.

This was particularly the case when it came time for Russert to try to nail Bush down on his military record, and particularly the question of whether Bush would release his records to the public. In fact, Bush specifically lied when he claimed that he had done so.

As Josh Marshall observes:

Several times during the exchange the president said that he had released his military records back in 2000.

That's not true. He's never released those records. And no one disputes that.

But Russert returned to the point and the final exchange went thus ...

MR. RUSSERT: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, absolutely.

We did so in 2000, by the way.

Now, what to make of this?

The president gives a flat-out, unambiguous answer: he'll release all his military service records.

Then he tosses in that next line: "We did so in [2000], by the way."

Brad DeLong provides us with a strong overall analysis of the interview and Russert's failure to ask natural follow-up questions, including this point about the military-record portion:

Russert: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of their records and said there?s no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972.

President Bush: Yeah, they're they're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged. In other words, you don't just say "I did something" without there being verification. Military doesn't work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama.

Natural follow-up:

But you didn't fly 102 aircraft, did you? They didn't have any in Alabama, and when you returned to Texas in November 1972, you still didn't fly. In May 1973 your superior officers wrote that you hadn't shown up for duty in Texas, and you were grounded because you didn't show up for your annual physical exam.

What Russert actually did: Asked Bush if he would open his files, and let Bush claim that he had already done so in response.

Just to be clear about this: Bush seems to be claiming that the records that might exonerate him from the AWOL accusations may not exist. Of course, I've already pointed out that the only reason they might not would be related to the potential actions of Bush campaign staffers in destroying those records.

It is highly unlikely that the records were simply misplaced or lost. Recall, if you will, Aaron Brown's recent CNN interview with James Webb, the former Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, cited here:

As you mentioned there is some question about his attendance records. The White House has responded in a rather confusing way by saying that these records have been lost.

I can tell you having spent three years as assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs in charge of the guard and the reserve programs it would be very unusual to lose these records.

They are important for monitoring pay, also for the credit that you get for drill that goes against satisfactory performance in the guard and these sorts of things, so there are a lot of questions out there.

It's worth noting that Phil Carter of Intel Dump, himself a former Guardsman, analyzed the matter and concluded that there are numerous ways of obtaining the basic information about Bush's military performance, including attendance records, pay records, retirement points and income-tax records.

The fortunate flip side to Russert's general weakness is that he did elicit from Bush a promise to release all his records. This is, indeed, the lead and headline for the Washington Post's story about the interview:

Bush to Release Vietnam-Era Military Records

Bush's promise to release all of his military files, including pay stubs and tax records, has the potential to resolve the long debate over Bush's service from May 1972 to May 1973. No records have been found indicating he performed his duties during that period, but he received an honorable discharge, indicating that he had served properly.

Experts in such matters have said payroll records and Bush's annual "point summary" from the time -- neither of which has been released so far -- should demonstrate definitively how often Bush participated in drills. Such records, unless they have been purged, should exist on microfiche either in St. Louis or Denver.

Bush said it was unlikely those records still exist. Asked if he would allow their release, he replied: "Yeah, if we still have them. But, you know, the records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records." Bush also said his campaign had already authorized the release of such information in the 2000 campaign, but no such information has been released.

Of course, the only bit of "documentation" provided by the Bush campaign was the notorious "torn document," which has been so ably deconstructed by Bob Somerby. Just to underscore how shoddy a document this is, Uggabugga has provided us with an example of what the document might look like were it to be restored.

All this, in fact, continues to point to the increasing likelihood that the Bush campaign was involved in a coverup that included destroying government records in order to "sanitize" Bush's military career for public consumption.

The one man who has gone on the record in saying he observed such behavior is a former Guardsman named Bill Burkett, who served in Bush's office when he was governor of Texas and is now retired.

As this account describes, citing Burkett's own words:

"As the State Plans Officer for the Texas National Guard, I was on full-time duty at Camp Mabry when Dan Bartlett was cleansing the George W Bush file prior to GW's Presidential announcement. For most soldiers at Camp Mabry, this was a generally known event.

The archives were closely scrutinized to make sure that the Bush autobiography plans and the record did not directly contradict each other. In essence it was the script of the autobiography which Dan Bartlett and his small team used to scrub a file to be released. This effort was further involved by General Daniel James and Chief of Staff William W. Goodwin at Camp Mabry.

Burkett later clarified, in detail, what he observed, and why he went public with it, in this account:

Air National Guard Commanding Officer Alleges Bush Military Records Cleansing

SUBJ: Military Records of George W. Bush ? Clarification Bill L. Burkett LTC (ret)

Within the morning press reports in the London Sunday Times and other publications, I am stated to have alleged that the staff of George W. Bush doctored [the key term] the military files of George W. Bush in whatever attempt to cover his military record.

Let me answer questions about my responses within a chronological pattern:

Was this politically motivated and coordinated with the Gore Campaign?

No. Not whatsoever. In no way did any member of the Gore Campaign or any election official, Republican or Democrat know my comments. My observations were responses to questions of how the file was developed; disseminated under the Freedom of information Act (FOIA) and what was missing within the files which would resolve the question of satisfactory participation. These were my personal responses to the asked questions that were not sanctioned by anyone, nor shared with anyone. They were made on the basis of my 28 year career, my working experience within the senior staff at the Texas National Guard headquarters and my knowledge of the operational procedures of the US military including the subject of personnel files of retired or discharged soldiers and airmen.

Why, do you believe, were you contacted?

Question 3 will background how this occurred which should be self-explanatory. The context of the DUI story indicated the mishandling or failure to fully disclose a past criminal record of Governor Bush. I believe that the military record and the irregularities that point to a possible extended period of nonperformance and early release may have also indicated a pattern of lack of full disclosure by the Governor and his campaign. This issue of military records had been highly visible on at least two previous occasions within the campaign, however, Senator Kerrey as an honored and decorated SEAL most recently focused on this issue within the last ten days I would guess that within the eleventh hour and following the revelation of the DUI story, the media and voters were waiting for the next shoe to drop. This issue may have been viewed as the next shoe.

In June of 1998 and with the full and personal knowledge of Dan Bartlett and the Governor, I reported problems of force structure, readiness operational efficiency personnel and procedures within the Texas National Guard. At that time, and periodically thereafter, I have been in contact with various [audio, video and print]news writers and publishers. In 1998, I provided sufficient detailed information including documentation of severe irregularities within the Governors own chain of command in an effort to correct those deficiencies which I believe undermined the Texas National Guard and in some cases broke the law.

How did your reference in this story develop?

I contacted a website that outlined the Governor's personal military career irregularities and suggested that there were two official documents that would resolve the issue of satisfactory and honorable service. Suddenly on Friday afternoon, my telephone became barraged with media calls and messages including those who had known of my previous whistleblowing but had failed report it. I explained my background and personal observations to each of them in minute detail, often repeating the entire process for clarity. I was extremely careful not to point an accusing finger, but rather shape a question which could resolve this allegation of integrity that had clouded the Bush campaign since June of 1999 ? the issue of his personal military service.

Did you allege that the governor's staff doctored the records?

No, instead I stated that the way this had been handled by the Bush staff including knowledgeable military officials at the Texas national guard, that it left the implication that the Bush staff had first incompetently provided an incomplete military file for the Governor which was consistent with his autobiography. I further observed that they probably did not anticipate that the file would be scrutinized to the level that it was. Whenever someone determined holes is service big enough to drive a Mack truck through additional information [all of which was unofficial and some in pencil notations] were then submitted to the press to answer questions. I further observed this "Trust me, I'm the Governor" approach had worked throughout Texas for George W. Bush within his tenure and the media had give the Governor a free pass without the same scrutiny as the Vice President until the eleventh hour revelation of the DUI. But this still left the basic question ? Why didn't Governor Bush simply release his military pay files and retirement points accounting records, which are the only OFFICIAL records that will show that he satisfactorily and honorably completed his service commitment?

Were there other issues that you discussed?

Yes. In each call, I, in essence scolded media representatives for not doing their homework and reviewing this information before the eleventh hour. When asked if I would go on record, I said, yes, I have nothing to hide even though I knew that the mention of my name with the Bush campaign would immediately strike a personal response because of my whistleblowing in 1998.

Again, was this a Democratic ploy as stated by Karen Hughes of the Bush staff?

No. Absolutely not.

Karen Hughes has again skirted the real issue and question. Dan Bartlett and the Governor have also refused to answer the basic question and furnish the OFFICIAL files that will resolve this issue. I am in no way linked to the Democratic Party. I am simply an energized citizen and retired soldier who would like to have the issues of each possible commander-in-chief resolved prior to the election, in order that we can escape holding another American Presidency hostage to actions and allegations by the opposing party in Congress. We have suffered from this partisanship for the past eight years. George W. Bush says that he is the only candidate who can bridge this impasse. This is his opportunity to start that process. This is what I believe other Americans share with me -- a sincere belief that they have the right and capacity to make educated decisions; but that candidates have the responsibility for full and complete disclosure.

I understand that Burkett was interviewed extensively for James Moore's forthcoming book, Bush's War for Re-Election. I'm very much looking forward to reading that.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum at Calpundit has a significant update -- solving, perhaps, the mystery of the torn document. This one will be fascinating to watch play out.

UPDATE 2: Marty Heldt also has a significant update -- having just received a letter from the National Personnel Records Center stating that there shouldn't have been any "new" documents in Bush's military records -- which appears to imply that the infamous "torn document" was inappropriately placed.

The letter also says: "It should be noted that tampering with or changing Federal records is a criminal offense under Title 18, Section 2071, and is punishable by fine or imprisonment."