The President's criminal record

The mainstream media is tip-toeing lightly around this issue, but it seems pretty likely to me that the President has a criminal record dating back to the early 1970s.

There is not yet iron-clad proof that would stand up in a court of law, of course, but I think a reasonable person could put together the known facts and reach the conclusion that President Bush is likely hiding an arrest or conviction on a criminal charge, possibly involving illegal narcotics (update: or a DWI conviction, as a reader points out), most likely in Texas.

You don't have to hate Bush, you don't have to imagine the worst about him. You just have to look at the facts and use logic.

For example, if you ask a child five times, "Did you break this lamp rough-housing around the house?" and the child refuses to answer, tries to change the subject, offers that there certainly are lamps that he didn't break, accuses you of hating him and demands defensively why you're asking...well, you don't have iron-clad proof, do you? There's no confession, no smoking gun. But you're allowed to use your brain and assume that it is most likely that the kid broke the lamp.

That's all you have to do with this situation. Just take the known facts, including the President's responses to questions, and apply some common sense.

Some facts:

1) NO DENIAL. President Bush and his spokespeople have consistently refused to say whether the President has a criminal record dating to the early 1970s.

2) WELL, OKAY, A WEIRD NON-DENIAL DENIAL OF SORTS. The President has played an odd game, however--in response to questions about cocaine use during his 2000 campaign, Bush said he could have passed an FBI background check when his father was President. Those background checks apparently go back 7, 11 or 15 years, depending. George H.W. Bush took office in January 1989. A conviction for, say, possession of illegal narcotics in 1972 would not be covered by any of the possible time spans. Why would Bush give such an odd response? Why not issue a blanket denial? (FYI, he had no problem issuing a blanket denial regarding sex--he freely claimed, in a very clear way, with apparently no privacy concerns whatsoever, that he had never cheated on his wife.)

3) HE STOPPED FLYING WITH THE GUARD IN APRIL 1972. This is unusual--the Texas Air National Guard does not take lightly the inactivity of its very expensively trained pilots.

4) HE DIDN'T SHOW UP FOR HIS MEDICAL EXAM IN MAY 1972. As a result, he was officially grounded by the Air Guard. This remarkable fact remains unexplained to this day. David Niewert posts the latest evasions:

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Why did the President miss his physical?

MR. McCLELLAN: Are you talking about when he -- whether or not he -- I put out a response to that question yesterday, about whether or not he was rated by his commanders as a pilot.

Q Can I just ask you today, in 2004 --

MR. McCLELLAN: No.

Q -- why he missed his physical?

MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, there are some that -- again, this is a question of whether or not he served. That question has been answered through the documents that were released yesterday, and released previously.

Q I just want to hear from the White House Press Secretary --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not -- no, there are some -- Elisabeth, we've already addressed this issue. I'm not going to engage in gutter politics. I'm going to focus on what we're doing to make the world safer, to make the world a better place, and to make America more prosperous. If others want to engage in gutter politics, that's their choice. But I think that --

Q How is asking that question engaging in gutter politics?

MR. McCLELLAN: But I think the American people -- I think the American people deserve better.

Q Scott, how does that engage in gutter politics if I ask that question?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've been through these issues. I wasn't accusing you. I'm accusing some -- (Laughter.) But, you see, we went through --

Q -- the answer to that question today?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we went through these -- no, we went -- we've already addressed this issue. We went through it previously. We went through it four years ago, for sure.

Yes, with similar evasions--a disingenuous claim that "the question has been answered." If it had been, McClellan would just give a quick recap of that answer and move on.

5) BUSH APPARENTLY PERFORMED COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR SEVERAL MONTHS IN 1972. This was totally out of character. He was a carousing young man, then he suddenly became a charity worker for a few months, then he went right back to carousing again. Why the sudden, temporary urge to perform community service? Weird. And unexplained.

The evasions regarding community service are now getting bizarre. Josh Marshall put the latest weirdness up on his site. An excerpt:

Q: So you won't answer the question or you won't try to find out?

Scott McClellan: Well, I'm asking you, what's your interest in that question? I'm just curious, because rumors --

Q: Did he have to do any community service while he was in the National Guard?

Scott McClellan: Look, Helen, I think the issue here was whether or not the President served in Alabama. Records have documented --

Q: I'm asking you a different question. That's permissible.

Scott McClellan: Can I answer your question? Sure it is. Can I ask you why you're asking it? I'm just -- out of curiosity myself, is that permissible?

Q: Well, I'm interested, of course, in what everybody is interested in. And we have a very --

Scott McClellan: Let me just point out that we've released all the information we have related to this issue, the issue of whether or not he served while in Alabama. Records have documented as false the outrageous --

Q: I asked you whether he had to do any community service while he was in the National Guard.

Scott McClellan: Can I walk through this?

Q: It's a very legitimate question.

Scott McClellan: And I want to back up and walk through this a little bit. Let's talk about the issue that came up, because this issue came up four years ago, it came up four years before that -- or two years before that, it came up four years before that --

Q: Did my question come up four years ago, and was it handled?

Scott McClellan: Helen, if you'll let me finish, I want to back up and talk about this --

Q: Don't dance around, just give us --

Q: It's a straightforward question.

Did I say the evasions were getting "bizarre"? Actually, I guess "sinister" might be more accurate. Asking journalists why they want to know as a response to a question? Um, is this still America?

6) BUSH HAD A NEW DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER ISSUED IN 1995. This is another unusual event with no apparent explanation. But it is what one would do if one wanted to help cover a trail that might lead to an expunged criminal record.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist. Every fact above could have an innocent explanation, just like a broken lamp on the floor could have an innocent explanation. But Bush refuses to provide those explanations, which wouldn't be all that hard to do if they existed.

There's a good movie on the festival circuit. It's called "Horns and Halos," and I highly recommend seeing it if you can (UPDATE: Cinemax Feb. 18, 7 p.m.). It tells the story of the publication of "Fortunate Son" by J.H. Hatfield. Short version: Hatfield writes book for major publisher suggesting Bush was convicted on drug charges in Texas in 1972. Hatfield himself is exposed as having a criminal record--for solicitation of murder. Publisher says "Yikes" and pulls book. Indie publisher picks up rights and publishes book. Hatfield, facing unrelated fraud charges, later commits suicide.

Hatfield cannot at all be considered reliable. However, one conversation he relates in "Fortunate Son" is worth reading, if only because some enterprising reporter might want to check out where it may lead (not that there aren't several doing so already).

Here's the (edited) excerpt of Hatfield's conversation with Madge Bush (no relation), for 31 years the director of the Martin Luther King, Jr., Community Center in Houston, which was rumored in 2000 to be the place where young George W. Bush had performed community service as a legal punishment. She tells Hatfield she's denied the story to more than 50 reporters, then Hatfield says (p. 311)...

"Ma'am, I know Governor Bush wasn't ordered by a judge to perform community service at MLK Community Center for illegal drug use."

"Finally, someone believes me. Then if that's the case, what do you want to talk to me about?"

"I've done my homework, and I know you serve as a Texas state executive committee woman, precinct judge, and treasurer of the Harris County Democratic Party in Houston."

"You got a point to this call or is this where I hang up?"

"Yes, ma'am, I understand you've been hounded by the press and for that I'm truly sorry. But I just want to know if a diehard Democrat like youself would tell the truth about the governor if the right question was asked?"

"What do you mean by the 'right question?'"

"Did Governor Bush perform community service at another agency in Houston or elsewhere in Texas other than the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center?"

[Pause.]

"No comment...I'm not getting into anything about George except that he's the governor of Texas. That's all I'm gonna say about George W. Bush."

[Hangs up.]

Do I care if George W. Bush did some blow in the early 1970s and got caught? Not really. Bush, a Democrat, whoever--I wouldn't change my vote one way or another based on anyone's drug use as a young person. It's not a disqualifier.

But this is a guy who has fought the drug war like a motherfucker. There are people sitting in jail for life right now, in Texas, for doing what Bush himself may have done. He was their governor, and he did whatever he could to punish them even more.

He is accountable for that.