The Bush Memos Revisited

A week ago, I wrote rather forcefully (and, I believe, correctly) that it was far too early to tell whether the Killian memos were forgeries and that those on both sides who wanted to assert with certainty one way or the other were substituting wishful thinking for reality. Well now that another week has passed, that is no longer the case. At this point, I'd say the case that they are forgeries is quite strong and it's time to get off the fence. Interestingly, while the blogosphere is busy patting itself on the back claiming to have scooped Big Media on it, almost all of the reasons initially offered on Powerlineblog for why they were forgeries turned out to be false. The real killer, I think, was the fact that the experts that CBS allegedly had authenticate the documents all came out and said that in fact they had raised serious questions about the documents and CBS went ahead with them anyway. I never imagined CBS would be that lax, but apparently they were. And they are rightly taking an enormous amount of heat for it. On the overall issue, though, I can't do any better than what Virginia Postrel posted on her blog in an exchange with a friend of hers:

I think you're right on - the memos are Big Fakes AND Bush is a Child of Privilege. We have such a hard time accepting the Certsian Philosophy. Yes, it's a breath mint, and yes, it's a candy mint. It's two, two, two mints in one. Much of life is Certsian, but we so love our fights that we'll gin them up if we have to. It's a candy mint, damnit!

The reason this story doesn't resonate with me is that it doesn't do anything more than reiterate the obvious. Of COURSE Bush got political help in getting into the reserves and -- most likely -- took advantage of his privilege to avoid some of his duties. I don't even think Bush's biggest supporters actually believe otherwise. They generally just focus on micro-points, like whether he was honorably discharged (check) or actually put in flying time (check) or such. His spokespeople have done a brilliant job in the Ben Barnes debate by asserting time and time and time again that Bush's father NEVER EVER asked Barnes to get his son into the reserves. Which Barnes, himself never says; instead, Barnes tells what I think is probably the truth (which is, itself, never refuted by the White House) that a family friend was the one who did the asking. And the White House responds with its own micro-truth -- George HW Bush NEVER asked Ben Barnes for such a thing. And the media just completely ignore the fact that what Barnes is saying and what the White House is denying are not contradictory.

So much of these peripheral debates now are about micro-points like this: Where, exactly, was Kerry on Christmas Eve (latitude and longitude, if possible)? Was he throwing medals or ribbons? Proportional spacing is one thing, but what about the kerning? This, if you'll remember, is how OJ won his criminal trial, too -- by atomizing the relevant arguments into obscurity. We'll lay out dots of truth for you to follow. Ignore that big picture over there, please. It's misdirection taken to a level that a magician would envy.

And what it all comes down to is a Seinfeldean nothing.