Another fat-bellied, satiated Republican rat slithers away from the administration’s sinking ship to spend more time with the nest: Dan Bartlett. Ah, memories:

Bartlett handled damage control during the first Bush presidential campaign, particularly on questions regarding Bush’s National Guard service and business dealings. Bartlett collected [destroyed? faked?] documents, interviewed [prepped? intimidated? tampered?] people involved in the stories and confronted Bush with direct and often uncomfortable questions about the various controversies before fielding reporters’ [toothless, lackadaisical] inquiries [if any].

Yeah, you squashed the toothpaste back in the tube on that one, Dan. Good work, and it couldn’t have been easy, even with Unka Karl helping that has-been Dan Rather stumble on the wrong story. When all the time Paul Lukasiak had the goods, based on detailed examination of the actual Guard records:

I think its obvious to any reasonable person who looks at Bush’s military records that the only way to describe his actions was “dereliction of duty.” You don’t need to know what the specific rules and procedures were to recognize that Bush did not, as the White House insists, “fulfill his duty.” Simple common sense tells you that Bush did not have the authority to decide to stop flying, as the White House suggests that he did. Nor is it difficult to conclude that there is something wrong when someone doesn’t show up for over six months.

Je repete: Lukasiak had the goods. Because Lukasiak mastered the Guard’s requirements for duty, which nobody in our very well paid and famously free press* bothered to do:

Bush’s actual minimum participation requirements were far greater than those found in the US Code and CFRs, because his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 1125D, that of an F102 pilot, and F102 pilots were required to do far more than the absolute minimum. When one compares Bush’s record against the requirements of his actual job, there is no question that he failed to come anywhere close to meeting his obligations. Bush had two choices, either fulfill the requirements of his AFSC, or request a different job. He did neither.

So, I do wonder what Bartlett’s “direct and uncomfortable questions” were.  Read more 

I thought that the Republicans had mastered the art of talking entirely in cliches long ago, but those wacky Republicans! They can always surprise us. What House flak Dan Bartlett:

[BARTLETT] “What we aren’t doing is sitting there with our heads in the ground,” said White House counselor Dan Bartlett as he made the rounds of five morning television news shows. He said that the administration was “making tactical changes on a week-by-week basis as we respond to the enemy’s reactions to our strategies.”

Now, does anyone know what Dan Bartlett means here?

“Heads in the ground,” WTF?  Read more 

Dan Bartlett: “It’s never been a stay the course strategy.” But check the videos and the transcript.

This is blatant, even for the Republicans.  Read more