Via the NYT: McCain Denies Aides’ Statements About Lobbyist
Asked if he ever had a romantic relationship with the woman, Vicki Iseman, 40, Mr. McCain, 71, responded, “No.” He described his relationship with Ms. Iseman as “friends” and said he had last seen her “several months ago” at an event.
Mr. McCain said he knew nothing about an account in The Times from John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, who told the newspaper that he met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station at the time of Mr. McCain’s first presidential run in 1999 and told her to stay away from the senator. “I don’t know anything about it,” Mr. McCain said.
The BBC notes:
Speaking in Ohio with wife Cindy by his side, he said: “I’m very disappointed in the article. It’s not true.”
[...]
Speaking at a hastily arranged press conference in Toledo, Ohio, Mr McCain said he had done nothing that would conflict with his ethical standards.
“At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which would in any way not be in the public interest and would favour anyone and any organisation,” he said.
Now we move on to Act Three to see what the press/opposition response will be.
Sphere: Related Content
February 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I didn’t comment in the last post because I hadn’t yet read the actual Times article. Having done so, I’m a bit shocked that they published it at all, much less put it on the front page. I hate to sound like a partisan Republican crying about the left-leaning Times, but the article really does lack in the way of solid facts. It strikes me as a lot of innuendo.
For some reason it brings to mind those phony papers that someone circulated during W’s second campaign, about missing a physical in the National Guard or something, that Dan Rather took on the evening news.
I don’t think it’s going to stick.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“For some reason it brings to mind those phony papers that someone circulated during W’s second campaign, about missing a physical in the National Guard or something, that Dan Rather took on the evening news.
I don’t think it’s going to stick. ”
Comment by Captain D
W was AWOL from the Guard for just under a year, IIRC - that’s not even debatable anymore.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I’m a former Army Officer and have served as an Adjutant (personnel). You can’t be AWOL from the guard unless your unit is activated. I’m not a Bush lover, but you’re right, it’s not debatable whether he was AWOL. He was not, because AWOL is a crime that can only be committed by active-duty servicemembers. Missing scheduled weekend drills and the like does not constitute Absent Without Official Leave, as one does not need to obtain official leave in order to miss drills in the guard and reserve components. Having commanded in the reserve as well as active components, I’m quite familiar with the procedure for a soldier missing drill. Typically it entails a verbal authorization from the section leader or commander, and there is no paper trail.
If you don’t believe me about this, you can read it for yourself in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, chapter 47, article 2, paragraph a, subparagraph 3, which clearly states that persons in the national guard are only subject to chapter 47 (governing official leave and absence) when their unit has been activated for service in a federal capacity. So, even if the unit was activated by the state governor, chapter 47 would still not apply.
The reason for this is that Reservists and Guardsmen typically have other careers, as you can’t get by on the 300 bucks a month that the reserves pay. The military understands that sometimes there will be conflicts. Unit commanders are therefore delegated the authority to excuse members of their command with a minimum of red tape; you don’t have to fill out DA41, and in my command, didn’t have to put anything in writing at all. However, if you don’t show up, you also don’t get paid, which was the case for Bush’s absence. He didn’t get paid for the drills he didn’t show up for.
When I commanded in the Army Reserve, it was rare to have more than 50% attendance on a given weekend drill, with 25%-50% being typical, and yes, there were several soldiers who were excused for prolonged periods of time for either career or educational purposes. If someone wanted to track down a paper trail legitmizing their absence, there would not be one.
The Bush Guard flap was a demonstration of how little people know about the internal workings of the military, and a good demonstration of the failure of the media (for what reason, I don’t know, be it carelessness or deliberate malice) to report on those things. I suspect it was simply a case of the news being too boring to garner ratings.
It may have been that the commander excused him for a long period of time because of his connections, but that is not illegal - commanders have and use their authority to excuse soldiers from drill. That he was well-connected does not make it an instance of AWOL, nor does it illegitimize the action according to UCMJ. Maybe we don’t like that, but that’s how the rules are written.
In any case, I see similarity in the cases because the documents involved in Bush’s supposed unlawful absence were so clearly forgeries, and the sources of the documents of such dubious merit. Again, it was a lot of innuendo, and in the end it didn’t stick, for good reason.
For the record - I’m neither a Republican nor a Bush apologist. I believe there is enough to blame him for without inventing things. We do well as a society when we stick to the facts, and try our best to understand the rules that govern our society, rather than rush to judgement or allow the ends to justify the means.