Pubdate: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA) Copyright: 1999 Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Contact: http://www.seattle-pi.com/ Author: Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial Board PARSING IS SIGNAL OF SILLIEST SEASON We thought we'd heard it all with Bill Clinton's declaration that he had smoked marijuana but "didn't inhale." Now comes G. W. Bush and his hair-splitting arithmetic on the time period of his life within which he may or may not have been innocent of violating drug laws or standards for employment at the White House. Wednesday, the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate told reporters that yes, he could answer "no" to a standard question on federal background forms asking prospective employees if they have used illegal drugs in the past seven years. Thursday he was asked if he could have given the same answer when his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, was president and the federal forms demanded declaration of drug use in the prior 15 years. "Uh, let's see here . . . Yes, I could have," G. W. said. Bush spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said later that what the governor was saying was that he had not done illegal drugs since 1974. OK, asked a pesky reporter, what about when Bush's dad was vice-president? Could he have passed the 15-years-prior test then? Tucker said it was her understanding that the governor was answering questions about when his dad was president, not vice president. Deflecting further questions about Bush's past, she said, "This is it." If only it were. G. W. Bush has heaped fuel on the smoldering fire of whispered allegations about drug use in his past by first refusing to address the question and then engaging in this silly parsing. "Over 20 years ago, I did some things . . . " Bush says, "I made some mistakes and I learned from those. That's all I intend to talk about." Bush invoked another Clintonism in declining to say more. He said he would not play "the politics of personal destruction." A quick perusal of the record gives first credit for that phrase to Clinton White House spokesman Joe Lockhart, who in April of last year asked Democratic National Committee member Bob Mulholland to back off his threat to dig up dirt on Republicans bent on impeachment. On Jan. 2 another White House spokesperson, this time Amy Weiss, decried Hustler magazine's intention to dig dirt on Republicans in Congress, rejecting such "politics of personal destruction." David Rehr used the phrase in February to oppose efforts to smear his old friend Tom DeLay, the House Republican who led the drive for impeachment. Even former drug czar, secretary of education and national morality monitor William Bennett said yesterday that while Bush doesn't have to answer questions about past drug use, "he should." Bush, like Clinton, fails to realize that the issue is not his alleged illicit activity then but his prevarication now. If you have nothing to hide, why hide it? Maybe "youthful indiscretions" more than two decades ago shouldn't rise to the level of a legitimate presidential campaign. But perhaps being less than honest about them now should. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek Rea