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.