Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard [Archive]

zimv20

Sep 9, 2004, 01:04 AM

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/politics/09guard.html?hp)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - President Bush's Vietnam-era service in the National Guard came under renewed scrutiny on Wednesday as newfound documents emerged from his squadron commander's file that suggested favorable treatment.

At the same time, a once powerful Texas Democrat came forward to say that he had "abused my position of power" by helping Mr. Bush and others join the Guard.

Democrats also worked to stoke the issue with a new advertisement by a Texas group that featured a former lieutenant colonel, Bob Mintz, who said he never saw Mr. Bush in the period he transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard.

The documents, obtained by the "60 Minutes" program at CBS News from the personal files of the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, Mr. Bush's squadron commander in Texas, suggest that Lieutenant Bush did not meet his performance standards and received favorable treatment.

One document, a "memo to file" dated May 1972 , refers to a conversation between Colonel Killian and Lieutenant Bush when they "discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November," because the lieutenant "may not have time."

The memo said the commander had worked to come up with options, "but I think he's also talking to someone upstairs."

Colonel Killian wrote in another report, dated Aug. 1, 1972, that he ordered Lieutenant Bush "suspended from flight status" because he failed to perform to standards of the Air Force and Texas Air National Guard and "failure to meet annual physical examination (flight) as ordered."

Colonel Killian also wrote in a memo that his superiors were forcing him to give Lieutenant Bush a favorable review, but that he refused.

"I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job," he wrote.

CBS, which reported on the memos on "The CBS Evening News" and "60 Minutes," declined to say how it obtained the documents.

Separately, former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes of Texas voiced regret for what he said was helping the privileged escape service in Vietnam.

"I'm not particularly proud of what I did," said Mr. Barnes, who in the 1960's was speaker of the Texas House at 26 and lieutenant governor at 30. "While I understand why parents wanted to shield their sons from danger, I abused my position of power by helping only those who knew me or had access to me."

Mr. Barnes, 66, an adviser to Senator John Kerry's campaign and an influential lobbyist with offices in Austin and Washington, said in a interview with The New York Times that he had intervened to get Mr. Bush, as well as other well-connected young men, into the Guard in 1968. He made similar comments on "60 Minutes" on Wednesday.

Mr. Barnes maintained, as he has since 1999, that he had contacted his friend who headed the Texas Air National Guard, Brig. Gen. James Rose, not at the behest of anyone in the Bush family, but rather a Houston businessman, Sidney A. Adger, a friend of the Bushes who has died.

"Yes, I called Rose to get George Bush into the Guard, I've said that," Mr. Barnes said in his office last week in Austin. "I called Rose for other sons of prominent families, and I'm not proud of it now."

A new commercial, produced by a group of Democrats, Texans for Truth, is to begin on Monday in five swing states that have lost high numbers of soldiers in Iraq. It features a former lieutenant colonel in the Alabama Guard, Bob Mintz, who lives in Tennessee. He told a columnist for The New York Times, Nicholas D. Kristof, for a column published on Wednesday, that he was actively looking for Lieutenant Bush at the Alabama base in the 1970's, because he had heard that Lieutenant Bush was a fellow bachelor who might like to party with him and other pilots. In the spot, Mr. Mintz said neither he nor his friends ever saw Mr. Bush.

"It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size," he says.

The unit had 20 to 30 pilots.

In a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, Mr. Mintz was pressed about his recollections and whether he might have missed seeing Mr. Bush, possibly because Mr. Bush was no longer flying at that point and was working in an office position. Mr. Mintz said repeatedly he never saw Lieutenant Bush.

Adding to the picture of Mr. Bush's service, The Boston Globe reported on Wednesday that he fell short of meeting his military requirements and was not disciplined despite irregular attendance at required drills.

The paper said Mr. Bush signed documents in July 1973, before he left Houston for the Harvard Business School, promising to meet his training commitments or be punished by being called up to active duty.

Mr. Bartlett said on Wednesday that Mr. Bush was given permission to attend Harvard. He said that if there were any requirements Mr. Bush was not meeting, "the National Guard at the federal level, the state level and the local level, they all knew where he was."

IJ Reilly

Sep 9, 2004, 01:20 AM

zimv20

Sep 9, 2004, 02:05 AM

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6693-2004Sep8.html)

Records Say Bush Balked at Order
National Guard Commander Suspended Him From Flying, Papers Show

By Michael Dobbs and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 9, 2004; Page A01

President Bush failed to carry out a direct order from his superior in the Texas Air National Guard in May 1972 to undertake a medical examination that was necessary for him to remain a qualified pilot, according to documents made public yesterday.

Documents obtained by the CBS News program "60 Minutes" shed new light on one of the most controversial episodes in Bush's military service, when he abruptly stopped flying and moved from Texas to Alabama to work on a political campaign. The documents include a memo from Bush's squadron commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, ordering Bush "to be suspended from flight status for failure to perform" to U.S. Air Force and National Guard standards and failure to take his annual physical "as ordered."

The new documents surfaced as the Bush administration released for the first time the president's personal flight logs, which have been the focus of repeated archival searches and Freedom of Information Act requests dating to the 2000 presidential campaign. The logs show that Bush stopped flying in April 1972 after accumulating more than 570 hours of flight time between 1969 and 1972, much of it on an F-102 interceptor jet.

According to "60 Minutes," Killian's personal files show that he ordered Bush "suspended from flight status" on Aug. 1, 1972. National Guard documents already released by the White House and the Pentagon show that Bush was suspended from flight status on that day for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination" but do not mention his alleged failure to comply with National Guard and Air Force standards.

In another "memo to file," dated Aug. 18, 1973, Killian complained that he was under pressure from his superior, Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, to "sugar coat" Bush's officer evaluations. "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job," he wrote in a memo titled "CYA." "I will not rate."

Sayhey

Sep 9, 2004, 03:26 AM

I watched the 60 Minutes piece on same this evening, and I have to say my reaction is "so what?" Didn't we already know that Bush had strings pulled to get him into the Texas National Guard? Didn't everybody who was well-connected and didn't want to go to Vietnam do just that? He had privilege and he exercised it.

The only news here (and it's really old news, but it serves as a reminder of what that time was like), was Barnes sharing his regret for helping the sons of the connected to escape service. Those names on the wall -- they're the ordinary schmoes who had the choice of the draft, enlistment or Canada. Rich man's war, poor man's fight. As always.

The documents that go along with the 60 Minutes story are more of a "blockbuster" nature than Barnes statement. Barnes had already told some of this before, but it is clear that Bush has lied about many aspects of his service in the TANG, his Alabama "sabbatical," and his lack of service in Boston. Those lies, some as recent as the 2000 race are more important than the fact of all the strings that were pulled all those years ago. Look for more stories on how documents have both been destroyed and withheld. It's always the cover up that gets them.

pseudobrit

Sep 9, 2004, 03:59 AM

I'm comparing this to the Swift Boat Veterans flap, and the disparity in the nature of each "scandal" is nearly polar opposite.

SBVFTT, a private partisan used personal recollections of men who didn't serve under Kerry to defame Kerry's actions during deadly combat, recollections that differed from Kerry's retelling and official accounts from that time, including official accounts from those who have now changed their story.

By all official records and legitimate recollection, John Kerry is a war hero.
This fact has been unchallenged until now, which is why Kerry has never had to defend his record.

-------------------

The AP, a nonparitsan news service, uncovered, by filing lawsuits, DoD documents detailing Bush's attempt at total dereliction of duty and obvious family interference in any attempt to discipline him for abandoning his commitment. There are appreciable official records that differ from Bush's retelling. There have been corroborating statements by several people involved in the story.

By all official records and legitimate recollection, George Bush abandoned his military post and used political connections to avoid discipline.

This fact has been unprovable until now, which is why Bush had been able to so defiantly defend his record.

blackfox

Sep 9, 2004, 05:54 AM

My reaction to this somewhat falls in line with IJ's response, but I must say, as damaging as this information might be, it is not news to me...and frankly, even if it was, I would rather hear news about incidents that happened in this century. Call me quaint, but I feel there are more than enough issues to draw upon for debate since 2000...what happened 30 years ago is of a secondary importance, at best...

toontra

Sep 9, 2004, 06:01 AM

I'm comparing this to the Swift Boat Veterans flap, and the disparity in the nature of each "scandal" is nearly polar opposite.

SBVFTT, a private partisan used personal recollections of men who didn't serve under Kerry to defame Kerry's actions during deadly combat, recollections that differed from Kerry's retelling and official accounts from that time, including official accounts from those who have now changed their story.

By all official records and legitimate recollection, John Kerry is a war hero.
This fact has been unchallenged until now, which is why Kerry has never had to defend his record.

-------------------

The AP, a nonparitsan news service, uncovered, by filing lawsuits, DoD documents detailing Bush's attempt at total dereliction of duty and obvious family interference in any attempt to discipline him for abandoning his commitment. There are appreciable official records that differ from Bush's retelling. There have been corroborating statements by several people involved in the story.

By all official records and legitimate recollection, George Bush abandoned his military post and used political connections to avoid discipline.

Let's not forget to add to the list: Bush wearing military medals which he was not awarded - LINK (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=87238)

mactastic

Sep 9, 2004, 10:35 AM

Sayhey

Sep 9, 2004, 10:55 AM

I think Kevin Drum, over at the Washington Monthly, raises the appropriate questions from these documents.

Full confession: my first reaction when I saw these memos (and heard Dan Rather's cagey refusal to say where they came from) was skepticism. Were they for real?

Apparently so. In fact, the White House has now released their own copies of two of the memos and doesn't dispute their authenticity. So if I had to guess, I'd say that these are copies taken from the microfilm archives of the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. How else would the White House have its own copies?

But that's just fluff. The real question now is: what other documents does the White House have? Obviously they've had these sitting around for a while, and just as obviously they've held them back even though they claimed in February that they had made available every known document related to Bush's National Guard record.

So what else are they hiding? And when are they going to approve AP's FOIA request to view all relevant microfilm records directly?

Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/)

IJ Reilly

Sep 9, 2004, 10:59 AM

The documents that go along with the 60 Minutes story are more of a "blockbuster" nature than Barnes statement. Barnes had already told some of this before, but it is clear that Bush has lied about many aspects of his service in the TANG, his Alabama "sabbatical," and his lack of service in Boston. Those lies, some as recent as the 2000 race are more important than the fact of all the strings that were pulled all those years ago. Look for more stories on how documents have both been destroyed and withheld. It's always the cover up that gets them.

You make a good point there -- we'll see if this story has any legs. For that to happen I think somebody is going to have to come forward with a credible statement that Bush's honorable discharge is also dubious, because this the Bush campaign's constant defense (and so far it seems to be working).

mactastic

Sep 9, 2004, 11:44 AM

Yeah, the real issue this raises is the lying. If this is true, Bush has been lying for 30 years and has lied recently about both his service and what records of his service the WH either knows of or has in their possession, but hasn't released.

dotnina

Sep 9, 2004, 01:15 PM

IJ Reilly

Sep 9, 2004, 01:26 PM

The attacks on Kerry's service record are despicable, but I've always thought that the main point of interest here was that Bush was in favor of the war in Vietnam, but opted not to fight in it. How he managed to swing his non-service is part of the story, which becomes larger if it can be shown that he fibbed. Either way, the indisputable fact that he wanted others to fight a war in his behalf tells me volumes about the personality of the man, and certainly has at least some current relevance.

SiliconAddict

Sep 9, 2004, 01:35 PM

SiliconAddict

Sep 9, 2004, 01:37 PM

personality of the man, and certainly has at least some current relevance.

Well lets be real here. Anyone who's been paying attention the last 4 years know the personality of Shrub and it sure isn't a polished glowing one.

IJ Reilly

Sep 9, 2004, 04:35 PM

I'm way into real.

So long as the question of whether Bush used his family influence to gain a spot in the National Guard remains a matter of he said/he said, it pays to emphasize the known. We know he favored the war but avoided serving on active duty. It's a character issue, it's irrefutable, and I hope Kerry faces him down with it in a debate.

pseudobrit

Sep 9, 2004, 04:47 PM

We know he favored the war but avoided serving on active duty.

Which is compounded when you think that he didn't even bother to complete the cakewalk he so needed to dodge the war.

Perhaps he should have filed for Conceited Objector status.

IJ Reilly

Sep 9, 2004, 05:46 PM

True, but Kerry has a fine line to walk here. He doesn't want to sound like he's devaluing Guard duty, especially now that Bush has so many of them eating sand over in Iraq.

themadchemist

Sep 9, 2004, 06:03 PM

Stuff like this will only help Kerry if people are listening. And I don't think they are. For some reason the SVBT ads were absorbed easily into the national conscienious, but the TFT ads are getting almost no newsplay. And newsplay is the big force multiplier.

Al Franken discussed this phenomenon, I think astutely, in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. His discussion was in reference to Al Gore, but I think it sheds light on what's going on here. Basically, the media prematurely made its decision of what Gore's personality was. For whatever reason, he was unfairly defined as a credit-hogging stiff. When the right-wing butchered and misquoted him to create a false impression of his message (for example, when he said that the action of a high school girl had helped to make a big impact, the right wing quoted him as saying that his work had made a big impact), the mainstream (some would say "liberal") media did not contest this incorrect characterization. Instead, having made its decision that it would portray Gore in this manner, it devoured the "evidence" that the right-wing groups dished out and propagated this falsehood. Who helped the media to create this persona for Gore? Well, of course, our helpful conservative media groups that spewed a lot of falsified rhetoric, rhetoric in which everyone seemed to delight and revel.

Similarly, in the case of Kerry, things stick because the right-wing does such a damn good job at portraying him as a fuzzy flip-flopper whose word can't be trusted because of excessive wavering. Therefore, the media pays attention and gives air-time to just about everything that "demonstrates" his moral vagueness, even if it is false. He's a flip-flopper and a fibber and everything that suggests that gets at least preliminary credence. More importantly, since the media shapes people's perceptions of politicians, the public is also conditioned to consider Kerry a flip-flopper and a fibber, just as it was conditioned to consider Gore a credit-hogging stiff. Therefore, even when the media discredits specific allegations (like the SVBT's), the public buys into those allegations after hearing them, because they only add "proof" to a conclusion already reached.

Juxtapose this perception against that of Bush. The media created a public personality for Bush that was far more useful to him than that with which Kerry and Gore have had to grapple. Bush is portrayed as an all-around down-to-earth, nice, and trustworthy kind of guy, if somewhat bumbling and perhaps not-so-bright. As has been repeated on several occasions, "he's the kind of guy you'd want to have a drink with." That is, if he weren't a recovering alcoholic whose penchant for booze almost ruined his and Laura's lives. But, the past is the past when it comes to Bush, because he's such a nice and honest fella. Therefore, when we find out that the Bush administration has lied about this or that, it doesn't stick for a lot of people, because those people have already decided that Bush is a nice and honest fella. When we find out that Bush has lied about his Vietnam record, it doesn't stick for a lot of people, either. Why? Because those people have already decided that Bush is a nice and honest fella. Thus, in order to prevent their finer sensibilities from being abused, these people don't want to study Bush's record; no, let the past be the past. When it comes to Kerry, though, the misshapen past helps to corroborate a hypothesis and thus is fair and relevant game.

It's an unfair racket, this politics business, and despite the conservatives' righteous indignation at this "left-wing media conspiracy," it seems that at least recently, it's been the Dems who've gotten screwed by the media giants' distorted, unfair, and even biased portrayal.

Leo Hubbard

Sep 9, 2004, 08:49 PM

The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040909d.html

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.

stubeeef

Sep 9, 2004, 09:38 PM

zimv20

Sep 9, 2004, 09:45 PM

documents without source, taken as gospel, that are increasingly viewed as cheap fonies!!!!!!!

didn't the WH release those same documents after 60 Minutes did their piece? or did i hear wrong?

stubeeef

Sep 9, 2004, 10:07 PM

didn't the WH release those same documents after 60 Minutes did their piece? or did i hear wrong?

You heard wrong. Release being the word in question, the White House on request has forwarded it to those requesting it, they will tell you that it is a copy of the copy they received.

I will concede that W doesn't have a glowing vietnam war history, while better than clintons, it is not as good as the democratic sen from Hawaii or Sen Dole's WWII. I prefer W's to kerry's by a long shot, especially after kerry returned home.

It seems that we have two candidates with less than glowing vietnam war histories, now that everyone knows this can we get to the substance please. And I mean this on BOTH sides.

But I can tell you, dan rather and the boston rag deserve each other on this one, may they fry. We need a thread contrasting Brokaw, Jennings, and rather. If 60 minutes doesn't jump on a retraction tomorrow, advertisers could pull out, which is just as good. I plan on emailing companies that had ads on the show last night.

As a kerry supporter, how do you feel about him dodging the press core?
(BTW I AM IN THE APPLE STORE AT MALL OF AMERICA TONIGHT :) )

mactastic

Sep 9, 2004, 10:54 PM

Sayhey

Sep 10, 2004, 12:51 AM

kerry and his rabid lacky dan rather, along with co-conspirators the boston globe have stepped in it now!

boy do we need to resurrect the bias media thread again?

documents without source, taken as gospel, that are increasingly viewed as cheap fonies!!!!!!!

kerry's left wing conspirator machine has exposed itself and its members.

I think my favorite part is the senators that used this word processed documents to berate our commander and chief as a liar!!!

pure slander...........

even the son of the commanding officer this garbage is purported to have come from, has denounced'em as foney.

Soon the left biased media will renounce kerry. In fact, cnn and fox were pushing the fact that he hasn't taken press core questions for 40 days. the response from kerry's press secretary?.......summized....a tactic so that we don't step on our own message!!!!!

Holy cr*p!!!!!!! You mean-to slow the flipping machine!!!!

Lots of luck kerry fans.

Where do you get this stuff? Dan Rather and CBS News as an arm of the Kerry campaign? Right wing paranoid delusions aside, it it going to take a lot more than a superscript "th" to invalidate these documents. The existence of typewriters that allowed for this function in the early 70's should not be in question. In fact, some of the documents issued by the Bush White House as part of its document "dump" in February also exhibit this feature. If the Weekly Standard or anyone else wants to invalidate the evidence they are going to have to do much better than this. Smells of desperation to me.

IJ Reilly

Sep 10, 2004, 01:04 AM

Somebody call 911. I think we've got a limbaugh overdose on our hands.

Sayhey

Sep 10, 2004, 01:26 AM

Somebody call 911. I think we've got a limbaugh overdose on our hands.

I agree IJ, while it is always possible that someone is trying to pull something over on CBS, to jump to the conclusion that (1) they are involved with fraud on the basis of supposedly being an adjunct of the Kerry campaign, or (2) that there is something wrong with the CBS documents based on the flimsy evidence so far bandied about is all just plain tin-foil hat time.

IJ Reilly

Sep 10, 2004, 01:43 AM

There's a lot of it about. I'm happy to see a great deal of skepticism offered about this RNC prison in NY thing from people who are no friends of the GOP. At least I don't have to be associated with the tinfoil hat crowd.

Leo Hubbard

Sep 10, 2004, 05:07 AM

Lol, now that the shoe's on the other foot you want to move on? Where was this sentiment when Kerry was taking it on the chin from the SVBT ads?

Sure I'd be happy to discuss issues with you. When was Dubya's last press conference?
SBVT ads from people who were actually there questioning Kerry's war record is valid, considering it appears that the only reason Kerry has used to vote "for" him is because he was a vietnam vet. Plenty of reasons they have used to vote against Bush, how about more reasons to vote "For" Kerry.

katchow

Sep 10, 2004, 08:41 AM

Plenty of reasons they have used to vote against Bush, how about more reasons to vote "For" Kerry.

and vice versa

stop saying that terrorists love democrats and stop calling us wimps and we can stop reminding you that we've fought wars for our country.

wordmunger

Sep 10, 2004, 08:47 AM

Leo Hubbard

Sep 10, 2004, 09:03 AM

wordmunger

Sep 10, 2004, 09:10 AM

They were so obvious why did they fool a liberal like Dan Rather?
Because he's a stupid, arrogant jerk, perhaps?

Sayhey

Sep 10, 2004, 11:16 AM

I'm a liberal, and I'm voting for Kerry, but these documents are obvious fakes. Everyone needs to admit it and move on. They're clearly Times Roman, made in MS Word with its stupid auto-superscripting.

In fact, they're such lousy fakes that it makes one wonder whether the person perpetrating the fraud WANTED them to be caught. But the Bush campaign couldn't really be that insidious ... could they?

You might be right, wordmunger. I note that the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html) now has a story that raises questions about the authenticity of the documents based on independent experts. I also note that CBS states they had their own experts examine the documents and they were also verified by people who knew the officer in question. If it does turn out someone forged the documents then CBS needs to explain where they got them. What shouldn't follow, except in the minds of far-right loonies, are wild accusations directed toward the Kerry campaign.

Lancetx

Sep 10, 2004, 11:27 AM

Well, regardless of where or from whom they came from, the docs are obvious fakes. They were generated in Microsoft Word which obviously didn't exist at that time. I just wish everyone in the media would shut up about 30+ year old news and get back to the present day. Nobody cares about what Bush did in 1972, just as nobody cared about Clinton dodging the draft back then either. CBS was just looking to get some publicity and with Kerry plummeting in the polls, they were hoping to get a shot in at Bush, but it's now blown up in their face. Now it's time to move on.

Backtothemac

Sep 10, 2004, 11:46 AM

Ok, here is the real issue. The documents are 100% fake. Totally fake. 60 minutes said they recieved the documents, but not from where they recieved them. But, make no mistake about it, they are fake.

Now, that being said, why would someone do that. There is a difference between some 527 (that Bush has spoken out against BTW) taking a shot at a candidate because of conflicts in the record of the candidates own diary and non-forged documents, and creating a series of fake documents to slander a person.

Weak, sissy, pathetic tactics if you ask me. And if they are linked to the Kerry campaign. This election will be over.

Sayhey

Sep 10, 2004, 12:00 PM

No, the documents are not obviously fakes. These are documents that could have been written on typewriters of the time period. Take a look at the arguments at the Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603) that largely shoot down the early nonsense running rampant on the web. It is entirely possible that they are fakes, but the argument that they couldn't have been generated by early 1970's machines is just false. I'd like to see the reasoning of both the Post's and CBS's experts on the subject before I come to any conclusion.

Also, for those interested, here is CBS's statement on the controversy.

CBSNews (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml)

And finally, B2TM, I could just as easily make a claim that, if the documents are forged, this is all the work of the Bush campaign in order to discredit the many new stories about Bush's missing months of service. Let's find out where these memos come from before we start blaming one side or the other.

stubeeef

Sep 10, 2004, 12:35 PM

Democratic pollster on fox today said if these documents are proven false it is over for kerry.
Thank you morons at CBS, it may turn out that you were infact the biggest supporters of W after all, certainly the most effective!

katchow

Sep 10, 2004, 12:37 PM

Democratic pollster on fox

nuff said...

Lyle

Sep 10, 2004, 12:46 PM

And if [the forgeries] are linked to the Kerry campaign, this election will be over.Wishful thinking, but I doubt it.

Let me begin by saying that I haven't read anything that suggests that this is linked to Kerry's campaign, and I don't think such a link exists or will be shown to exist. But even if such a link were discovered, you need to recognize that a lot (if not the majority) of the support for Kerry seems to be fueled by the "anybody but Bush" sentiment, and I honestly don't believe that such a revelation would have a significant effect on those voters' minds. And, to be fair, there's not a lot that could happen at this point that would change the minds of die-hard Bush supporters either.

wordmunger

Sep 10, 2004, 12:54 PM

Wishful thinking, but I doubt it.

Let me begin by saying that I haven't read anything that suggests that this is linked to Kerry's campaign, and I don't think such a link exists or will be shown to exist. But even if such a link were discovered, you need to recognize that a lot (if not the majority) of the support for Kerry seems to be fueled by the "anybody but Bush" sentiment, and I honestly don't believe that such a revelation would have a significant effect on those voters' minds. And, to be fair, there's not a lot that could happen at this point that would change the minds of die-hard Bush supporters either.
If they are linked to significant members of the Kerry campaign, it will indeed be curtains for Kerry. This election rests in the hands of the swing voters, and they won't elect a president they don't trust.

That said, the very invocation of the statement "if they are linked to the Kerry campaign" by a so-called pollster (or more likely, his questioners on FOX) is obviously a sly method of trying to pin this on Kerry, without the slightest shred of evidence that that's what happened. The Kerry campaign is not stupid enough to perpetrate a forgery -- they know full well how it would backfire if it was found out.

IJ Reilly

Sep 10, 2004, 01:04 PM

Just out of curiosity: Why would anyone in their right minds try to use Microsoft Word to forge documents that purport to have been written during the early 1970s? Would it have been impossible or even difficult to locate an IBM Selectric typewriter, which was the state of the art back then? I don't think so. I mean, you can find the bloody things at thrift stores these days. So I am perplexed. If these documents are indeed forgeries, then are they not the most obvious, amateurish and inept forgeries imaginable? If that is the case, how did they fool the independent experts hired by CBS to authenticate them?

wordmunger

Sep 10, 2004, 01:12 PM

If these documents are indeed forgeries, then are they not the most obvious, amateurish and inept forgeries imaginable? If that is the case, how did they fool the independent experts hired by CBS to authenticate them?

I'm starting to think the same thing. The online "experts" looking at these documents presumably don't have access to the same quality documents CBS had.

Now we learn that that indeed, such swanky typewriters did exist. Apparently Killian's secretary had just such a machine -- yet another example of your government's pork-barrel politics at work. WTF some podunk military secretary needed access to a high-falutin' superscripted "th," lord only knows.

[I know I hate it when ever MS word does its stupid auto-superscript thing. Why can't the computer just type the same thing I do? {yes, I know I can just turn it off, but I can't when I'm on a public computer}]

Backtothemac

Sep 10, 2004, 01:17 PM

Leo Hubbard

Sep 10, 2004, 01:25 PM

typewritters back then typed the superscript in the exact same font as the rest of the text. All it did was go up a half a line, or down a half a line for a subscript. I think that th is smaller then the rest of the text?

IJ Reilly

Sep 10, 2004, 01:43 PM

Selectrics were expensive, but "very, very?" No, not really. Every office I ever worked in during the '70s (and '80s) had them on every secretary's desk because they were far and away the best typing machines available at the time. I don't know about superscripting, but I do remember the Selectrics as being very flexible machines and even a bit complicated. A huge variety of type balls were available, and the typewriter had switches on the front for selecting type spacing and the like.

But I go back to my original question: If someone were trying to forge a document written in the 1970s, why would they use Microsoft Word, and how could an expert be fooled?

Sayhey

Sep 10, 2004, 01:43 PM

Sayhey, I have actually testified in forgery trials before on this very subject. Yes, the IBM selectrics did have the ability to do superscript. However, they were very, very expensive. The US military did not have the funds at the time for use the most modern up to date typewriters. And, they did not produce superscript in the same way that is shown in the document.

Moreover, while there were verisons of writers that had the ability to do times new roman, the reality is that NONE would do times new roman, and superscript. That is the problem. The spacing, the proportional width, everything about it screams fake. Not to mention that the widow of the man who "wrote" these memos has said that her husband could not type.

To think the republicans would release this to discredit reports. I don't think they are that smart really. That is a huge risk.

B2TM, I linked to the Daily Kos in an earlier post to deal with some of these questions. In particular, please read the following section.

"OK, fine, but no single machine had proportional spacing, 'th' characters, and a font like that one."

No, again. *The IBM Executive is probably the most likely candidate for this particular memo. *There is some confusion about this, so to clear up: *the IBM Selectric, while very popular, did not have proportional spacing. *The Selectric Composer, introduced in 1966, did, and in fact could easily have produced these memos, but it was a very expensive machine, and not likely to be used for light typing duties. *The proportional-spacing Executive, on the other hand, had been produced in various configurations since the 1940's, and was quite popular.

I am not an expert in this field so perhaps if you have some knowledge you can comment on the points made at this site. I don't know if these are forgeries, but many of the arguments being made to say they are "obviously" faked are just plain false.

I have to run - will look for your response later.

IJ Reilly

Sep 10, 2004, 02:09 PM

A picture of one from an early '70s ad:

http://www.etypewriters.com/d-exec.jpg

wordmunger

Sep 10, 2004, 02:15 PM

Sayhey, I have actually testified in forgery trials before on this very subject. Yes, the IBM selectrics did have the ability to do superscript. However, they were very, very expensive. The US military did not have the funds at the time for use the most modern up to date typewriters. And, they did not produce superscript in the same way that is shown in the document.

Moreover, while there were verisons of writers that had the ability to do times new roman, the reality is that NONE would do times new roman, and superscript. That is the problem. The spacing, the proportional width, everything about it screams fake. Not to mention that the widow of the man who "wrote" these memos has said that her husband could not type.

To think the republicans would release this to discredit reports. I don't think they are that smart really. That is a huge risk.

The font on the memos was not times new roman. It's similar, but even in the faxed versions you can see the difference between times new roman and the memo font, especially in the a's and g's.

It's looking like these things were definitely produced on a typewriter, but whether or not they are forgeries remains to be seen. For more details, look at the links above, or This thread (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=4669) from Washington Monthly, which includes statements from folks who've serviced the typewriters in question.

meta-ghost

Sep 10, 2004, 02:27 PM

Ok, here is the real issue. The documents are 100% fake. Totally fake.

a bold (and shall we say, pre-mature) statement.

Weak, sissy, pathetic tactics if you ask me.

you mean like the swift boat liars?

And if they are linked to the Kerry campaign. This election will be over.

if they are fake, a more likely candidate would be carl rove. so far he has been a master at preventing the media from talking about the issues we should be discussing - 200 billion for a disaster in iraq, the biggest middle class wage reduction in history, the rise of christian fundamentalism, and the list goes on. all of these issues don't exactly favor the chimp.

Thomas Veil

Sep 10, 2004, 02:41 PM

Pretty much all of this is speculation right now, so I'm not even gonna offer an opinion one way or the other...

...other than if anyone associated with the Democratic party did this, it is totally, unbelievably stupid; and if Karl Rove did this, it is totally, unbelievably Machiavellian.

BTW, Kerry should come out RIGHT NOW with a statement saying that if these documents are fakes, then it is despicable behavior, and if anybody involved with his campaign is involved, they will be sacked and if possible prosecuted.

zimv20

Sep 10, 2004, 03:35 PM

If these documents are indeed forgeries, then are they not the most obvious, amateurish and inept forgeries imaginable?
i think we'll have to ask joseph wilson that one.

i don't know if these things are faked or not. more data needed. if the higher-ups in the kerry campaign _are_ somehow responsible, let me say it would cause me to think very hard about my support for kerry.

not so much for thinking or trying it, but for being so bloody incompetent at it.

mactastic

Sep 10, 2004, 04:04 PM

Weak, sissy, pathetic tactics if you ask me. And if they are linked to the Kerry campaign. This election will be over.

And if the SVBT liars are connected to the Bush campaign, would you say the election is over as well? Would you call those 'weak, sissy, pathetic tactics' as well? Probably not huh. You seemed pretty happy to let lying liars spread perjerous statements about Kerry without calling them anything.

Oh wait, the SVBT guys ARE connected to the Bush administration. D'oh!

meta-ghost

Sep 10, 2004, 04:39 PM

And if the SVBT liars are connected to the Bush campaign, would you say the election is over as well? Would you call those 'weak, sissy, pathetic tactics' as well? Probably not huh. You seemed pretty happy to let lying liars spread perjerous statements about Kerry without calling them anything.

Oh wait, the SVBT guys ARE connected to the Bush administration. D'oh!

it would be interesting if someone had the time to go back to the swift boat liars thread and compare comments of those here who so quickly called these docs forged.

Backtothemac

Sep 10, 2004, 04:44 PM

And if the SVBT liars are connected to the Bush campaign, would you say the election is over as well? Would you call those 'weak, sissy, pathetic tactics' as well? Probably not huh. You seemed pretty happy to let lying liars spread perjerous statements about Kerry without calling them anything.

Oh wait, the SVBT guys ARE connected to the Bush administration. D'oh!

These are seperate issues. How can you connect the two? The latest SBVT add says that POW's were hurt because of Kerry's statements here, and by meeting with the N. Vietnemese leaders in France.

So, how the hell can you link the two?

Backtothemac

Sep 10, 2004, 04:52 PM

B2TM, I linked to the Daily Kos in an earlier post to deal with some of these questions. In particular, please read the following section.

I am not an expert in this field so perhaps if you have some knowledge you can comment on the points made at this site. I don't know if these are forgeries, but many of the arguments being made to say they are "obviously" faked are just plain false.

I have to run - will look for your response later.

Let me be clear. Yes, there were typewriters that could have done the proportional font, however, they were very, very expensive. They futhermore were even more difficult to use. They really did not sell much, and the biggest thing was the superscript. It was not as small as it appears in the memo. They were slightly larger, and were offset above the line of type that they appeared on. The superscript that appears in the memo is formated at just above the other type. This is where the problem lies. The superscript on the typewriters were above the line, and nearly contacted the line above the type.

I say they are fake because I look at the formatting, the spacing, the superscript, the fact that the second memo wasn't signed. The fact that the wife says the husband could not type. The fact that he did not put other memo's on other documents. That those that knew him are pissed that his name has been drug into the mater.

blackfox

Sep 10, 2004, 04:53 PM

You know, once again I wish to express my extreme displeasure and disbelief that it seems that the Election may ultimately pivot on issues such as this (or the SBVFT).

I mean, WTF? Why is everyone caught up in the validity of documents/claims of 30+ years ago, when there are pressing, relevant issues that deserve to be addressed by those who hope to be the next President.

*like Health-care reform
*like Social security reform
*like Education reform
*like Iraq
*like further tax-cuts
*like the WOT (concrete actions)
*like the health of the US economy
*like job-creation

These are relevant issues to the voters, or they should be. I will ask, however, who has the most to gain from directing the debate towards such issues? If you insist on concentrating on this document issue, remember the simple issue of motive(s) and the principle of occam's razor.

meta-ghost

Sep 10, 2004, 04:55 PM

These are seperate issues. How can you connect the two? The latest SBVT add says that POW's were hurt because of Kerry's statements here, and by meeting with the N. Vietnemese leaders in France.

So, how the hell can you link the two?

i'm not exactly following your logic. but for the record:

1) whether or not pow's were hurt by kerry's statements and meetings is a matter of opinion and can be debated.

2) whether or not kerry saved someone's life and came under fire can be established as fact (and has been) by people who were actually there, and by the records.

truth and opinion are separate things.

meta-ghost

Sep 10, 2004, 04:58 PM

Let me be clear. Yes, there were typewriters that could have done the proportional font, however, they were very, very expensive. They futhermore were even more difficult to use. They really did not sell much, and the biggest thing was the superscript. It was not as small as it appears in the memo. They were slightly larger, and were offset above the line of type that they appeared on. The superscript that appears in the memo is formated at just above the other type. This is where the problem lies. The superscript on the typewriters were above the line, and nearly contacted the line above the type.

I say they are fake because I look at the formatting, the spacing, the superscript, the fact that the second memo wasn't signed. The fact that the wife says the husband could not type. The fact that he did not put other memo's on other documents. That those that knew him are pissed that his name has been drug into the mater.

i'd be careful here if i was you. right now the onus is on cbs and they happen to be digging in their heels. they have much to lose.

NEW YORK, Sept. 10 PRNewswire -- Later today, CBS News will address on the air and in detail the issues surrounding the documents broadcast in the 60 MINUTES report on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. At this time, however, CBS News states with absolute certainty that the ability to produce the "th" superscript mentioned in reports about the documents did exist on typewriters as early as 1968, and in fact is in President Bush's official military records released by the White House. This and other issues surrounding the authenticity of the documents and more on this developing story will be reported on tonight on THE CBS EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER.

IJ Reilly

Sep 10, 2004, 05:05 PM

As in, how expensive? I'm not saying I know how much an IBM Executive cost, but they evidently were fairly common. If you know how much they cost, then by all means, confess.

Just a reminder for those who are too young to know or are too old to remember: During the 1970s, the people who knew how to type were called "secretaries." Almost nobody else typed or were skilled enough to do it themselves on any regular basis. So the fact that the supposed author of these memos didn't know how to type is extraordinarily irrelevant.

zimv20

Sep 10, 2004, 05:08 PM

to IJ's point -- just yesterday i saw a coworker typing in(to the computer) a memo hand-written by the boss.

pseudobrit

Sep 10, 2004, 05:19 PM

to IJ's point -- just yesterday i saw a coworker typing in(to the computer) a memo hand-written by the boss.

And didn't higher ups in the service have as SOP a clerk or adjutant to deal with their paperwork?

I'm remembering specifically guys who landed in Normady lugging typewriters to hammer out the XO's reports.

IJ Reilly

Sep 10, 2004, 05:21 PM

to IJ's point -- just yesterday i saw a coworker typing in(to the computer) a memo hand-written by the boss.

I'll bet the boss is male and over 60.

I remember how difficult it was to convince my boss that it actually made sense for me, and not just my secretary, to have computers on our desks. As far as he was concerned, a department head was supposed to write out their reports on yellow legal tablets and hand them to the secretary for retyping (or later, word processing). After much wailing and moaning I finally got the computers (Mac SEs, btw). This was in the late '80s...

zimv20

Sep 10, 2004, 05:27 PM

I'll bet the boss is male and over 60.
she's in her 30s and is actually quite adept w/ her mac, both internet stuff and graphics. i have no idea why she just didn't email it.

but to support your cause -- an ex-girlfriend of mine worked for a temp agency. at one of her assignments, Arthur Andersen, her sole duty was to print out emails for a partner, an elderly guy. she said it was boring (she felt the need to express that to me, so i thought i'd include that :-)

Backtothemac

Sep 10, 2004, 05:27 PM

IJ Reilly

Sep 10, 2004, 05:39 PM

Lyle

Sep 10, 2004, 05:54 PM

i don't know if these things are faked or not. more data needed. if the higher-ups in the kerry campaign _are_ somehow responsible, let me say it would cause me to think very hard about my support for kerry.

not so much for thinking or trying it, but for being so bloody incompetent at it.

I'm going to leave work a little early to try to catch the "CBS Evening News" tonight, just to see what he (Dan Rather) will say. I mean, as meta-ghost has already noted, it sounds like CBS News is sticking to their guns on this one, so I'm not expecting any tearful apologies; but the mounting evidence that something's fishy can't be swept under the rug.

The question of whether the allegedly forged documents are linked to the Kerry campaign is a separate issue. Like you say, I don't believe there's a link simply because I can't imagine that they would be this incompetent.

meta-ghost

Sep 10, 2004, 06:06 PM

The question of whether the allegedly forged documents are linked to the Kerry campaign is a separate issue. Like you say, I don't believe there's a link simply because I can't imagine that they would be this incompetent.

if there fake, look to carl rove.

2jaded2care

Sep 10, 2004, 06:20 PM

Anyone know where I can get a professional-looking yard sign with a check-mark graphic on it, and "None of the above" written next to it?

Not joking. Please let me know.

IJ Reilly

Sep 10, 2004, 06:24 PM

Not joking.

Not laughing.

No matter how I feel about this election and the candidates, I can't persuade myself to believe that the outcome doesn't matter.

Sayhey

Sep 10, 2004, 06:25 PM

IJ, I believe the executives were in the $600 range. They were very over priced. They had a dial on the right side of the keyboard to dial in the proportion. Very complex.

I would assume that his secretary would have typed the memo as well, and the old yellow selectric was used by the military then, but I have never known of a military secretary with an executive series.

I would like to say thought that the SBVT and all other 527's are crap, junk, and I hate them.

The trap that Kerry is falling into is spending his time trying to answer those claims instead of ignoring them.

B2TM,

for those of us old enough to remember the Golden Fleece Awards (http://www.taxpayer.net/awards/goldenfleece/about.htm) given out annually by former Senator Proxmire, the argument that these typewriters were too expensive, and therefore couldn't be afforded by the military, really doesn't hold water. Besides they weren't that expensive. The real question is did the TANG have any of these machines? There ought to be some purchasing records of what they had. I'm sure we will find out sooner or later. It is clear that these same machines had the ability to deal with superscript, so unless there is a clear indication by experts that these IBM typewriters are ruled out as possible sources of these documents then your assertions aren't very convincing.

If there really is proof that these documents are forgeries then all this speculation becomes interesting, but until then mostly it is a lot of dust thrown up that obscures the real questions raised about Bush's refusal to take a required physical, report for duty, and to attend required drills. For me, as I stated before, the main issue is that it looks like Bush has been lying and covering up his record in order to boost his chances for election in Texas and for President. These are valid recent issues of character that need to be answered, even if the questions of parental influence and special treatment during Vietnam are not that relevant. How about asking Bush to explain how he got out of taking his required physical or why he didn't report for months in Alabama and not at all in Massachusetts? Then we can ask why he has lied about it for all these years.

blackfox

Sep 10, 2004, 06:29 PM

Anyone know where I can get a professional-looking yard sign with a check-mark graphic on it, and "None of the above" written next to it?

Not joking. Please let me know.
Put something together on your computer and take it to Kinkos (or equivalent)...there you go.

I believe that the only people laughing are the handlers of the Bush Campaign, who have managed to take a candidate with rather pathetic real-world credentials and put him in the lead for re-election.

Pretty sad indictment of our current system...

Backtothemac

Sep 10, 2004, 06:37 PM

Chip NoVaMac

Sep 10, 2004, 06:55 PM

Well, I have been spending the better part of the day looking at the documents. In addition to the horizonal proportional spacing. There is also vertical proportional spacing. I am 100% positive that NO typewriter had that technology at that time. See and i would take as much space as an m, but, the problem is in the vertical line spacing. A typewriter could not do proportional spacing in that matter. That is why I think it is a fake.

Man, you found out the truth! It was doen by the men behind the grassy knoll.... :rolleyes:

Backtothemac

Sep 10, 2004, 07:38 PM

Man, you found out the truth! It was doen by the men behind the grassy knoll.... :rolleyes:
And your point :rolleyes:

pseudobrit

Sep 10, 2004, 07:40 PM

Well, I have been spending the better part of the day looking at the documents. In addition to the horizonal proportional spacing. There is also vertical proportional spacing. I am 100% positive that NO typewriter had that technology at that time. See and i would take as much space as an m, but, the problem is in the vertical line spacing. A typewriter could not do proportional spacing in that matter. That is why I think it is a fake.

Aren't you looking at a scanned copy of the document on your computer screen?

Last week we had someone telling us the Pentagon attack couldn't have been a plane because of a photo on the internet, too.

Backtothemac

Sep 10, 2004, 07:43 PM

Aren't you looking at a scanned copy of the document on your computer screen?

Last week we had someone telling us the Pentagon attack couldn't have been a plane because of a photo on the internet, too.

LOL. Yea, you have a point. I would love to get my hands on the original. I am just speaking from seeing the copy. I don't know who did it, but I am just saying that it looks fake to me.

meta-ghost

Sep 10, 2004, 07:51 PM

Ok, here is the real issue. The documents are 100% fake. Totally fake. .... But, make no mistake about it, they are fake.

but I am just saying that it looks fake to me

sounds like your starting to hedge your bet.

Sayhey

Sep 10, 2004, 08:52 PM

Here's the latest statement from CBS.

...CBS News Anchor Dan Rather says many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th."

Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript – including one from 1968.

Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.

But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style says it has been available since 1931.

Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. But he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.

Matley did this interview with us prior to Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.

"We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person."

Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence.

Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures."

Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the documents have come up.

"I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it."

Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real.

"They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved."

Killian died in 1984.

Strong says the highly charged political atmosphere of the National Guard at the time was perfectly represented in the new documents.

"It verged on outright corruption in terms of the favors that were done, the power that was traded. And it was unconscionable from a moral and ethical standpoint. It was unconscionable," Strong said.

The president's service record emerged as an issue during the 2000 race and again this winter. The Killian documents revived the issue of Mr. Bush's time in uniform after weeks in which Democratic challenger John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester.

The questions about Mr. Bush's service center on how Mr. Bush got into the Guard and whether he fulfilled his duties during a period from mid-1972 to mid-1973.

What the Killian memos purport to show is that Mr. Bush defied a direct order to appear for a physical exam, that his performance as an officer was lacking in other ways and that Mr. Bush used family connections to try to quash any inquiry into his lapses.

In a separate revelation, the Boston Globe this week reported that Mr. Bush promised to sign up with a Boston-area unit when he left his Texas unit in 1973 to attend Harvard Business School. Mr. Bush never signed up with a Boston unit.

CBSNews (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml)

zimv20

Sep 10, 2004, 09:06 PM

playing devil's advocate here...

if i were on the WH spin team, when those docs came out -- and i believed them to be genuine -- i would immediately put the story out that they were fakes and come up w/ some kind of (ANY kind of) justification why.

once the media and public start arguing about the finer points of faking documents and signatures, my job is done. i'm off to the bar for a beer, then home to **** the wife, later sleeping the carefree dreams of children. because no one is talking about the underlying issue.

stubeeef

Sep 10, 2004, 10:45 PM

If you must use a link from CBS, here is the other side.............
If the ole man was so big on CYA, he would have kept the docs close, duh!
But they are sourceless, and the family, contradicts them. At this point it is up to CBS to clear themselves, and boy at best it will be he said she said, cause the independants are not impressed.

BTW I've got some REAL docs on the alien conspiracy to farm the human race, now I know I'll have rabid rather on my side too!

As an ex-military aviatior, the date of his required physical is a joke, I REPEAT FOR THE NON-AVIATOR, NON-MILITARY, THE DATE DOESN'T MATCH THE REAL WORLD REQUIRMENT.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131997,00.html

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word. Lines, a document expert with the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (search), pointed to a superscript — a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" — as evidence indicating forgery.

"I'm virtually certain these were computer-generated," Lines said. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.

CBS on Friday defended the authenticity of the Guard memos, which were supposedly produced by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian (search), who died in 1984.

"The documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but sources familiar with their content," CBS News said.

The network's statement said typewriters were available in the early 1970s which were capable of printing superscripts. CBS pointed to other Texas Air National Guard documents released by the White House that include an example of a "th" superscript.

But one of Killian's fellow officers, an independent document examiner and Killian's own son doubted the veracity of the memos.

In an interview with FOX News, Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he is "very dubious" about the genuineness of the documents.

[Click here for more on the interview.]

He said his father was "not in the habit of keeping secret files," didn't have a home office, didn't work after leaving his office and didn't have available to him at work the kind of typewriter that was apparently used to compose the documents.

Gary Killian said the sentiments in the documents didn't reflect his father's "true feelings" about Bush, and that if his father had actually written the papers, he would have signed them using his full name, not just "CYA," which is on the documents.

He also said his father would have typed such a document himself, "hated" typing and was a "very poor" typist. "He did not type memos to himself," Gary Killian added, saying it was "too much effort" and "very dangerous … not a good practice."

The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake.

"They looked to me like forgeries," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years."

Killian's widow, Marjorie Connell, described the records to The Washington Post as "a farce," saying she was with her husband until the day he died in 1984 and that he did not "keep files." She said her husband considered Bush "an excellent pilot."

"I don't think there were any documents. He was not a paper person," she said, adding that she was "livid" at CBS journalists who did not, she said, ask her to authenticate the records.

CBS said it has "complete confidence" in its reporting and will continue to pursue the story.

"For the record, CBS News stands by the thoroughness and accuracy of the "60 Minutes" report this Wednesday on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard," CBS said. "This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking."

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday the White House, which distributed the memos after obtaining them from CBS, was not trying to verify their authenticity. "We don't know if the documents are fabricated or authentic," McClellan told reporters traveling with the president to West Virginia.

McClellan suggested the memos surfaced as part of "an orchestrated effort by Democrats and the Kerry campaign to tear down the president."

Chip NoVaMac

Sep 10, 2004, 11:23 PM

And your point :rolleyes:

Sorry, my attempt at humor.

Your post sounded like some conspiracy theory rambling.

meta-ghost

Sep 10, 2004, 11:54 PM

and boy at best it will be he said she said, cause the independants are not impressed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131997,00.html

fox news "independant". i love it.

pseudobrit

Sep 11, 2004, 05:16 AM

fox news "independant". i love it.

You forgot the (sic).

skunk

Sep 11, 2004, 05:19 AM

You forgot the (sic).
Hey. That's my job.

pseudobrit

Sep 11, 2004, 05:50 AM

no one is talking about the underlying issue.

Enough with this talk of superscript and typewriters and other things concerning these "fuzzy documents."

Back to the important stuff...

Which was Kerry not really earning those medals, right?

Or was it Kerry personally raping every little girl in a small Cambodian village on Christmas before burning it to the ground with only his bare hands and a grenade, then asking for a Purple Heart when his grenade shrapnel hit him? 'Cause you know he admitted to that.

Or was it about his flip-flopping when he voted against a bill that, if it wouldn't have passed, would have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans in terror attacks and caused our entire armed forces to be wiped out overseas because of lack of funding?

All while he earned billions selling ketchup so he could buy yachts and mansions and funnel cash into communist and fundamentalist Muslim terror (which should be spelled as it is pronounced in the King's English: terr'r. Also see: nucular) organisations, right?

Wow I'm glad we have a red blooded, true American, a real Texas cowboy (he's got the ranch to prove it, and a 10,000 sqaure foot ranch built on 1600 acres with a swimming pool and 10 acre man-made pond stocked with 5,000 bass fish ain't no ****ing yuppie mansion like Kerry's got!) who's not afraid to look these terr'rists in the eye and say "bring it on" and "we're gonna getcha, dead 'r alive" in the White House.

Without him, we'd all be dead from invasions of Muslim hordes who would take our guns and our Jesus. (Or Saddam's nucular hellfire that he would have unleashed on us if Bush hadn't foiled his plans to import that Nigerian Uranium by invading just when he did.) And even if you did live, you'd be suffering under some commie healthcare system that'd have you paying higher taxes and waiting in lines and filling out piles of paperwork.

Thank God for capitalism and thank God for Bush!

pseudobrit

Sep 11, 2004, 05:52 AM

Hey. That's my job.

To get (sic)?

skunk

Sep 11, 2004, 05:59 AM

Pass the (sic)bag... :rolleyes:

stubeeef

Sep 11, 2004, 07:51 AM

If the mechanics are in question, now it seems so is the content.

The general in the article had retired a year before it was written, the report it refers to is not the right kind, the date for the physical is insane, they are sourceless, every member of the family denies them, the signature looks like a cut and paste, the documents still are not available to be scrutinized, 60 min got introuble for this kind of stuff about 6 years ago, ................

Did anyone else notice rather, he was about to burst last night, a bit rabid I think.

If I have papers proving something dramatic, like alien world domination, wouldn't it be important that they were real, or is it just important that since we are talking about it-it is therefore important. If that didn't make sense to you then welcome aboard.

OF COURSE, NOW I GET IT, HE DIDN'T TYPE THEM, HE HAD THE ALIENS TYPE IT FOR HIM, THEY TIME WARPED INTO THE FUTURE, TYPED IT IN WORD, AND TIME TRAVELED BACK, IT IS OBVIOUS............

kuyu

Sep 11, 2004, 10:18 AM

mactastic

Sep 11, 2004, 10:43 AM

These are seperate issues. How can you connect the two? The latest SBVT add says that POW's were hurt because of Kerry's statements here, and by meeting with the N. Vietnemese leaders in France.

So, how the hell can you link the two?

Hmm, one group is questioning John Kerry's honor, and the other is questioning Bush honor.

How the hell can you NOT link them?

And how do you feel about the man who admitted to his great shame that he personally used his influence to get Bush and the sons of many other prominent people into the Guard knowing that decision could mean someone else's kid could die?

How would you feel about Kerry if there were year long gaps in his service record?

And where is your skepticism about the claims of the SVBT group? You seem to have plenty of skepticism of these memos...

Leo Hubbard

Sep 11, 2004, 11:36 AM

And how do you feel about the man who admitted to his great shame that he personally used his influence to get Bush and the sons of many other prominent people into the Guard knowing that decision could mean someone else's kid could die?

...
How about the daughter of that man who is now calling her own father a liar, saying that he admitted to her that he had pulled no strings years ago. :eek:

IJ Reilly

Sep 11, 2004, 12:03 PM

Enough with this talk of superscript and typewriters and other things concerning these "fuzzy documents."

Back to the important stuff...

By the powers vested in me by MacRumors, I hereby declare this to be the "Rant of the Week."

Wait a minute, MacRumors hasn't vested any powers vested in me. Oh well.

Anyway, I heard yesterday that a right-wing blogger posted a "debunking" of the memos even before the 60 Minutes program was over. Now, that's interesting. More to chew on, conspiracy fans!

Sayhey

Sep 11, 2004, 12:41 PM

Page 4 already??? Well, I better chime in.

I've got no idea if these things are fake or not. I've heard from multiple news sources that they are fake and real. Hmm...

Anyway, I'm with Blackfox here. Lets get over this stuff that happened 30 years ago. Kerry served in Vietnam and was awarded some medals, END OF STORY. Bush served in Air Guard and flew fighter planes, END OF STORY.

We really should be focusing on the here and now. Instead, we've got this dumb medalgate/memogate nonsense dominating the election.

Bottom line: Bush Sr. pulled strings to keep his son safe. Kerry's people pulled strings to get him home in four months. Both acted "less than presidential" in their youth. Given the chance or opportunity to keep your children safe in this war, what would you do? Given everyone's answer (Air Guard), do you feel that this would mean your kid couldn't be president? Weird how the situation looks different when it's your family.

Kuyu,

this is the type of "equivalency" that the Bush Campaign is looking for people to make. There is no equivalency. "Kerry's people" did not "pull strings" to get out of Vietnam early. He left his second tour of duty after he received his third wound in combat and was awarded his third Purple Heart. This was by policy set by the military at the time - not some special dispensation to Kerry. Kerry served with honor PERIOD. Bush did not. He receive special favors to get into the TANG and away from combat. He received special favors to escape discipline for not taking his physical, not reporting for duty, and not following a direct order. All of this may not matter in your view of the current election, but the two men are in no way the same. For others these issues, especially the continued use of lies, show the character of the two men - and George Bush comes out looking quite bad.

kuyu

Sep 11, 2004, 07:42 PM

Kuyu,

this is the type of "equivalency" that the Bush Campaign is looking for people to make. There is no equivalency. "Kerry's people" did not "pull strings" to get out of Vietnam early. He left his second tour of duty after he received his third wound in combat and was awarded his third Purple Heart. This was by policy set by the military at the time - not some special dispensation to Kerry. Kerry served with honor PERIOD. Bush did not. He receive special favors to get into the TANG and away from combat. He received special favors to escape discipline for not taking his physical, not reporting for duty, and not following a direct order. All of this may not matter in your view of the current election, but the two men are in no way the same. For others these issues, especially the continued use of lies, show the character of the two men - and George Bush comes out looking quite bad.

Sayhey,

I think you missed the point of my post. I'm not trying to draw some parallel between Bush's or Kerry's service records. IMHO, Kerry wins in that battle. I said that we need to get past this medalgate/memogate stuff and focus on issues. Both sides have a mountain of stuff that makes the other look like a chump (some true and some not, on both sides).

We should focus on each man's record since being elected. This way, we can make intelligent choices about the ability of Bush and Kerry to effectively lead our nation given the current geo-political situation(s). I think there's a great argument to be made in favor of both candidates.

This election is critical. The tone of the next 20 years, politically speaking, will be set this November. While neither man will ruin the world (quote and insert snide anti-Bush/anti-Kerry remark here), the overall demeanor of the USA as a global superpower hangs in the balance of this particular election. As such, we should put this giant mud-wrestling match into perspective. Is has a place in the discussion, no doubt, but it shouldn't be the main order of business. Hope that clarifies my original post.

Leo Hubbard

Sep 11, 2004, 09:15 PM

The 60 Minutes Documents:

Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."

Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud".
CBS responds: ""We believed Col. Hodges the first time we spoke with him. We believe the documents to be genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted_Now.html

CBS was told by Killian's family members that he didn't write memos to himself, and he liked Bush back then and wouldn't of written something like that.

The way I understand it that memo doesn't even follow standard military dating format, something those in the military always follow.

Sayhey

Sep 11, 2004, 10:11 PM

We should focus on each man's record since being elected. This way, we can make intelligent choices about the ability of Bush and Kerry to effectively lead our nation given the current geo-political situation(s). I think there's a great argument to be made in favor of both candidates.

This election is critical. The tone of the next 20 years, politically speaking, will be set this November. While neither man will ruin the world (quote and insert snide anti-Bush/anti-Kerry remark here), the overall demeanor of the USA as a global superpower hangs in the balance of this particular election. As such, we should put this giant mud-wrestling match into perspective. Is has a place in the discussion, no doubt, but it shouldn't be the main order of business. Hope that clarifies my original post.

Then let's start another thread on any topic of more importance - say the War in Iraq or the "War" against Terrorism - and debate the two candidates record and proposals on dealing with them. I'm with you that these are much more important.

Regarding the topic of this thread, I hate it when the right-wing starts chanting falsehoods and expects everyone to believe them. I don't know if these documents are real, although I suspect they are, but I do know that after reading total nonsense by people who think they know everything about what "must" be true, I'm disgusted by the way the content of the documents and the testimony, along with sound evidence by other sources (ie the Boston Globe,) have been ignored by legitimate news agencies caving into the bellowing of right-wing fools.

zimv20

Sep 11, 2004, 10:20 PM

so at least one of the experts has now changed his mind and withdrawn his opinion that they're fake.

link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/11/MNGO68NEKR1.DTL)

Philip Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the documents in an interview with the New York Times, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe Friday that after further study, he now believed the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.

[...]

Bouffard, the Ohio document specialist, said that he had first dismissed the Bush documents because the letters and formatting of the memos did not match any of the 4,000 samples in his database. But Friday, Bouffard said that he had not considered the IBM Selectric Composer. Once he compared the memos to Selectric Composer samples, Bouffard said, his view shifted.

In the Times interview, Bouffard had also questioned whether the military would have used the Composer, a large machine. But Friday he provided a document indicating that as early as April 1969 the Air Force had completed service testing for the Composer, possibly in preparation for purchasing the typewriters.

As for the raised "th" that appears in the Bush memos, Bouffard said that custom characters on the Composer's metal typehead ball were available in the 1970s.

"You can't just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer," Bouffard said.

Thomas Veil

Sep 12, 2004, 12:11 PM

<snip>
And that's how this whole thing will probably end -- provable neither one way or the other.

zimv20

Sep 12, 2004, 12:13 PM

And that's how this whole thing will probably end -- provable neither one way or the other.
but will somehow reflect negatively on kerry...

Leo Hubbard

Sep 12, 2004, 04:00 PM

but will somehow reflect negatively on kerry...
Considering the fact that the person who signed it had been out of the military for over 18 months prior to the date of the memo, I doubt very much its real.

Durandal7

Sep 12, 2004, 04:52 PM

Leo Hubbard

Sep 12, 2004, 04:59 PM

Let me first say that I don't consider this a really important story in relationship to the election or politics.

I do however think that this is a major story in relation to the media. It doesn't really matter who the memos incriminate or what they say, what does matter is the questions it raises about the journalistic practices of the media. I'm not so much concerned with the memos as the fact that a major news outlet did such poor investigation.

Basically, I don't view this as a Republican or Democrat issue, I view it as a CBS issue.
I view it as further evidence of left wing biased in the mass media.
Add to that Kelly is getting 3 days on Today to promote her book. How come 60 minutes or any of them never promote a right wing book like Sean Hannidy's? They seem to only promote those books with left wing agendas.

zimv20

Sep 12, 2004, 05:15 PM

I'm not so much concerned with the memos as the fact that a major news outlet did such poor investigation.

Basically, I don't view this as a Republican or Democrat issue, I view it as a CBS issue.
if i read you right, you're presupposing that the docs are fraudulent. if it turns out they're not (like we'll ever know for certain, right?), then i think you might reach the opposite conclusion about the media.

stubeeef

Sep 12, 2004, 06:48 PM

I view it as further evidence of left wing biased in the mass media.
Add to that Kelly is getting 3 days on Today to promote her book. How come 60 minutes or any of them never promote a right wing book like Sean Hannidy's? They seem to only promote those books with left wing agendas.

BINGO

IJ Reilly

Sep 12, 2004, 07:43 PM

Is that a fact? It seems to me that Mr. O'Neill made quite a few laps of the TV talk show circuit recently promoting his book. Or did you forget that one?

Boy, I wish I could live in such a simplistic fantasy world. It would make life so much easier to figure out.

stubeeef

Sep 12, 2004, 08:16 PM

stubeeef

Sep 12, 2004, 10:25 PM

Where do you get this stuff? Dan Rather and CBS News as an arm of the Kerry campaign? Right wing paranoid delusions aside, it it going to take a lot more than a superscript "th" to invalidate these documents. The existence of typewriters that allowed for this function in the early 70's should not be in question. In fact, some of the documents issued by the Bush White House as part of its document "dump" in February also exhibit this feature. If the Weekly Standard or anyone else wants to invalidate the evidence they are going to have to do much better than this. Smells of desperation to me.

A good, but short summation

http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf

pseudobrit

Sep 12, 2004, 11:13 PM

Sayhey

Sep 13, 2004, 01:03 AM

Why does the fact that Microsoft Word can make an identical looking document somehow invalidate them?

You'd think that it'd be pretty unremarkable that the most advanced computer technology could do what it's designed to do -- successfully imitate the technology of 30 years ago.

It of course means nothing, but the fact that the claims of "experts" saying that it was impossible for these documents to be produced by 1970's era typewriters have been proven false should make all those people who jumped to the conclusion that the docs were fake think again about their categorical statements. It is clear that some posters here haven't learned that lesson yet.

Now how about the facts of the case? Bush didn't report to a Massachusetts Guard unit. He didn't take a physical he was mandated to take (it was not optional as he suggests.) There is no proof he showed up for months (there should be pay records for this time) in Alabama. All of this, plus the testimony of many others to these facts raise questions that the White House refuses to answer. In fact, they have demonstrably lied about some of these facts. Let's talk about that instead of speculation about how someone could have forged documents with modern technology. The moon may be made of green cheese, but unless you have proof it is, such frivolous speculation only makes the people who spout it look foolish.

IJ Reilly

Sep 13, 2004, 02:52 AM

Get him a 3 day gig with commrade katie, and you will reach hero worship status.

And this is a response to what, exactly? Or is it an admission that your statement was so much horsepoop?

Leo Hubbard

Sep 13, 2004, 07:11 AM

It of course means nothing, but the fact that the claims of "experts" saying that it was impossible for these documents to be produced by 1970's era typewriters have been proven false should make all those people who jumped to the conclusion that the docs were fake think again about their categorical statements. It is clear that some posters here haven't learned that lesson yet.

Now how about the facts of the case? Bush didn't report to a Massachusetts Guard unit. He didn't take a physical he was mandated to take (it was not optional as he suggests.) There is no proof he showed up for months (there should be pay records for this time) in Alabama. All of this, plus the testimony of many others to these facts raise questions that the White House refuses to answer. In fact, they have demonstrably lied about some of these facts. Let's talk about that instead of speculation about how someone could have forged documents with modern technology. The moon may be made of green cheese, but unless you have proof it is, such frivolous speculation only makes the people who spout it look foolish.
How about the fact that the guy who supposedly signed the paperwork had exited the military 18 months prior to when he allegedly signed it? My mistake the guy who signed it hadn't exited the military 18 months prior, but the guy that was allegedly putting pressure on him had. Sorry retired people can't put on a whole lot of pressure.

Leo Hubbard

Sep 13, 2004, 07:29 AM

Well ... things seem to be falling apart for poor, poor pitiful CBS. Let's just look at the high points.

1. Col. Walter Staudt was pressuring Lt. Col. J.B. Killian to "sugarcoat" Bush's proficiency reports. There's just one problem here. Staudt had retired from the National Guard by the time these memos were written. He no longer had any command authority over Killian. Would Killian be writing memos about pressure he was receiving from a National Guard commander who had retired some time before? Or .. did whoever made up these documents fail to check some important dates, like retirement dates. Oh well.

2. CBS had the documents "authenticated" before Dan Rather brought his story to the air. By who? Retired National Guard Maj. General Bobby Hodges, that's who. Rather said that Hodges was "familiar with the documents" and that it took great courage for him to come forward as he did and authenticate him. Well, General Hodges has a different story to tell. Hodges says that yes, CBS did talk to him. According to Hodges a CBS reporter read him extracts from the documents that Killian was supposed to have written. Hodges did tell CBS that he had some conversations with Killian about Bush, but that he never confirmed the authenticity of the documents. What is CBS's response? CBS says that they believed Hodges the first time they talked to him. In other words, he was telling CBS the truth then, but that he is lying now. In other words, when Hodges provides information that hurts Bush, he's telling the truth. When he provides information that might help Bush, he's lying. Hodges, the man CBS referred to as their "trump card," now says that the documents are forgeries.

3. Both J.B. Killian's widow and his son say that the documents obtained by CBS are fakes. But what do they know .... they only knew this man better than anyone else alive.

Now, the latest. All CBS had to do to make the case that these documents were real was to come up with a typewriter capable of producing these documents in 1973. Oh ... and it has to be a typewriter that one could reasonably expect a National Guard Lt. Colonel who doesn't type might have available for his use. So, Saturday night CBS did just that. They came out with a report that the IBM Selectric Composer could produce the type and the effects that were found on Killian's memos. The Boston Globe also reported Saturday that their document expert said taht the documents could have been composed on an IBM Selectric Composer which was available at the time the documents were written. U.S. News & World Report is getting in on the action by referring to an "IBM Selectric Composer typewriter which [was] commonly used in 1972.

Not so fast. Even though CBS referred to the IBM Selectric Composer as a "typewriter." That's like referring to a Mont Blanc as a "ballpoint." Just do a little Googling with the words "IBM Selectric Composer" and you'll find that it isn't just a "typewriter," it's a typesetting machine. It was used to produce justified camera-ready copy for publications. The price for this machine in the early 1970's was from $3,500 to $4,500 dollars. In 2004 dollars that would be from $16,000 to $22,000. If you want to believe that a National Guard Lt. Col. typed memos in 1973 on a "typewriter" with an equivalent cost of $20,000, you go ahead. You should know, however, that the Air National Guard, then and now, generally receives much of its equipment as hand-me-downs from the Air Force.

CBS, the Boston Globe and other media outlets have a problem. They are institutionally dedicated to the idea of doing everything thing they can get away with to make sure that George Bush is defeated in November and that John Kerry becomes the 44th president of the United States. 60 Minutes, which, by the way, has quite a history of using false and forged documents in its stories, apparently has done so again. Dan Rather and his associates know that if CBS steps forward and admits that it was duped, that they used faked and forged documents in a story designed to attack the credibility of George Bush, the assumption is going to be that those documents came from the Kerry campaign. Now I know of no evidence whatsoever that Kerry or his campaign staff was behind these forged documents, but millions of Americans, Americans who may now be on the electoral fence, are going to think that's the case. How, then, does CBS come forward and admit that they were duped without creating a backlash against Kerry?

I suspect that they'e working on that problem at this very moment.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Leo Hubbard

Sep 13, 2004, 07:33 AM

eek I did that google search Boortz was talking about for that typewritter.

The first IBM Composer was the IBM "Selectric" Composer announced in 1966. It was a hybrid "Selectric" typewriter that was modified to have proportional spaced fonts. It is 100% mechanical and has no digital electronics. Since it has no memory, the user was required to type everything twice. While typing the text the first time, the machine would measure the length of the line and count the number of spaces. When the user finished typing a line of text, they would record special measurements into the right margin of the paper. Once the entire column of text was typed and measured, it would then be retyped, however before typing each line, the operator would set the special justification dial (on the right side) to the proper settings, then type the line. The machine would automatically insert the appropriate amount of space between words so that all of the text would be justified.

http://www.ibmcomposer.org/SelComposer/description.htm
Who would type a memo with this thing?

Backtothemac

Sep 13, 2004, 10:03 AM

Leo Hubbard

Sep 13, 2004, 10:05 AM

UGH. YES, you could use a composer, or an executive selectric to do proportional fonts, HORIZONALLY ACCROSS THE LINE.

NOT VERTICALLY!

Those memos have vertical proportional spacing, and that has only existed for about 10 years.

THAT IS WHY THEY ARE FAKE.

Now, can we talk about something more import than Bush, the Guard, Kerry and a damn swift boat. Christ.
You can in other threads. :D
The thing I like about forums is that you can basically hold down several conversations on several topics simultaneously. That and you don't have to worry about people interupting your train of thought.

This conversation doesn't have to take place instead of others, but in addition to others.

Besides I keep hoping they'll trace the source back to Kerry.

skunk

Sep 13, 2004, 12:50 PM

The thing I like about forums is that you can basically hold down several conversations on several topics simultaneously. That and you don't have to worry about people interupting your train of thought.
You have a train of thought? I thought you just had a wagon full of inflammatory links.

zimv20

Sep 13, 2004, 01:26 PM

You have a train of thought? I thought you just had a wagon full of inflammatory links.
rotflmfaofhte

(from here to eternity)

skunk

Sep 13, 2004, 03:52 PM

Is it my imagination, or has Leo just been disappeared? All his posts have vanished. It's spooky!

Sayhey

Sep 13, 2004, 04:20 PM

Is it my imagination, or has Leo just been disappeared? All his posts have vanished. It's spooky!

Maybe the mods figured out he and Sly are one and the same. Or they got fed up with his trolling. I've had him on my ignore list for a while. I'll just add his new pseudonym when he pops up next time.

B2TM, you keep changing your reason why these documents "must" be fakes. All this based on your view of copies of copies over the internet. Not very credible.

Taft

Sep 13, 2004, 05:09 PM

Is it my imagination, or has Leo just been disappeared? All his posts have vanished. It's spooky!

I just noticed that, too. Entire threads just disappeared. No sign of them in the wasteland. Poof!

Fine by me.

Taft

Rower_CPU

Sep 13, 2004, 05:12 PM

Is it my imagination, or has Leo just been disappeared? All his posts have vanished. It's spooky!

Based on his track record of trolling and too many similarities to past posters, Leo has been excused from the forums. Any future registrations will be similarly excused.

IJ Reilly

Sep 13, 2004, 05:27 PM

A thousand thanks.

What's that I hear? Is it birds singing in the trees?

pseudobrit

Sep 13, 2004, 05:28 PM

Thanks for the prompt reply (I bugged him about it -- the explanation, not about the banning itself).

Rower_CPU

Sep 13, 2004, 05:29 PM

Thanks for the prompt reply (I bugged him about it).

Yeah, I meant to address skunk's post about it a while ago but got busy with other things - thanks for the nudge.

2jaded2care

Sep 13, 2004, 05:43 PM

I know this is going to sound like a typical Rep who changes his mind when the wind starts blowing the other way, but...

I'm not only getting sick of Vietnam, but I'm reaching the conclusion that, short of butchering civilians, the time that's passed largely negates the allegations I've heard so far about both candidates (keeping in mind that I've also been making a concerted effort not to immerse myself in the painful "spin" from both sides here). I know I'm a different person than I was 30 or 20 years ago. I was a Dem, then a Libertarian, I changed. In retrospect I've done some things I'm not too proud of, most of us have, hopefully we learn and move on. I'll apologize for that which I should if the occasion arises, but most of us, especially politicians, see no need to go out of our way to admit our faults. Nixon didn't immediately resign, Clinton didn't admit anything until he had no other option. Bush and Kerry might've done a thing or two wrong in their lifetimes. Hopefully the mistakes they make today are new ones. ;-)

I don't know if the memos are fake. I don't know if Kerry "earned" his medals. (I don't think I'm one who's been obsessing on this either.) We may never know for sure, so what?

While I'm not saying that things shouldn't be investigated, or that people shouldn't have the right to speak out about these issues, I will say that at this point it seems to be mostly spin and fog and more fodder for partisan sniping.

If we're going to argue issues, can we at least pointlessly argue current issues, and let the so-called "experts" determine what's authentic or forgery?

I say "pointlessly" because IMO both sides seem capable of making a square peg fit into a round hole, if that's what it takes to negate the cognitive dissonance. Not that I'm particularly immune either... But IMO (FWIW), personal political shifts come more from observation than direct challenge. IOW, I think a person has to already be amenable to change in order to change. A strict partisan cannot change, no matter the input, because they refuse to entertain an opposing notion, and will twist information until it fits their paradigm.

Or I could just be full of **it.

I'll be glad when the election's over, at least then I'll pretty much know what level of pain to expect.

IJ Reilly

Sep 13, 2004, 06:21 PM

Well said. I agree entirely.

2jaded2care

Sep 13, 2004, 06:24 PM

IJ, I'm glad you agree that I could just be full of **it. :)

mactastic

Sep 13, 2004, 07:41 PM

Lol, many of us have been asking for people to MoveOn(.org) ever since Clinton was twisting in the wind.

I know I was asking to MoveOn when the SVBT BS started, but I felt the need to get down in the mud with those who were slinging it, since a blood libel of that kind can only be ignored for so long. Now that there are documents that can be used against Bush in the same manner we've had more than one person on the right ask to MoveOn.

Finally.

So... No more 'Purple Heart bandaids' in exchange for no more 'AWOL deserter' claims? If only it were possible.

Anyhoo... I hear there are some issues at stake this election. And none of them relate to Vietnam. :p

IJ Reilly

Sep 13, 2004, 07:52 PM

IJ, I'm glad you agree that I could just be full of **it. :)

Always happy to be of service.

mactastic

Sep 13, 2004, 07:58 PM

Yeah, I meant to address skunk's post about it a while ago but got busy with other things - thanks for the nudge.

Wait, you do other things besides monitoring our little tempest of a forum? And I thought we were special! (And not like riding the short bus special either...)
:p

zimv20

Sep 14, 2004, 05:46 PM

link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/13/bush.professor/)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A business school professor who taught George W. Bush at Harvard University in the early 1970s says the future president told him that family friends had pulled strings to get him into the Texas Air National Guard.

Yoshi Tsurumi, in his first on-camera interview on the subject, told CNN that Bush confided in him during an after-class hallway conversation during the 1973-74 school year.

"He admitted to me that to avoid the Vietnam draft, he had his dad -- he said 'Dad's friends' -- skip him through the long waiting list to get him into the Texas National Guard," Tsurumi said. "He thought that was a smart thing to do."

"What I couldn't stand -- and I told him -- he was all for the U.S. to continue with the Vietnam War. That means he was all for other people, Americans, to keep on fighting and dying."

Tsurumi got to know Bush when the future president took his "Economics EAM" (Environmental Analysis for Management), a required two-semester class from the fall of 1973 to the spring of 1974, Bush's first year at Harvard's business school.

Tsurumi said he remembers Bush because every teacher remembers their best and worst students, and Bush was in the latter group.

"Lazy. He didn't come to my class prepared," Tsurumi said. "He did very badly."

Tsurumi concedes that he disapproves of Bush's politics. He wrote a letter to the editor of his hometown newspaper, the Scarsdale Inquirer, that derided the president's claims to "compassionate conservatism."

"Somehow I found him totally devoid of compassion, social responsibility, and good study discipline," Tsurumi said. "What I remember most about him was all the kind of flippant statements that he made inside of classroom as well as outside."

stubeeef

Sep 14, 2004, 08:25 PM

stubeeef

Sep 14, 2004, 08:26 PM

The votes are in and it's a fraud!!!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-2004Sep13?language=printer

PS you think we can get to 100 pages before the election. BTW mact, I was out of town when you posted the other shoe thread..... I love the shoes on my feet, lets keep talk'n Vietnam....been working for W so far. Not the election but so far so good! As I and many others have said, neither has much to brag about, infact bragging about this mess is why kerry is stuck in it. But 100 pages here we come................

Sayhey

Sep 15, 2004, 01:35 AM

Secretary stated she wrote "all" memos and she didn't write this one.

Why is it important? First it is Fraud making that letter and giving it to CBS as if it was real, that is a felony. Second, it is Election Fraud, because it was created for the sole purpose of altering the election. Third, if it can be Linked to Kerry it is Conspiracy to commit Election Fraud. Kerry would spend a long time in prison.

Also, it helps prove that CBS and Dan Rather are left wing biased. The more they refuse to admit that it is fraud the more it proves they are protecting the democratic party.

I don't buy that any of this proves anything close to what you allege. None of this has been remotely connect to the Kerry campaign. Even if the documents are fakes it doesn't prove bias on the part of CBS, only that they can be fooled. I also note that you conveniently leave out the other part of the Secretary's story. Here it is and it is well worth the time spent in free registration to read it in full.

Former Guard aide: Bush memos fake, but content accurate

11:31 PM CDT on Tuesday, September 14, 2004

By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News

HOUSTON – The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.

Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1957 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.

“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”

Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”

“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said.

But, she said, telltale signs of forgery abounded in the four memos, which contained the supposed writings of her ex-boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

She said the typeface on the documents did not match either of the two typewriters that she used during her time at the Guard. She identified those machines as a mechanical Olympia, which was replaced by an IBM Selectric in the early 1970s.

She spoke fondly of the Olympia machine, which she said had a key with the “th” superscript character that was the focus of much debate in the CBS memos. Experts have said that the Selectric, and mechanical typewriters such as the Olympia, could not produce proportional spacing, found in the disputed documents.

CBS officials have defended their report. They have declined to say who provided 60 Minutes with the documents, other than that it was an “unimpeachable source” – or exactly where they came from, other than Lt. Col. Killian’s “personal file.”

The memos, if real, would show that as a pilot, Mr. Bush defied a direct order to obtain a flight physical, enjoyed the benefit of pressure from high officials to “sugar coat” his record, and was grounded for failing to meet military performance standards.

Mrs. Knox said she did all of Lt. Col. Killian’s typing, including memos for a personal “cover his back” file he kept in a locked drawer of his desk.

She said she did not recall typing the memos reported by CBS News, though she said they accurately reflect the viewpoints of Lt. Col. Killian and documents that would have been in the personal file. Also, she could not say whether the CBS documents corresponded memo for memo with that file.

“The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones,” she said. (emphasis Sayhey)

Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/091504dnpolnatguard.1185eb4ae.html)

Now that, as they say, is evidence. Yes, unlike all the speculation being thrown around about typefaces and typewriters by those who don't know their behind from a hole in the ground, this does provide reason to believe the documents are fake. But, you can't accept the testimony of this witness without dealing with her whole testimony. It looks like someone familiar with real documents that show Bush has lied and did not follow a direct order is recreating those documents. While any attempt to pass them off as original documents is not in anyway honest, it is also a dodge on the part of the President and his surrogates to not deal with what appears to be truthful testimony that he did all the things alleged in the memos. You can't have one without the other.

zimv20

Sep 15, 2004, 01:56 AM

Sayhey

Sep 15, 2004, 03:28 AM

if these things are fake, but contain truths and reflect what would have been written, there's a fascinating story in there.

wtf is going on? who dug up this info? who made the docs? how did they know? aghhhhhh!!!!!!!

It is fascinating. If true it would point to someone who served at the same time as Bush. Or if we are to get truly Machiavellian about this it is from someone who was worried these documents were about to get out and figure the release of fakes would discredit the information. I'm afraid that possibility is far too convoluted and unlikely for my tastes. When in doubt trust Occam's Razor.

More importantly, Nicholas Kristof (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/opinion/15kris.html?hp) has a point in looking at Bush's guard duty when he says,

Does any of this matter? What troubles me is less Mr. Bush's advantage three decades ago and more his denial today. Mr. Bush's own route to avoid the draft underscores the disparities in America, yet his policies seem based on a kind of social Darwinism in which the successful make their own opportunities. His tax cuts and entire outlook seem rooted in ideas not of noblesse oblige, but of noblesse entitlement.

Now that is something to get worked up about.

zimv20

Sep 15, 2004, 04:53 AM

When in doubt trust Occam's Razor.
which suggests what to you? that they're real?

Sayhey

Sep 15, 2004, 05:42 AM

which suggests what to you? that they're real?
No, no, sorry for the confusion. It suggests to me the simplest of the two alternatives I proposed. That being that someone who worked with Bush and Killian and knew about the documents is "recreating" them.

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 07:19 AM

I am not the only one making suggestion about election violations, there is a group pushing it as we speak, all of this is within 60 days of the election. CBS had REAL experts telling them not to run them as documents, and chose to ignore them, why you ask, because they have an agenda! Certainly not because they demand journalistic excellence.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914.html

As far as the rest of the story, I fully expect an IBM dredged up for this story has retyped a memo that will be the source for what it was supposed to be.

The secretary is certainly a story, it is a fraud but the content sounds correct, but now it is a he said she said between her and others in the unit. And the balance is now the docu-drama.

standby page 7 coming........

kuyu

Sep 15, 2004, 09:14 AM

Sayhey

Sep 15, 2004, 09:34 AM

Just a quick question here to keep this thing in perspective. How many Bush supporters will be swayed if HW Bush pulled some strings for our current President? Probably very few.

Also, how many here would, given the chance, would do the same for their kids?
Probably very many.

The latter explains Bush supporters ambivalence to the former. If we were in his or his fathers shoes, we would do the exact same thing. Has anyone here ever pulled some strings for someone??? Had them pulled for you??? Ever gotten special treatment because of who you are??? At school, work, in public??? Of course, all of us have. :)

I think that is the point of the Kristof comments I posted earlier. As much as many of us who lived through the period have a visceral reaction to war supporters who avoided combat through the use of privilege, the point is that he continues to lie about it, all the while using surrogates to savage and lie about the record of a man who served with honor. If that duplicity and hypocrisy is not a character issue to be discussed in an election then character is not an issue in any election.

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 09:55 AM

Your use of words and phrases like "duplicity" and "using surrogates" is certainly interesting, Texans for Truth ring a bell, CBS possibly?

I don't think that W pulled strings, but like Kuyu and others are trying to say is that his dad might have. An interesting question is did he jump anyone or not. I know that the dnc has an ad saying he jumped 150 waiting to get in, how many were pilot qualified is a SERIOUS question, there is some speculation that he jumped zero people because all of those trying to get in were not eligable for the pilot program he went in on, therefore there was no priviledge only opportunity.

I agree now, and have in the past that W has no glowing Vietn Era record, he does have an Honorable Discharge, and plenty of people to vet his record. W has even said to the press that kerry has a more honorable experience during that period than He! What else is there, was he lying about that? OUTLAW 527 ADS!!!!!!! SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT IN ELECTION REFORM, STOP THE MADDNESSSSSSSSS!

On our 100 page march, riddle me this.......what will CBS do about the fraudulent documents they have embraced? If I remeber correctly this is Document thread still.

kuyu

Sep 15, 2004, 10:40 AM

I think CBS is supposed to release a statement in about an hour. We'll see what their new take on the whole thing is. From what I can gather, this whole memogate flap is causing a huge disruption in the CBS heirarchy.

Also, the "sources" that CBS cited as providing credible checks of the memo have reported to ABC that they never said the documents were real or fake.

"On a lighter note"
Yesterday I called the local barbershop to see about a haircut. The lady on the phone told me it would be an hour wait if I walked in. I drove there, and in 30 seconds was in a chair getting my ears lowered. There wasn't a lobby full of people, but my barber bumped back some of his appointments to squeeze me in. I guess it's because I always give a 50% tip. Special treatment... Guess I'll never be president :(

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 11:00 AM

ARE THESE GUYS FOR REAL?

(CBS/AP)*CBS News continued to defend the legitimacy of its recent story a

READ IT HERE (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml)

This story was dated today 9/15/2004! Journalistic Infamy.

IJ Reilly

Sep 15, 2004, 11:28 AM

I don't think that W pulled strings, but like Kuyu and others are trying to say is that his dad might have.

Well, duh. I don't mean to be snotty (okay, a little), but isn't this precisely the point? Back then, you didn't get a shot at the cushiest stateside duty around without somebody pulling a few strings on your behalf. That's the way it was; it's not really a matter up for dispute. It was the volunteers and the poor slobs without connections who had guns shoved into their hands and were pushed out of helicopters into rice paddies. Those were the people who fought and died over there, not people like the sons of George HW Bush.

An important fact that nobody who supports Bush is apparently willing to acknowledge let alone address: Bush was a guy who avoided serving in a war he favored. And that fact remains relevant today, IMO.

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 11:35 AM

IJ, that was not rude or snotty! Reading many of the replies to my posts, I considered yours kind and to the point.

What do you think or know of how many qualified for pilot duty applicants there were, and how many openings available? That will be the tell-tale of favoritism or not.

How'bout them documents though, huh? I hear CBS will make an announcement around noon eastern.

IJ Reilly

Sep 15, 2004, 11:48 AM

What do you think or know of how many qualified for pilot duty applicants there were, and how many openings available? That will be the tell-tale of favoritism or not.

Deferments were very hard to come by during the Vietnam draft. Late in the war, enrollment in college and even ROTC weren't enough to keep you out if you had a low lottery number (I was number 50, btw, so if the draft had continued just a few more months, I'd have been called). If a guy was very fortunate, he could get himself into the Guard, but since this was the best way of staying out (short of a 4-F), they had plenty of applicants and who was selected was never a completely up-and-up process. If you had no connections, trying the Guard route was risky because if your deferment wasn't completely in place when your friendly letter from the Draft Board arrived, you were going to become an involuntary grunt for two years. All of this happened when you turned 18, so there wasn't much time to ponder your alternatives.

So, what qualified George W. Bush for ANG? Did he have previous flight experience? Why didn't W serve in a war he favored?

As for the memo and documents, this is not very interesting to me. They're a sideshow to the sideshow.

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 12:04 PM

Based on my experience as a pilot in the military, there are and were very stringent requirements, there are thousands more non-pilots than pilots in the airforce today as in the past. When I earned my pilot slot I didn't displace anyone or jump anyone that was applying for service in the Navy, most were not physically qualified, (less than 20/20 vision, high blood pressure, short legs or arms, etc...) then there is the education qualification. (bachelors min.). Previous flight experience is only helpful in taking the exams (asvab) not a requirment, most of the guys/gals I went through training with never flew a plane till Navy training! But I did see 30 people get "whamied" NPQ'd (not physically qualified) by NavMed on the first day of basic (AOCS). That was 30 out of 85 in day one, (thankfully you went through NavMed before they shaved your head bald, that way you could go home not looking like a goob). So qualified applicants is THE measure, I don't know how many there were, maybe alot, maybe not. It is the only way to determine favoritism, if there were few to none or less than there were slots available, then there can't be favoritism. I'm sure this will get discovered.

But the documents only prove that many want to make a story, legit or not.

katchow

Sep 15, 2004, 12:17 PM

"On a lighter note"
Yesterday I called the local barbershop to see about a haircut. The lady on the phone told me it would be an hour wait if I walked in. I drove there, and in 30 seconds was in a chair getting my ears lowered. There wasn't a lobby full of people, but my barber bumped back some of his appointments to squeeze me in. I guess it's because I always give a 50% tip. Special treatment... Guess I'll never be president

__________________

what was the death count on those who didn't get their hair cut?

i personally am appalled by the class system that keeps rich kids out of war. in fact it makes my blood boil.

IJ Reilly

Sep 15, 2004, 12:30 PM

Stu, I don't know what time period you are talking about, but in any case you are apparently referring to voluntary enlistments in peacetime, not NG duty during a draft. I'm not disputing the fact that the Air Force and Navy take on many people for pilot training with no previous flying experience, but they're up for at least a four-year hitch of active duty, and probably more, not a couple of years of flying once a month, or less. I suspect this makes a difference in who the the Guard chooses to fill these spots. But again, during the Vietnam draft, connections counted, and only people who had them would even risk trying to get a Guard deferment, let alone the best Guard duty of all.

Do you still fly, BTW?

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 01:06 PM

ya, I still fly! It beats digging ditches, as I have no other profitable skills. At home today so I have time to be prolific.

I realize that the guard was an edy in a flood, but until it is determined how many were attempting to get a flyboy job in the TANG at the time, and how many were qualified it is impossible to tell if there was a favor. It very well could be that he jumped 100 or NOT. The records will show, and who benefits from the research will be the one to release the info. In the time period that W was allowed in the TANG how many were waiting/applying/qualified for a flyboy spot?

IJ Reilly

Sep 15, 2004, 01:43 PM

I don't know what the records would show because I doubt the NG kept records on who received favorable treatment. I mean, it was a pretty much an open secret at the time that you got into the Guard if you knew somebody, so I don't suppose anyone was too anxious to record who jumped the cue and why. That's what the former Lt. Governor of Texas was saying, in effect -- assuming you believe him, of course, which I'm guessing you don't.

FWIW, I'm a private pilot.

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 01:53 PM

the honarble gov from tex has been rebuted by his daughter on this subj.

I contend that applications to the TANG should still be in a box somewhere. Date and count them, I am not saying there wasn't or was, only let's see.

I do believe that CBS was more than aware that these documents were probably a fraud, and like Capt Kirk's son in Star Trek II using anti-matter, these documents were the only way to solve certain problems. We all know what happened to kirk jr and the genesis planet! :D :D

I fly a G-100, 470kts TAS at FL410 coast to coast, hope we get a challenger 300. Loved burt rutans boomarang-powered by an apple laptop!

IJ Reilly

Sep 15, 2004, 02:34 PM

Well, he was the Lt. Governor, and I don't see how he could be so easily rebutted by anyone, let alone his daughter. (Link, please?) Anyway, I knew you wouldn't believe him and since it's only a matter of him saying what he did and you saying he didn't, I guess it's a pretty pointless debate. I brought it up because his claims, whether you accept his word or not, is representative of the way it was done back then. It also points the boney finger at Bush for electing not to serve in a war he supported. (Yes, I am going to keep bringing this up, even if no Bush supporter will touch it with a ten foot pole.)

Are you saying you own a Gulfstream? I'm a Cessna driver, so stay out of my way ("Caution, wake turbulence!")

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 02:51 PM

my kids just got home from school so I'll be pressed to get the link quick, but she came out saying her dad, ltgov, had made rememberable remarks to the contrary in the not so distant past. She is pro W, dad is pro K.

I don't own a plane, have use of a friends 2yr old A-36, but fly the gulfstream for a job.

kuyu

Sep 15, 2004, 02:55 PM

what was the death count on those who didn't get their hair cut?

i personally am appalled by the class system that keeps rich kids out of war. in fact it makes my blood boil.

I counted at least twelve people down when he spun the chair around and ruined my vantage. ;) Bush needs to get this hair-caught-in-ceiling-fan epidemic under control. Also, based on the sun's position in the sky, I think three people by the window contracted skin cancer while they waited.

As far as the rich kids not fighting, I propose a mandatory draft after high-school for men and women. Two years, fully paid, homeland only duty (Hurricane clean up anyone). Those who want to go to school or the workforce would have a nice chunk of change to start with. Those who want to make the military their career can serve overseas. Plus, we'd have a disciplined, well-armed and polite public, heavily trained in urban warfare. This country would be impenetreble.

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 03:04 PM

As far as the rich kids not fighting, I propose a mandatory draft after high-school for men and women. Two years, fully paid, homeland only duty (Hurricane clean up anyone). Those who want to go to school or the workforce would have a nice chunk of change to start with. Those who want to make the military their career can serve overseas. Plus, we'd have a disciplined, well-armed and polite public, heavily trained in urban warfare. This country would be impenetreble.

PICK YOUR SERVICE, including peace corps. Must complete mandatory service to country, red cross, NG, etc..... before 30th birthday. What an asset, the man/woman power, the intellect that usually escapes public service. You could even payoff student loans this way :) !!!!
THINK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU, BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY!!

Still waiting for the CBS response to the docu-dramagate.

IJ Reilly

Sep 15, 2004, 03:10 PM

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 03:14 PM

here is a link to the recording of the phone call.

link (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40396)

Down in the text click on recording .

It's been picked up by all of the right wing blogs and spin sites, but nobody in the legitimate press
Is that you dan.......
Those damn pajama wearing blogers....

93 pages to go.....

Taft

Sep 15, 2004, 03:44 PM

I did a bit of quick Googling and found out the Ben Barnes daughter story is based entirely on one phone call made to a radio talk show in Dallas from someone who claimed to be his daughter (even NewsMax said "purported"). It's been picked up by all of the right wing blogs and spin sites, but nobody in the legitimate press -- probably because it can't be confirmed that the person who called the station is in fact the daughter of Ben Barnes, and nothing she (whoever she is) said, was confirmed. Not that anyone is worried about that tiny little detail.

Now here's a major irony alert: Evidently, this one phone call from someone whose identity is in fact unknown, and whose story can't be verified, counts for more than a person who is known appearing on national TV telling his story. If this makes sense to you, then please get your tinfoil beenie readjusted because you're getting seriously poor reception from the UFOs. Trust me, they really are trying to contact you!

That's really what has irritated me about the whole scandal. All the right-wing sources (townhall, limbaugh, boortz, etc.) print all of the pro-forgery news and none of the pro-authentic news. If you read NYTimes, CNN, NBC, ChicagoTribune, etc. you get a balanced view which prints ALL sides of the debate, including both people who believe the documents to be real and people who believe them to be forgeries.

There are WAAAAYYYY too many of these entertainment-news-opinion types around for my tastes. These people don't try to be objective. They don't try to show both sides of a story. They have an agenda and they print the details which support their agenda.

This scares me to no end. How many people get the majority of their news from Boortz? How many of those people believe the news they are getting from Boortz is balanced and fair? Its a regular propoganda machine. :eep:

Taft

kuyu

Sep 15, 2004, 04:20 PM

This scares me to no end. How many people get the majority of their news from Boortz? How many of those people believe the news they are getting from Boortz is balanced and fair? Its a regular propoganda machine. :eep:

Taft

I get every shred of my news from Boortz. If Boortz doesn't report it, it's phony liberal hogwash designed to distract me while the Democrats raid my bank account, steal my smokes, and put warning labels on newborn's that read "living is hazardous to your health, and may result in death". ;)

Somewhere in between Boortz, Fox, IJ, Zim, Taft, Stubeef, and Franken lies the truth (usually with the alias Kuyu appearing next to it :D ).

Does anyone else notice the irony of a thread that points out that people can't think for themselves. (computer, did I spell all that correctly???)

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 04:23 PM

meta-ghost

Sep 15, 2004, 04:28 PM

I get every shred of my news from Boortz. If Boortz doesn't report it, it's phony liberal hogwash designed to distract me while the Democrats raid my bank account, steal my smokes, and put warning labels on newborn's that read "living is hazardous to your health, and may result in death".

kuyu, is your real name joe?

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

*Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joes employer pays these standards because Joes employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed hell get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some Liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joes money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark!)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the hosts keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit. Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.

Taft

Sep 15, 2004, 04:57 PM

Mr taft
Well some of these otherwise worthless bloggers broke the docugate fraud and national enquire broke watergate, if all we had was cbs I wouldn't own a tv. While some of the others like abc/nbc don't have the time during the day to sell suds and news, their stories often lack depth. (not the news shows, dateline, 20/20 etc....) I wouldn't necessarily put cnn in the more balanced column, but that is subjective isn't it. I think Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw keep their views tight but rabid rather wears his opinion on his trouser cuff. I don't watch abc.
I agree that alot of the extreme views are alarming LEFT as well. I think you meant that too("all these right wing sites") not just the left with their "it could be the obscure IBM umptyfrat sux900 typewriter" and none of the possible legit fraud possiblities. Even your statement about such sites is skewed.
I do believe many on the right are out of whack, but the left is not any better either.
As for me I'm collecting more tin-foil for a biger atenna beenie
:D
Never know what those aliens will let you in on next, I have documents to prove it. :p

I agree with much of what you say. Bloggers do fill a gap in mainstream media. However, when you enter the realm of the bloggers, you do so at your own risk. For every "big scoop" (aka. risky story) Drudge gets right, there are three he just gets wrong. I'd say the rest of the bloggo'spherer has a record at least as bad as his. When you are listening to people who put "getting the scoop" above being accurate and factual, you are running the risk of being misinformed.

That is why I think we have more questions than answers right now. Yes, the bloggers have made me QUESTION CBS's credibility. But right now, it is a question that we don't have an answer to. Daily, each side of the controversy has updates about different sources, etc. But you wouldn't know that from reading boortz. His site just prints that CBS is wrong, wrong, wrong. Period. No question. That is not honesty.

And thats why I consider it a question of degree. As an example, go check out boortz' "reading assignments" at the end of his news page (link: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html). Now go read Salon.com's "From the wires" section at the top left of their homepage (Salon is a liberal e-zine, link: www.salon.com). Both exhibit some level of bias, but Boortz is just off the charts. EVERY link on his page is pro-conservative, anti-liberal tripe. The links are mostly opinion pieces. I agree that there are some on the left just as bad as Boortz, but it seems to me pundits like boortz and Limbaugh have MUCH wider audiences. This is alarming to me.

Right now, I think there are far too many people speaking with far too much certainty about the CBS memos. "They ARE fakes." "They ARE real." Much of this is based on unconfirmed and unknown sources, a sin most legitimate news sources avoid like the plague.

To sum up, my point is this: sometimes, instant access to everyone's opinion and analysis via the internet can be a bad thing. Cause let's face it, most people don't have a freakin' clue.

Taft

Lyle

Sep 15, 2004, 05:18 PM

here is a link to the recording of the phone call.I don't think IJ was contesting the fact that someone of the female persuasion, claiming to be Barnes' daughter, called in to the radio show. The issue is how one can verify that the phone call wasn't actually placed by Karl Rove (disguising his voice, of course). The WorldNetDaily story (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40396) that you (stubeeef) linked to did have this to say:
Jeff Williams, producer of the Mark Davis show, told WorldNetDaily that after independent confirmation, his staff is now certain that the woman who phoned in identifying herself as Amy from Denton, Texas, is Barnes' daughter.

"We are without any doubt that it is her," Williams said.Now, Ms. Barnes subsequently did a call-in interview on Sean Hannity's radio show. Given that show's wider audience and what-not, I'm guessing that it would be a bit harder to pull off a faked phone call from her and not get caught.

zimv20

Sep 15, 2004, 07:14 PM

Is that you dan.......
Those damn pajama wearing blogers....

93 pages to go.....
half the time, i really don't know what you're on about.

mactastic

Sep 15, 2004, 07:44 PM

national enquire broke watergate

Wha wha what??? :confused:

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 07:47 PM

I agree with much of what you say. Bloggers do fill a gap in mainstream media. However, when you enter the realm of the bloggers, you do so at your own risk. For every "big scoop" (aka. risky story) Drudge gets right, there are three he just gets wrong. I'd say the rest of the bloggo'spherer has a record at least as bad as his. When you are listening to people who put "getting the scoop" above being accurate and factual, you are running the risk of being misinformed.

That is why I think we have more questions than answers right now. Yes, the bloggers have made me QUESTION CBS's credibility. But right now, it is a question that we don't have an answer to. Daily, each side of the controversy has updates about different sources, etc. But you wouldn't know that from reading boortz. His site just prints that CBS is wrong, wrong, wrong. Period. No question. That is not honesty.

And thats why I consider it a question of degree. As an example, go check out boortz' "reading assignments" at the end of his news page (link: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html). Now go read Salon.com's "From the wires" section at the top left of their homepage (Salon is a liberal e-zine, link: www.salon.com). Both exhibit some level of bias, but Boortz is just off the charts. EVERY link on his page is pro-conservative, anti-liberal tripe. The links are mostly opinion pieces. I agree that there are some on the left just as bad as Boortz, but it seems to me pundits like boortz and Limbaugh have MUCH wider audiences. This is alarming to me.

Right now, I think there are far too many people speaking with far too much certainty about the CBS memos. "They ARE fakes." "They ARE real." Much of this is based on unconfirmed and unknown sources, a sin most legitimate news sources avoid like the plague.

To sum up, my point is this: sometimes, instant access to everyone's opinion and analysis via the internet can be a bad thing. Cause let's face it, most people don't have a freakin' clue.

Taft

I agree :eek: I have never been to boortz's site, and I can't stand rush at all, his piety gets in the way of the msg.
BUT, I often agree with the right on taxes, personal property rights, foriegn policy, and taxes again, education reform,"big" government, and taxes again.
I better understand your second retort. :)

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 07:52 PM

Wha wha what??? :confused:

OK maybe I'm wrong, I can't remember everything, I'm glad your here to keep me straight. Didn't national inquire break some big story? For some reason I was thinking it was watergate, duh? :o

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 07:56 PM

Lyle, my link thread was being written while my friend IJ was posting his, so It is really a reply to the one at 2:34pm. But thanks with the followup :)

mactastic

Sep 15, 2004, 08:08 PM

OK maybe I'm wrong, I can't remember everything, I'm glad your here to keep me straight. Didn't national inquire break some big story? For some reason I was thinking it was watergate, duh? :o

That's fine, just realize that the more times someone has to call you on your facts the less believable any unsourced claims you make are.

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 08:13 PM

Well I'm glad we have you to keep score.

So how is the fact hunting at CBS going these days, speaking of unsourced claims, it is the subject at hand, document thread. I've been at church, did they ever release the email they were going to release 3 different times today? By your score I'm sure they are no longer a believable source for you now either, welcome aboard, glad your keeping count so justly :rolleyes:

kuyu

Sep 15, 2004, 08:37 PM

kuyu, is your real name joe?

Joe agrees, We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.

Point taken, Meta. I was joking, of course, that's what ;) means.

However, I'll try one.

Kim wakes up at 6 and has coffee. Of course, she prefers Folgers over Taster's choice. She fills her pot with Folger's because some Republican fought for competitive rights of businesses. The coffee pot, the filters, the cups, the counter, the kitchen sink, and the Folger's were made by corporations. She can afford all this because of competition.

She washes down her pills, made by a corporation who invested billions of dollars, although her pill is not the only treatment for her condition. Many of the pills that treat people like her give her side effects. But, some Republican fought for competition, so she is able to choose the one best for her.

I could go on. You see, my original point is that no one party has a monopoly on the great country we enjoy. Both parties have done great things. Both have also done poor things. Both have started/joined/won wars (one way more than the other). That's why we have a two party system.

pseudobrit

Sep 15, 2004, 08:50 PM

Both have started/joined/won wars (one way more than the other).

:confused:

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 09:01 PM

half the time, i really don't know what you're on about.

It was in reference to rabid rathers comments after the bloggers broke the fruad think on the internet, he bashed them as a bunch of right wing pajama wearing something or nothers.....

Oh look only 92 pages to go.........

Lyle

Sep 15, 2004, 09:02 PM

half the time, i really don't know what you're on about.What's the frequency, Kenneth? ;)

stubeeef

Sep 15, 2004, 09:09 PM

They are rabid!!!!!!!

link to rabid people (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml) :eek: :eek:

mactastic

Sep 16, 2004, 10:11 AM

Oh look only 92 pages to go.........

Speaking of keeping score... :rolleyes:

And Stu, you aren't distinguishing between CBS perpetuating a deliberate fraud versus being hornswaggled by someone. Haven't you ever been fooled into believing something was true when it wasn't? You have accused CBS of being a tool of the Kerry campaign without a single shred of evidence. Bring some to the table and we'll talk.

And don't take it personally, but I'm not going to let you lie in these forums to support your viewpoint without calling you on it. There are some people who have built a reputation such that I rarely question their unsubstantiated claims (within reason of course). When you claim that the National Enquirer broke the Watergate story, your credibility takes a big dive with me. It shows a lack of knowledge about a major event in our country's history. Woodward and Bernstein would be very upset if they heard what you said. :eek:

zimv20

Sep 16, 2004, 06:27 PM

link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-16-bush-memos_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to find and make public by next week any unreleased files about President Bush's Vietnam-era Air National Guard service to resolve a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The Associated Press.

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. handed down the order late Wednesday in New York. The AP lawsuit already has led to the disclosure of previously unreleased flight logs from Bush's days piloting F-102A fighters and other jets.

Pentagon officials told Baer they plan to have their search complete by Monday. Baer ordered the Pentagon to hand over the records to the AP by Sept. 24 and provide a written statement by Sept. 29 detailing the search for more records.

"We're hopeful the Department of Defense will provide a full accounting of the steps it has taken, as the judge ordered, so the public can have some assurance that there are no documents being withheld," said AP lawyer David Schulz.

White House officials have said Bush ordered the Pentagon earlier this year to conduct a thorough search for the president's records, and officials allowed reporters to review everything that was gathered back in February.

Through a series of requests under the federal open records law and a subsequent suit, the AP uncovered the flight logs, which were not part of the records the White House released earlier this year.

(more)

so whatever happened to the administration's claims that it's already handed over all relevant documents? here we have a judge demanding more and the DoD saying, "okay here they come."

how am i to not come to the conclusion that bush lied about releasing all the documents?

kuyu

Sep 16, 2004, 08:47 PM

Did CBS build their report around documents they truly believed to be authentic? If so, they aren't lying.

OR

Did CBS build their story around documents they knew to be false from the beginning? That is lying.

Odds are, some people had an inkling of doubt about the validity of the documents but didn't speak up. Now upper management is on damage control. The reputation of CBS is at stake and they don't want to look silly. Problem is, by not looking in to the memo further, by refusing to give out the original, and by calling their original "experts" liars.... They already lost credibility on some levels.

Caveat... This whole thing reminds me of a train of thought I've had before.... If you act on what you know, but find out it's false later, are you lying??? Weird, I can't seem to place it.... ;)

wwworry

Sep 16, 2004, 09:08 PM

Did CBS build their report around documents they truly believed to be authentic? If so, they aren't lying.

So they might be incompetent. It would be reasonable to mistrust them.

OR

Did CBS build their story around documents they knew to be false from the beginning? That is lying.

Odds are, some people had an inkling of doubt about the validity of the documents but didn't speak up. Now upper management is on damage control. The reputation of CBS is at stake and they don't want to look silly. Problem is, by not looking in to the memo further, by refusing to give out the original, and by calling their original "experts" liars.... They already lost credibility on some levels.

Caveat... This whole thing reminds me of a train of thought I've had before.... If you act on what you know, but find out it's false later, are you lying??? Weird, I can't seem to place it....

Then they would be liars.
Either incompetent or lying or the documents are true.
OK ok, to spell it out: Bush going into Iraq was either incompetent or lied to us all to get there. (if that's the game...)

takao

Sep 16, 2004, 09:11 PM

Don't panic

Sep 16, 2004, 09:54 PM

Caveat... This whole thing reminds me of a train of thought I've had before.... If you act on what you know, but find out it's false later, are you lying??? Weird, I can't seem to place it.... ;)

You should start off admitting you acted on false premises, and try to find out how that happened.

If then this someone's actions had some severe ripercussions (say, for example, tens of thousands of deaths and a few hundred billion dollars cost), than there should be consequences.

If someone's knowingly lied, he/she should be tried as a criminal.
If the reason was incompetence, he/she should be held accountable.
If the reason was sheer idiocy, he/she should as a minimum resign.

kuyu

Sep 17, 2004, 12:08 PM

If someone's knowingly lied, he/she should be tried as a criminal.
If the reason was incompetence, he/she should be held accountable.
If the reason was sheer idiocy, he/she should as a minimum resign.

Yeah, accountability is the key. However, so many people are "accountable" for the state of things today that we'd find ourselves in a difficult place by going on a head hunt.

I saw a special on bin laden on THC. We had special forces and satellites watching him and his comrades. Tenet asked for the authorization to strike the area with cruise missles. Clinton declined because a plane registered in the UAE was present. I guess he was afraid of killing some prince... Whoops!!!

Then the Post (washington, i think) published some leak from DoD that spilled the beans on how we were tracking bin laden. His people saw it, and we lost him for a while. Whoops!!!

The Sudan tried to give him to the FBI, but they lacked evidence to try him. The CIA had over ten people tracking and compiling evidence against him. The FBI never called the CIA or visa versa... Whoops!!!

The Saudi's also refused to try him because of fear of a backlash in their own country!!! He's so popular there that they can't try him. (Sounds less like a fringe group to me. More like a mainstream thing that no one will admit to). Whoops!!!

Bush went to war with Iraq on evidence that turned out to be crap... A thousand soldiers died... Whoops!!!

They found some chem/bio weapons, but not en mass... Whoops!!!

19 practioners of the "religion of peace" killed 3000 innocent American's by beating the system... Whoops!!!

CBS runs a story about Bush's guard service document that seem to be a fraud... Whoops!!!

Kerry makes his service a campaign issue... Ends up hurting his effort to win presidency... Whoops!!!

Rumsfeld consistantly confuses bin laden and hussein on live TV... Whoops!!!

Haliburton secures cost + 3% contract to rebuild oil infrastructure. Wins bid to rebuild Iraq over Raytheon. Public not told of details of deal. Cheney/Bush look like inside players... Whoops!!!

Five 24-hour cable news networks cover war. Average American still doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslim, still doesn't know how saddam came to power, still doesn't know where bin laden is from, still doesn't know about the "blind prophet", still doesn't know...

Don't panic

Sep 17, 2004, 01:48 PM

you might have some points here, but putting on the same level the CBS story with 9/11 and GW's personal war that caused 40.000+ deaths (among them thousands of children) seems a bit of a stretch.

kuyu

Sep 17, 2004, 02:24 PM

you might have some points here, but putting on the same level the CBS story with 9/11 and GW's personal war that caused 40.000+ deaths (among them thousands of children) seems a bit of a stretch.

Yeah, it's not near the same level. But, it's part of the current situation. I should have written it better. The CBS memogate thing, IMHO, is a new manifestation of a larger problem in the news media.

Originally, the news media just gave the facts. Then, editorials became popular. With the rise of cable and it's associated networks we saw the revolution in reporting. Facts have taken a back seat to commentary. Whether the particular news organization is left leaning or right leaning, they focus more on commentary than the real story.

Want proof? Turn on ANY news channel in primetime and watch for 10 minutes. There will be a 10 second blurb about a bombing somewhere, and then 10 minutes of "expert commentary". The news stations do this under the guise of "in-depth analysis". However, they've forgotten to report the story.

If your first exposure to an event is some expert's subjective opinion, you will automatically interpret any further objective info in your own skewed way, be it right or left. Thus, the news channel has cleverly persuaded you by giving opinion first, and letting you get the facts later, knowing that you will only pay attention the the parts that support your predisposed opinion.

Thus we have all the gung-ho people for and against Bush. People who are convinced that he can do nothing right, or wrong, have fallen prey to the new media.

The worst part is... we volunteered our thought to the TV, and the newspapers, magazines, and radio followed the new media formula in the name of profits. Now we have very few sources for real, unbiased news. :(

wwworry

Sep 17, 2004, 03:15 PM

except not many people dispute the facts of the CBS memos. Not many people would assert that GWB did not get preferential treatment getting in and out of the National Gaurd. Has anyone showed any proof that Bush showed up when and where he was supposed to?

Then you have the swifties whose claims are not backed up by either eyewitness accounts or by documentation.

Then people try to equate the two. There is no sence of proportion.

Does anyone doubt that the young Bush, arrested for DUI, failure in multiple businesses, constantly bailed out by powerful family friends was irresponsible? I don't think so.
Contrasted that to the young Kerry who was testifying before congress, who saw combat and stood up for what he believed.

Anyway, Bush's record is a poor one - job loss, shrinking incomes, more terror in the world, destablized middle east, bad environmental record, give-aways to the drug and oil industries, massive growth in government, massive new debt, inept post war planning in Iraq and Afghanistan....

But he threw out the first pitch in the 2001 world series!!!! give me a break!

Sayhey

Sep 17, 2004, 05:20 PM

Originally, the news media just gave the facts. Then, editorials became popular. With the rise of cable and it's associated networks we saw the revolution in reporting. Facts have taken a back seat to commentary. Whether the particular news organization is left leaning or right leaning, they focus more on commentary than the real story.

Just when did the "Golden Age of Objectivity" take place? The media has always been biased. That bias in most cases has been toward whatever will make them money. "If it bleeds it leads" is an example of the worst kind of sensationalism to which this kind of bias can lead. In some cases the bias manifests itself in the form of a political axe to grind. Examples of this can be seen in the history of the Hearst press and in the blatant bias of today's Fox News. However, CBS falls into the former, not the latter, category. The idea of CBS as some kind of liberal, left mouthpiece is just pure fantasy.

IJ Reilly

Sep 17, 2004, 07:21 PM

kuyu

Sep 18, 2004, 09:29 AM

I think kuyu might be trying to make a somewhat different point about the proliferation of "commentary." I think what he is really referencing is the rise of talking-head-ism, aka, the "chattering classes." With the profusion of 24-hour cable news, a lot of time now needs to be filled with something, and the easiest something is the expert chatterbox. This is by no means an indication of bias in reporting (unless the chatterers are themselves displaying bias), but we are often looking at empty news calories just the same. This is why I watch the cable news networks not at all. They are fundamentally a waste of time if only because 98% of their content is filler. Not bias -- just dead air with noise and graphics.

BINGO!!! That's exactly my point. Fox, Cnn, Msnbc, etc. all do it. The alphabet networks have started to formulate their "news shows" (national) after the cable programs.

Of course any news is going to be somewhat biased. However, today's news is more about the "expert analysis" than the real story.

For instance, what kind of boat did Kerry serve on? How big are they? Diesel or unleaded fuel for the engine? What kind of guns did they have? How many casualties in his unit? What river(s) were they on? These things are facts. But all I've seen is mud and commentary instead of facts and research.

You'd think that with five 24-hour news channels(43,800 hours per year), someone would eventually report the facts.

takao

Sep 18, 2004, 09:36 AM

You'd think that with five 24-hour news channels(43,800 hours per year), someone would eventually report the facts.

"facts ? we need no stinkin' facts" ..

i agree with you that's just annoying (at least as far as i watched CNN and msnbc...)
commentary here 'analysis' there...if the commentaries would be actually 'good ones' then i would have no problem with it..bit at the moment they are a joke as well
less facts, lousy commentaries, and funny news about dog marriges etc.

IJ Reilly

Sep 18, 2004, 01:00 PM

I've got a simple solution to all of this talking head noise and fluff: don't watch it. Instead, subscribe to a decent mainstream newspaper, and read it. Watch the NewsHour on PBS and listen to Morning Edition and All Things Considered on your local NPR station.

Of course certain people have been bellowing for years about how all of these mainstream news sources are too biased to be trusted. As a result, more and more people are turning to the Twinkee news diet they get from the cable stations and commercial networks. And there you have it -- a nation starving for information, gorging itself on a high calorie, low-nutrition diet of junk food news.

zimv20

Sep 18, 2004, 01:23 PM

IJR brings up an excellent point. for anyone who thinks NPR is liberal, just listen to it. if anything, they go overboard presenting more conservative viewpoints; i think they do it to shake that "liberal" image.

NewsHour is just simply good fact reporting.

kuyu

Sep 19, 2004, 07:53 AM

And there you have it -- a nation starving for information, gorging itself on a high calorie, low-nutrition diet of junk food news.

Bravo! Well said IJ. :)

I'm lucky enough to live in a city with great local am radio. Of course our two main stations broadcast the syndicated shows during the work day, but the local shows that bumper limbaugh are very good.

The morning guy is admittedly conservative. However, he gives everyone their chance to talk and doesn't see retorts as part of his job. There is no call screener, and all citizens are welcomed to call and have their views heard and addressed. The show is more of a local forum than a brainwashing experiment. It focuses on local politics, but national stuff comes into play occasionaly.

The afternoon guy is pretty close to center. He's a stand up comedian, so his program is like a three hour daily show. Again, it's live and unscripted. Everyone gets a chance to call in no matter how crazy they are.

I like to think that local politics are more important than national politics. The only drastic changes to my life have come at the hands of local politicians, local laws, and local ordinances.

Does anyone else have great local news where they live???

takao

Sep 19, 2004, 09:10 AM

Does anyone else have great local news where they live???

depends how you define 'local'
local in the austrian sense: yes
local in the smaller scale: no

Sayhey

Sep 19, 2004, 11:05 AM

Back to the topic of the thread. Here is an article by William Saletan over at MSN Slate. It sums up what we know about Bush's National Guard Service and puts it in the context of what this administration has asked of the current Guard.

Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968. The move was well-chosen and well-timed. Only four Air National Guard squadrons were sent to Vietnam, and none was sent after Bush enlisted. All he had to do was fulfill a "statement of understanding" in which he promised to attend 24 days of weekend duty and 15 days of active duty each year.

He failed to do so. Four years into his six-year commitment, Bush "changed his mind" and decided "he preferred to be in politics." That description doesn't come from some phony memo. It comes from retired Col. Rufus Martin, Bush's then-personnel officer, in an interview with the Washington Post. Bush got permission to go to Alabama to help a family friend run for the Senate. A Boston Globe review of Bush's Guard records confirms that he "performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973." The Globe's investigative team, echoing investigators from other publications, reports that "no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973."

U.S. News & World Report notes that the "military service obligation" Bush signed in 1968 required him to attend 44 inactive-duty training drills every fiscal year for six years. He did not fulfill that requirement. Furthermore, when Bush took off for Harvard Business School in 1973, he signed a form pledging "to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position." He never did so.

In fairness to Bush, Vietnam was a lousy war. And lots of guys who joined the Guard in those days lost interest in their duties once the penalty they feared—assignment to active duty in Vietnam—expired with the war. Maybe we should cut Bush some slack. But before we do, let's look at how much slack he's cutting the folks who serve in the Guard today....

I recommend reading the whole article.

Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2106833/)

IJ Reilly

Sep 19, 2004, 12:07 PM

A lot people used a lot of techniques to avoid the Vietnam draft, but as a rule, they were people who were opposed to US involvement in the war. Still, they were described scornfully by the pro-war camp as "draft dodgers," even though their avoidance of the draft was consistent with their beliefs. This term was also freely applied to Bill Clinton by Republicans to describe his draft deferment. Bush's hypocrisy is the real story here, and we can heap onto that the even more crass hypocrisy of his supporters.

stubeeef

Sep 20, 2004, 01:07 PM

Don't panic

Sep 20, 2004, 02:23 PM

so do you think that now an apology from the bush administration for misleading the nation on iraq is coming up next?

stubeeef

Sep 20, 2004, 10:22 PM

WOW, here it comes......

docugate or rathergate or dncgate? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-20-cbs-documents_x.htm)

zimv20

Sep 20, 2004, 10:59 PM

docugate or rathergate or dncgate? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-20-cbs-documents_x.htm)
man, that's messed up

IJ Reilly

Sep 22, 2004, 09:38 PM

IJ R,
There is a Col or Lt Col coming out today or tomorrow saying that W filled a pilot slot that was vacant and they had a shortage of qualified applicants. Now I don't know how credable he is but here goes another round.

I think CBS is telling everyone today, what we all knew.

Who the heck really cares? I know I don't. So far, not a single Bush backer seems to be interested in addressing the basic points I've made. Why? I suppose it must because they're not subject to surmise, and are actually relevant. And so it goes.

kuyu

Sep 23, 2004, 01:21 AM

Who the heck really cares? I know I don't. So far, not a single Bush backer seems to be interested in addressing the basic points I've made. Why? I suppose it must because they're not subject to surmise, and are actually relevant. And so it goes.

Well, I'll try the Guard/Dodger/anti-war thing.

Did Bush join the Air Guard to avoid Vietnam? Yeah, probably.
Did Bush's dad pull strings for him? Yeah, probably.
Did he complete his service? Yeah, probably.
Does his guard service disqualify him from conducting military action? No.
Does what Kerry/Bush did 30 years ago solely qualify either for office? No.
If they institute the draft, would most the eligible people on this forum try to join the Air Guard? Yeah, probably.
Would they see if their family could help? Yeah, probably.

Point is, IJ, Bush supporters don't care if Bush went guard. He never made his guard service a "qualifier" to be president. If the whole thing was a deal brokered by Bush's dad and some power players, we don't care. We're not supporting the guy because of his past. He was a coke head for God's sake.

We like Bush because we see in him a decisive leader, strong in his convictions, and a man who embodies the American spirit. We like his faults and his strengths, he reminds us of ourselves in this regard. But most of all, Bush supporters see 911 as the culmination of 50 years of failed foreign policy. We believe that a new strategy is necessary.

Is Bush doing a perfect job of implementing a new strategy? Of course not. But, he has character, charisma, commitment, courage, focus, initiative, passion, a positive attitude, and most importantly, vision.

I'm sure most here will disagree with Bush's vision. But, what if it works? What if our great-grandchildren are born into a world where the middle-east is a peaceful place, where religions co-exist in harmony, where terrorism is just a chapter in a history book instead of a headline? What if... For us, it beats When.

relimw

Sep 23, 2004, 01:40 AM

relimw

Sep 23, 2004, 01:46 AM

You should start off admitting you acted on false premises, and try to find out how that happened.

If then this someone's actions had some severe ripercussions (say, for example, tens of thousands of deaths and a few hundred billion dollars cost), than there should be consequences.

If someone's knowingly lied, he/she should be tried as a criminal.
If the reason was incompetence, he/she should be held accountable.
If the reason was sheer idiocy, he/she should as a minimum resign.

Hey, imagine that, Clinton did leave the White House. :D

But seriously, Bush was acting in part on intel that Clinton provide him and his staff in regards to WMD. We also knew that Saddam had used chemical/bio weapons on the Kurds and the Iranians before, and still retained the capabilities to produce more. (You can make more than just aspirin at a pharmacutical factory after all...)

pseudobrit

Sep 23, 2004, 02:24 AM

But seriously, Bush was acting in part on intel that Clinton provide him and his staff in regards to WMD.

Not valid. Maybe if Bush had invaded Iraq upon taking office we could blame Clinton's intel, but Bush had more than enough time to get new intel.

You're honestly saying that Bush gets a free pass because he chose to use outdated intelligence? That doesn't exonerate him, it indicts him.

Would it be Kennedy's fault if Bush chose to invade Cuba in '05 because Kennedy said there were nuclear missiles there in '62?

We also knew that Saddam had used chemical/bio weapons on the Kurds

No, he didn't. This has been debunked on these very forums at least a year ago.

and the Iranians before

Yes, he did, and we encouraged him to attack Iran and supported him while they gassed each other's armies.

and still retained the capabilities to produce more.

Not according to the UN. The inspection teams have been proven right in all their assessments.

(You can make more than just aspirin at a pharmacutical factory after all...)

That's odd, because I remember Republicans using "aspirin factory" as a battle cry against Clinton when he bombed the Sudan to try to eliminate a chemical weapons facility.

relimw

Sep 23, 2004, 02:39 AM

Not valid. Maybe if Bush had invaded Iraq upon taking office we could blame Clinton's intel, but Bush had more than enough time to get new intel.

You're honestly saying that Bush gets a free pass because he chose to use outdated intelligence? That doesn't exonerate him, it indicts him.

I never said that. I just said that it was based in part on intel gathered over 8 years by Clinton. Past actions do tend to hint at future desires.

We also knew that Saddam had used chemical/bio weapons on the Kurds

No, he didn't. This has been debunked on these very forums at least a year ago.
Link please.

That's odd, because I remember Republicans using "aspirin factory" as a battle cry against Clinton when he bombed the Sudan to try to eliminate a chemical weapons facility.

What? Somebody gives a darn about Sudan!? I'm floored... Now, if you can just get the UN off the sidelines and have them intervene... oh, wait, they didn't take action after 8+ years of Iraq screwing them, why should they act in the Sudan any time soon.

To quote Monty Python "Bring out yer dead!"

stubeeef

Sep 23, 2004, 08:12 AM

Now, if you can just get the UN off the sidelines and have them intervene... oh, wait, they didn't take action after 8+ years of Iraq screwing them, why should they act in the Sudan any time soon.

Sure the UN will come off the sidelines in Sudan, their waiting for another big money maker like "oil for food", then they can rush in like the mafia in Vegas and "help".

wwworry

Sep 23, 2004, 08:43 AM

Point is, IJ, Bush supporters don't care if Bush went guard. He never made his guard service a "qualifier" to be president. If the whole thing was a deal brokered by Bush's dad and some power players, we don't care. We're not supporting the guy because of his past. He was a coke head for God's sake.

We like Bush because we see in him a decisive leader, strong in his convictions, and a man who embodies the American spirit. We like his faults and his strengths, he reminds us of ourselves in this regard. But most of all, Bush supporters see 911 as the culmination of 50 years of failed foreign policy. We believe that a new strategy is necessary.

Is Bush doing a perfect job of implementing a new strategy? Of course not. But, he has character, charisma, commitment, courage, focus, initiative, passion, a positive attitude, and most importantly, vision.

I'm sure most here will disagree with Bush's vision. But, what if it works? What if our great-grandchildren are born into a world where the middle-east is a peaceful place, where religions co-exist in harmony, where terrorism is just a chapter in a history book instead of a headline? What if... For us, it beats When.

This kind of talk really bugs me. What evidence is there of his "courage" other than his rapid supporters repetitions? In fact when it comes down it he usually fumbles. Can you show me one instance of his "courage"?

Obviously we did need some changes post 9/11. Do you honestly think any other leader would NOT have made changes? Bush was warned repeatedly about steped up Al Qeada warnings like the one that said "Al Qeada determined to attack inside the US". What did he do? Nothing! Bush supporters will say that it was impossible for Bush to have done anything to prevent the attacks and then go and blame previous administrations for the attack. What an odd double standard!

Now if you look at the current situation for non-partisan sources you will see that the situation on the ground is not getting any better. More American troops are getting killed and injured. Electricity is off in Bagdad 14 hours a day. Sewage flows into the streets. Billions of reconstruction dollars are "missing". Almost all Iraqis think the invasion was a mistake. All of Bush's post war plans and predictions was wrong. Chalabi is arrested. The cost predictions were wrong (or the right ones were ignored). etc. etc.

Now instead of a population that supported us you have a whole world of people that are against us. Even Cat Stevens has become a "terrorist"! Worldwide terror is up. Bin Laden is still on the loose. Much of Afghanistan is still in chaos. Iraq is too dangerous for Americans to travel in. Beheadings. Torture.

N. Korea is determined to and may already have manufactured nuclear bombs under Bush's watch.
Iran is determined to produce a nuclear bomb.
Pakistan, which has the bomb, must be ruled by a military dictatorship to keep the fundementalist majority from power and the bomb.

So you talk about a rosy senario for your grand-children and all you have is faith and backwards progress. How can you honestly say it might get better without saying equally that it might get better without Bush. Your prediction is just more empty rhetoric that the current facts do not support.

and why, if you care about your grandchildren so much, would you want to saddle them with so much debt to pay for your guesses.

pseudobrit

Sep 23, 2004, 09:07 AM

I never said that. I just said that it was based in part on intel gathered over 8 years by Clinton. Past actions do tend to hint at future desires.

Or in this case, nothing at all.

Link please.

This was discussed here, adn there's a button for searching the forums. Nevertheless, here's the text of a piece written in the NYT:

A War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Stephen C. Pelletiere

What? Somebody gives a darn about Sudan!? I'm floored... Now, if you can just get the UN off the sidelines and have them intervene... oh, wait, they didn't take action after 8+ years of Iraq screwing them, why should they act in the Sudan any time soon.

To quote Monty Python "Bring out yer dead!"

There are no innocent parties in UN inaction. For all the action blocked by other SC members, the US blocks just as many. How can you complain about the ineffecitveness of a system when you're sabotaging it (unless of course, you only bother using it when it's politically expedient)?

IJ Reilly

Sep 23, 2004, 11:04 AM

mactastic

Sep 23, 2004, 12:22 PM

Well, I'll try the Guard/Dodger/anti-war thing.

Did Bush join the Air Guard to avoid Vietnam? Yeah, probably.
Did Bush's dad pull strings for him? Yeah, probably.
Did he complete his service? Yeah, probably.
Does his guard service disqualify him from conducting military action? No.
Does what Kerry/Bush did 30 years ago solely qualify either for office? No.
If they institute the draft, would most the eligible people on this forum try to join the Air Guard? Yeah, probably.
Would they see if their family could help? Yeah, probably.

You'd be crazy to try the Guard as a way to avoid combat today. What is it, like 40%+ of the troops in Iraq are NG or Reservists?

Regardless of whether you personally cared about military service 12 years ago (from what I gather you are too young to have been as engaged in politics then as you are now), you have to recognize that Clinton's opposition to going to Vietnam was used against him mercilessly by the right. An awful lot of people back then expressed pretty strong views about people who avoided service in the military during the Vietnam years. And now an awful lot of those same people are giving Bush a pass for what amounts to the same thing. You can't expect the left to turn the other cheek when you know the next time a Democrat who avoided Vietnam is up for election the right would hold their feet to the fire over it.

Point is, IJ, Bush supporters don't care if Bush went guard. He never made his guard service a "qualifier" to be president. If the whole thing was a deal brokered by Bush's dad and some power players, we don't care. We're not supporting the guy because of his past. He was a coke head for God's sake.

Again, see Bill Clinton. Lambasted for 'draft dodging' and hounded until he admitted trying marijuana. The right was on him relentlessly. Now they want to cry foul because the same standards are being applied to Bush? Cry me a freaking river RNC...

We like Bush because we see in him a decisive leader, strong in his convictions, and a man who embodies the American spirit. We like his faults and his strengths, he reminds us of ourselves in this regard. But most of all, Bush supporters see 911 as the culmination of 50 years of failed foreign policy. We believe that a new strategy is necessary.

So you'd include the Reagan years as part of a 'failed foreign policy'? Well, at least we're on the same page there! ;) But I have to say, the reasons you put forth for Bush in that paragraph are mostly emotional. And I learned (and am still learning) that decisions based on emotion are very problematic. I also don't understand what you mean by '50 years of failed foreign policy'. Do you mean it was wrong of us to allow the CIA to sponsor coups throughout the Middle East, and Central and South America? Or are you trying to say that we have been way to nice all these years, and we really need to get tough with the world? Where exactly have we failed?

Is Bush doing a perfect job of implementing a new strategy? Of course not. But, he has character, charisma, commitment, courage, focus, initiative, passion, a positive attitude, and most importantly, vision.

I'm sure most here will disagree with Bush's vision. But, what if it works? What if our great-grandchildren are born into a world where the middle-east is a peaceful place, where religions co-exist in harmony, where terrorism is just a chapter in a history book instead of a headline? What if... For us, it beats When.

What if it doesn't work? What if it makes it worse? What if we fall into our old habits of not finishing what we start? What if we have to bail out of Iraq and move on to another crisis, leaving failed states in both Afghanistan AND Iraq?

Asking 'what if' and then assuming the rosiest scenario will play out because you want it to isn't a sound basis for foreign policy. In fact, it's the reason we're in the mess we're in now. Bush wanted the rosy scenario painted by the neo-con crowd so bad he all but ignored the other possibilities. Many predicted a civil war, a power vacuum, and the populace wanting us out. But no, we were told we'd only need half the troops other suggested, that the Iraqis would greet us as liberators, that oil revenues would pay for the costs of the war, that WMD were laying around and we knew exactly where to find them. All of those predictions were wrong. Richard Perle said a year ago that he would be very surprised if, in a year, the Iraqi's hadn't built a public square for the beloved Goerge W. Bush. Now not only have they not built that monument, many would like Bush to take his troops and stick them where the sun doesn't shine.

These are all failures of leadership. All the courage and commitment and nice fuzzy feelings can't protect you from reality. If Bush had those qualities, he would have stepped aside and not sought re-election.

And if that wasn't enough, Bush has left us virtually defenseless if another major threat were to arise in the world today. Would you tolerate that from a Democrat?

katchow

Sep 23, 2004, 12:26 PM

This kind of talk really bugs me. What evidence is there of his "courage" other than his rapid supporters repetitions? In fact when it comes down it he usually fumbles. Can you show me one instance of his "courage"?

hey, it takes a lot of courage to tell such bold-faced lies :)

But, he has character, charisma, commitment, courage, focus, initiative, passion, a positive attitude, and most importantly, vision.

Funny, Bush's "vision" is very similar to some neo-cons that have been begging to invade iraq for quite awhile (way before 9/11)...heck bush's so-called "vision" was apparent before he was even elected. Does anyone remember the last weapons inspections? Is there a single person here who didn't know that it was just lip-service? did anyone not see the invasion coming a mile away?

kuyu

Sep 24, 2004, 12:51 AM

I know you don't care, and that's just the point. Clinton was a "draft dodger," right? Go ahead, tell me you never thought as much. Also, you have totally dodged my central point: Bush avoided fighting in a war he supported. Can you explain that away, or will you and all of the other Bush supporters simply continue to ignore it?

I've stated this before, but I'll say it again for good measure.

During the waning Clinton administration and during Bush's first year and half, I WAS A RAGING LIBERAL. I've got papers I wrote in high school that would make Ted Kennedy seem conservative. I had the whole "F the government, man" thing down pat. It seemed cool at the time. I told my republican aunt and uncle they were "stupid to vote for Bush". I voted Gore/Lieberman and a mostly democratic ticket that year. Then I took macro-economics and realized that the economy didn't work the way I'd imagined it. It changed my whole outlook on things.

Now I'm an independant moderate with conservative economic values and liberal social ones. I liked Clinton. I hated Bush. But, I'm a different person today than I was then. I still like Clinton, but now I like Bush too.

Those on the boards that constantly bash Bush sound just like Rush Limbaugh. It seems like the fact that the republicans did it to Clinton is a reason to do it to Bush. Hate is hate is hate. (This last bit is not directed towards informed, polite naysayers. Dissent is good. All out opposition is non-productive)

pseudobrit

Sep 24, 2004, 04:54 AM

I've stated this before, but I'll say it again for good measure.

During the waning Clinton administration and during Bush's first year and half, I WAS A RAGING LIBERAL. I've got papers I wrote in high school that would make Ted Kennedy seem conservative. I had the whole "F the government, man" thing down pat. It seemed cool at the time. I told my republican aunt and uncle they were "stupid to vote for Bush". I voted Gore/Lieberman and a mostly democratic ticket that year. Then I took macro-economics and realized that the economy didn't work the way I'd imagined it.

So you like Bush becauase you used to be a short-sighted radical in high school?

Hmm... I'm afraid of Bush because I studied history in college.

IJ Reilly

Sep 24, 2004, 10:43 AM

I've stated this before, but I'll say it again for good measure.

But you still haven't answered my question!

kuyu

Sep 24, 2004, 11:11 AM

But you still haven't answered my question!

Bush avoided a war that he supported. That sounds like a classic case of NIMBY.

I almost joined the service right out of high-school. A doctor told me I wouldn't pass the physical because of a spine issue. I've got an extra vertabrae that's broken in half (L6). In retrospect, I'm sort of relieved that I didn't join. I would have been an Apache pilot (army) or transport pilot (AF). Although my odds of dying over there are not much greater than dying here in a car crash, it's still a frightening experience to be sure.

Sayhey

Sep 24, 2004, 11:27 AM

On the topic of the origin of these documents, I'll have to agree with this opinion piece by Clarence Page. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0409220110sep22,1,7797559.column?coll=chi-news-col)

After all, the first public allegation that CBS News had used forged memos in its report questioning Bush's Air National Guard service did come from a blogger called "Buckhead" on FreeRepublic.com, a freewheeling soapbox for right-wing rants and chat rooms.

Buckhead posted his highly technical explanation, citing proportional spacing and font styles, within a remarkable four hours after CBS' airtime. As the Los Angeles Times was the first to report, Buckhead is Harry W. MacDougald, 46, an Atlanta lawyer without expertise in typography or typewriter history. But he does have strong ties to conservative Republican causes like the Southeastern Legal Foundation, which helped lead the drive to disbar President Bill Clinton in Arkansas after the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

When the Times reached him by telephone last week, MacDougald confirmed that he was Buckhead but declined to answer questions about how he learned so much about the CBS documents so quickly. Curiouser and curiouser, my dear Alice.

I don't like conspiracy theories, but I'd sure like to know if Mr. MacDougald had any help in reaching his conclusion so quickly about these documents, and from whom. Of course, as we are all chasing rabbits down this rabbit hole, the content of the revelations about Bush's dishonesty and dodging of his service commitments - none of which need these documents to be supported - gets totally lost. Not to mention the obvious fact that substantive issues such as the growing chaos and mounting numbers of dead in Iraq get less coverage while Fox News salivates over Rather's gaffe.

Funny how we didn't see all this outrage when Fox aired a doctored photo of Kerry on stage with Jane Fonda, isn't it?

Sayhey

Sep 24, 2004, 11:37 AM

Bush avoided a war that he supported. That sounds like a classic case of NIMBY.

Last I knew, NIMBY stood for Not In My Back Yard. How does that apply to the hypocrisy of supporting sending others in harm's way while doing everything to avoid seeing the fire yourself? This is not a zoning issue; this is a classic example of a son of the elite believing that he did not have to put his own gold-plated hide in danger, but the less fortunate were expendable. You may not find this attitude offensive, but I do. In fact, I find that it reflects poorly on someone who wants to be in a position to make the call about sending young people into combat.

stubeeef

Sep 24, 2004, 12:14 PM

Sayhey

Sep 24, 2004, 12:55 PM

sayhey,
Are you saying that republicans wrote this drivel on a computer and forwarded it up cause they knew that cbs would use idiot experts. Boy now that is a theory, these guys are clairvoyent, knowing that they would pass so many hoops to get on air, and by using such obvious fakes.
Let them eat cake.

No, I said this:

I don't like conspiracy theories, but I'd sure like to know if Mr. MacDougald had any help in reaching his conclusion so quickly about these documents, and from whom.

Before I'd make any charges towards the GOP, Karl Rove, or whomever you are talking about, I'd like to hear some answers to my simple questions from Mr. MacDougald (who isn't talking, by the way.) Unlike some others this political season, I'd do believe that something on the order of evidence is necessary before leaping to wild conclusions.

stubeeef

Sep 24, 2004, 01:05 PM

but I'd sure like to know if Mr. MacDougald had any help in reaching his conclusion so quickly about these documents, and from whom.

YES we all want answers, thank goodness there is the independant investigation. After the kerry campaign said they had no contact with cbs & burkett on this story, then it was only contact not talking about the documents, why didn't they say that before they tried to cover it up? Yes I want to know more too.

But to think that this rogue republican or anyone else on the right could dream that cbs would be stupid enough to let these documents through is giving way to much credit to anyone. I don't think they were forged by the kerry campaign, but I do think the kerry campaign helped cbs to get this story out to assist their own agenda and were caught because they too could not have believed cbs would let trash up and out on 60 minutes. Now their hand (k campaigns) is out and they are in it knee deep.

Sayhey

Sep 24, 2004, 04:51 PM

I don't think they were forged by the kerry campaign, but I do think the kerry campaign helped cbs to get this story out to assist their own agenda and were caught because they too could not have believed cbs would let trash up and out on 60 minutes. Now their hand (k campaigns) is out and they are in it knee deep.

While I notice we are still not talking about the uncontradicted facts of the case concerning Bush's lies and his dodging of his service commitments, I would ask you, stu, what is the problem (assuming you are correct) with the Kerry campaign feeding news outlets their view on the opposition? Why shouldn't they feel free to comment, on background, or otherwise about Bush's abysmal record in the TANG? Do you honestly think the GOP isn't doing the same thing from their point of view at every opportunity? The only problem would be if the Kerry campaign manufactured the documents themselves; something you yourself acknowledge is very unlikely.

IJ Reilly

Sep 24, 2004, 04:52 PM

Bush avoided a war that he supported. That sounds like a classic case of NIMBY.

You mean hypocrisy, right? If so, then we agree. (If not, then you are still trying to dance around the issue.)

I would also add to that a willingness to send others off to die for your cause, a Bush character trait that seems to remain a constant from youth to adulthood.

stubeeef

Sep 24, 2004, 05:10 PM

The only problem would be if the Kerry campaign manufactured the documents themselves; something you yourself acknowledge is very unlikely.
No the problem is falsely accusing a candidate, with forged documents, within 60 days of an election. It is election fraud. Lockhart helped cbs make the accusation by calling burkett, someone they would never return calls to before. It is recapped here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=89911).

Sayhey

Sep 24, 2004, 05:19 PM

No the problem is falsely accusing a candidate, with forged documents, within 60 days of an election. It is election fraud. Lockhart helped cbs make the accusation by calling burkett, someone they would never return calls to before. It is recapped here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=89911).

making a false accusation within 60 days of an election? You have got to be kidding, right? You assume the Kerry campaign and CBS conspired with each other and knowingly used (but of course did not manufacture) forged documents to defame our president. Besides the fact that most of the people in position to know, think the contents of the documents are true (and the truth would seem to be a very good defense to the charge of "falsely accusing") there is no evidence that either CBS or the Kerry campaign did any such thing. stu, your tin foil hat is interfering with your common sense. :p

stubeeef

Sep 24, 2004, 05:31 PM

You assume the Kerry campaign and CBS conspired with each other and knowingly used (but of course did not manufacture) forged documents to defame our president.
It is not an assumption, they were in contact, burkett said he would not produce the documents without contact with the kerry kids. It is all fact. Lockhart called this guy at mapes request, a fact. The documents were frauds presented as fact against experts advice, a fact.
Lockhart would be happy for cbs to do a "scoop"(of dog poo) to help his campaign ambitions, only this time he helped comment a crime. :p :p :p :p

Sayhey

Sep 24, 2004, 06:14 PM

It is not an assumption, they were in contact, burkett said he would not produce the documents without contact with the kerry kids. It is all fact. Lockhart called this guy at mapes request, a fact. The documents were frauds presented as fact against experts advice, a fact.
Lockhart would be happy for cbs to do a "scoop"(of dog poo) to help his campaign ambitions, only this time he helped comment a crime. :p :p :p :p

No, no evidence of a crime committed on the part of CBS or the Kerry campaign. It doesn't matter how many times you listen to Rush on this, the fact of telephone conversations does not equal a conspiracy. For a conspiracy to occur, a illegal act must knowingly take place as result of the discussion. You assume CBS and/or the Kerry campaign knew the documents were forged and engaged in a conspiracy to foist them on the electorate. No such link has been shown to exist. The only illegal act I know of, if the documents are fake, is by that person who forged them. He or she could be guilty of fraud.

wwworry

Sep 24, 2004, 06:21 PM

did you read at all what sort of contact that was?

If the Kerry campaign did forge the documents, which no one has credibly suggested, that would be very very bad. However, it is more likely that the Bush campaign forged the documents as they are known for dirty tricks. My proof is of the same quality as any right leaning wing-nut.

Now we know in all likelyhood president Bush has had a lot of contact with whoever it was that illegally outed CIA agent Plame.

We know that Bush has had a lot of contact with the people who wrote the torture authorization memos.

We know that Bush, in fact, used a lot of false information to bolster the GOP in mid-term elections. Yes, much worse and in fact, Bush used a lot of false information.

to put all in perspective.... :D

zimv20

Sep 24, 2004, 07:04 PM

i'm just some guy. but if i were to forge documents from the early 70s with the intent of fooling experts, i'd find some 30+ year old paper and a 30+ year old typewriter.

never in my wildest dreams would i think to try to imitate a typewriter w/ a word processor and a printer.

...unless i wanted it close, but not perfect...

diamond geezer

Sep 24, 2004, 07:34 PM

This explanation of the whole affair seems both well researched and believable link (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/23/15201/7818)

TANG Typewriter: It Was ROVE
by Hunter
Thu Sep 23rd, 2004 at 19:20:01 GMT

Sorry for the installment in what was to be a completed series, but new evidence has come to light that I think everyone will be interested in.

First, two admissions: *I have come to a revelation. *I have been spending all this time researching fonts, rebutting bad science, and generally looking for something conclusive, from either side, that we could hang our hats on. *As has been pointed out to me, this has been a colossal waste of time, as well as Damn F---ing Boring for all of us most involved with the effort. *There is another way to approach this.

I have also, previous to now, been extremely skeptical of claims of Rovian involvement in the CBS document saga. *For starters, it hasn't gone well for Bush, which would seem to rule it out as an act of Republican genius. *But then it hit me. *The only reason it's gone bad for Bush is because things didn't go according to the original plan. *To put it bluntly, this was conclusively a Republican plot, but CBS screwed it up. *The "Burkett memos" were a plot hatched last March in order to neutralize a very dangerous witness against the President. *And it almost worked.

Burkett, James Moore, and Bush's Brain

Burkett was appearing, in February, as a result of his involvement with James Moore, author of Bush's Brain, a damning portrait of Karl Rove. *Burkett was to be quoted heavily in Moore's new book, Bush's War for Reelection. *As the prime witness of a substantial federal crime -- the scrubbing of Bush's military records -- and more importantly, as a witness whose statements were increasingly being confirmed by press reports finally beginning to sink their teeth into the story, Burkett in February was a source of big problems for the White House. *He was, and remains, the best witness towards explaining why Bush's Guard documents have the gaping holes that they do, centered precisely around and after the time Bush started not showing up for duty. *The documents were there, Burkett asserts. *And now they aren't. *(Interestingly, none other than Knox, Killian's secretary, has now come forward to assert that both official and unofficial documentation by Bush's commanders was generated for the period in question.)

Pushes to discredit Burkett as "unstable", "unhinged" -- all the words we have come to associate with Bush's enemies, whoever they may be -- were fully underway while Burkett was getting his February media attention, as is evidenced by the White House statements in those same press reports.

But because Burkett had confirmation of large parts of his story, because his story involved a felony on the part of administration officials, and because the Bush documents do indeed have gaping holes consistent with a "cleansing" of damaging information, Burkett was on the A-list of people in line for a Karl Rove "rat****ing", as it has become known in political circles.

So Burkett was, indeed, given a poison pill of sorts. *In March of 2004, soon after Burkett started appearing throughout the media telling his story, a woman by the name of "Lucy Ramirez" called him up to ask him to take documents she had discovered, but wanted no part of. *A meet was arranged; the documents were handed to Burkett. *The documents were ones that indeed matched the events in question precisely, and were very compelling; they were also a plant.

They were clearly forgeries, or so the operatives thought, to anyone who knew about the capabilities of typewriters in the early 1970s. *Surely, if Burkett released those documents to the press, they would be discovered as fraudulent immediately, and Burkett would be made to look not only like an "unhinged" nutcase, but like a purveyor of forged documents as well.

His relationship with the media would be over. *Kaput. *He would go from media darling to untouchable, in the span of days.

This point is important: the original forgers never planned on the documents actually making it on television. *That would create an uncontrollable storm, about the very subject that the "rat****ing" operation was trying to insulate the President from. *The operation was just to destroy Burkett himself, the person with the most knowledge of the "scrubbing" of Bush's files -- a very damaging subject with felony implications. *It was going to be a simple plan, no harder than forging any other "newly discovered" documents in Bush's files. *The memos just had to look "real enough" to fool an amateur like Burkett, but not real enough that a media-consulted expert couldn't immediately recognize them as forged: a delicate balance, but one the operation thought it could pull off. *But there was a problem that the creators of the memos didn't count on. *Or, rather, there were several problems.

The first is that Burkett, when faced with the documents, simply got cold feet. *He didn't show them to anyone. *He kept them hidden, and sat on them for a number of months, not sure what to do. *It was only much later, after the media had fully digested the document dump, and was again beginning to ask very, very damning questions of the President -- and with much persuasion on the part of his old media contacts -- that he very cautiously came forward, and passed the documents on to CBS News.

Surely, the forgers attempting to set Burkett up thought, Burkett would be consigned to history the moment he tried to pass those documents off to anyone who would actually know about documents. *But as it turns out, they didn't do enough research on their end, and outsmarted themselves. *They knew what the content of the documents would have to be -- because, presumably, they had seen the original copies. *But they didn't know that typewriters in the 1970s did have the typeface in question, which would make the forgery-vs.-not discussions infinitely more complicated than they had planned for it to be. *And that as a result of that unintentional level of credibility, the media outlet to which Burkett would eventually release the documents would indeed run the documents, on national television, as genuine.

Yes, while the original goal was, belatedly, finally being achieved, they were simply not prepared for the media to not realize the documents were forged, and to run with them full-speed. *They had previously simply assumed, back when the "rat****ing" operation took place back in March, that they'd be done with Burkett, the issue of the 1997 "scrubbing" of Bush's records would therefore lose the most vocal and damaging witness, and that'd be the end of it, with plenty of time left over until the election.

Wondering why it took the White House so long to respond? *And why, when confronted with the accusation that this was, indeed, a White House operation, they responded by briefly pulling all scheduled appearances with the media?

It's because they simply didn't know what to do, in those first few days. *The torpedo they had launched months ago had managed to arc gracefully right back around to them, and they suddenly found themselves looking it in the face. *They couldn't deny the content of the memos -- after all, they were presumably based on real ones -- but they could hardly come out and be the first ones to say that they were forgeries, either.

Conclusion

Now, here's the problem with what I've written, above.

None of it is true.

Or, to be infinitely more precise; it might be, or it might not be. It is speculation, not evidence.

All the dates, cited documents, media reports, and other facts as I have outlined them are indeed absolutely true, and Karl Rove has indeed performed very similar "rat****ing" operations before. *And there does seem to be tentative but growing consensus that the "newly discovered" documents that are in Bush's files are, indeed, part of tampering and forgery efforts by someone connected to the Bush campaign. *But I have simply pulled the rest, the backstory that ties it all together as relates to the Killian memos, out of my ass.

Still, as I said at the beginning of this piece, proving things has proven to be a colossal waste of time. *Nobody in the media, and certainly nobody on the Internet, gives a rat's ass about proving their theories. *The moral for both bloggers and national television hosts is simply "if it sounds good, say it!"

So, even though I have absolutely no facts to back up my above assertion -- that this was indeed a classic Rovian tactic meant to neutralize Burkett himself, but one that blew entirely out of control -- I certainly think this analysis is sound enough for the entire Internet, as well as all newspapers, television personalities, and other media to start running with this story.

After all, it fits the facts as we know them, better than any other explanation currently being touted.

Doesn't it?

What do you think, Mr. Rove?

diamond geezer

Sep 24, 2004, 07:35 PM

But it's important to note that before Bush decided to run for president, none of the three documents that form the pillars of George's case were in Bush's files, according to undisputed reports in the Boston Globe.

Early on, the Bush camp -- which was apparently concerned about the missing years -- worked with a retired Guard personnel officer named Albert Lloyd, Jr., who has been identified as a friend of Bush's, to make sense of the candidate's records. The Globe reported that Lloyd found the documents in the archives.

Now, public records officials include them in the packet of documents sent in response to Freedom of Information Act inquiries.

Lloyd told the Globe that the torn document bears Bush's social security number. (Such information is redacted from copies that journalists receive.)

At press time, TomPaine.com was unable to verify how the document was introduced into Bush's file, but a source familiar with National Guard record keeping in Texas commented that changing the contents of a guardsman's record would be "very unusual."

Curiously, now two versions of the document exist. One, obtained by George and posted on its website, bears handwritten calculations that add up whether the member to whom the document belongs has satisfied his duty for the year. (George's Keating said that he obtained the documents both through FOIA and other sources, which he wouldn't reveal. He confirmed, however, that the magazine was convinced of the authenticity of the documents it used, and that the handwriting was there when the magazine obtained it, with the exception of the dates scrawled on the bottom of the document, which were added during research.)

Even more intriguing is that whoever wrote on the document most likely did so after the document was torn -- we know this because the two documents include the same tear. Why would someone in the meticulous military culture photocopy a nameless document whose information was almost entirely obliterated, and use it to figure out whether a Guard member had completed his duty? The torn document is clearly computer generated; why wouldn't the person performing the calculations have printed another copy? Or at least scrawled the name down?

Should this lead us to suspect that the document was altered more recently? Is this evidence that someone has tampered with the public records on behalf of the candidate?

Another question: considering the military's obsession with audits, chains of command and official reports, what weight does this torn document carry? After all, it is unsigned, undated and partially obliterated.

In fact, a number of documents in Bush's file offer more convincing evidence that he, in fact, didn't serve during 1972-1973. In Bush's annual evaluation, his commanding officers wrote, "Lieutenant Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report" -- from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973.

Moreover, another document, the Chronological Listing of Service, shows the location and the number of days he served every year, with the exception of 1972-1973. In fact, nowhere except on the torn document is there evidence that he served during that year.