Which one of the Swifties was an anonymous source? Which one forged documents and refused to name the source? How many of them depended on using dead men for making their points? They were all out in the open so far as I know. Not a valid comparison.

I myself wonder why CBS is corkscrewing themselves into the ground over this, come out and say they are forged they were misled and then let the media go on a feeding frenzy as to who fed them the documents and why.

Of course it's a valid comparison. Just because you say it isn't, doesn't change that it's totally valid. The secretary says this is how the guy felt about Bush. Are you arguing that he didn't feel that way or that the documents were possibly a clumsy forgery... which would be besides the point. Did he serve or did he use his connections to duck out? Answer the question, Mr. Bush! Heh heh.

And I believe one of the Swifties was speaking for his dead dad and uncle. A quick search of AD will bring up my post when I spotted that.

But if the documents are forged that there is no proof that Bush did anything wrong except for the words of a secretary. False documents= a battle between the words of a secretary and the words of Killian's children. Nowhere did i attack the secretary in any way,shape, or form. I am putting things in perspective. Mrs. Knox was a secretary of Lt. Killian, yes...but she was also the secretary of others. She was not the very personal secretary of Killian as many are led to believe. That is not an attack...fact.

Mrs. Knox says that Killian felt one way about Bush...and Killian's son says he felt another way. My whole point in this topic was that i do not understand how someone could just blatantly disregard one person's words over anothers for no apparent reason.



I already made my position clear on the SBVT. I wasnt in Vietnam...i do not know what happened. John Kerry probably served this nation honorably in combat...but so did the 200+ veterans who are a part of the SBVT. These veterans are just as highly decorated if not more so than John Kerry. My view is that they have earned the right to have the American people hear what they have to say. I dont know the truth, you dont know the truth, the only people who could possibly know is the people who were there.

Oh, come on, amf. What would you say if the Swifties touted some forged documents, but later claimed, after they were discredited, "Hey! So what if they're forged? The point is, they're true!" ?

Ah, mais vous êtes tort, he replies in French, which I do not find particularly annoying. Knox said that the documents were forgeries. She said that the memos:



Sure did. Of course, if Rather was a journalist, and this nice old lady had changed her story since last week...

But why question a nice old lady about some fraudulent documents that she didn't type anyway. Come to think of it, why? Oh yes:


I haven't seen it, but The Swift Vets published a book full of affadavits, which in concept could be used as evidence in court. They have also produced after-action reports on various awards where Kerry has won awards, changed the story, had more recent Navy guys embellish things, etc. Kerry has had to admit that he wasn't in Cambodia on Christmas, that indeed Nixon was not president in 1968, and Kerry's campaign was even forced to admit that his first Purple Heart was indeed an accidental self-inflicted wound. For a "pack of lies" it sure forced him to 'clarify' some of his past nuance.



Indeed it's a circus, but if I made some fake documents, faxed them from Kinko's to Dan Rather that "John Edwards has sex with farm animals in the dark of midnight" and he ran them on 60 Minutes, would you be as diligent in demanding answers to those questions based on fake docs? Even if I found a nice old lady who sorta kinda remembers this stuff, even though she says that the docs are fake? Oh, and Rather's main other witness is Kerry's freaking campaign chair in Texas? This is truly embarassing.

Curmudgeon
You quoted my question to you, yet failed to answer it. Your post did contain many items that I would have to term, inaccurate.

Apparently you missed the links that myself and others have provided for people who served with him or knew him while he was in the guard.
And Bush flew F-102's for the ANG. That translates into he got his pilots license.


Well, he attended Yale prior to entering the ANG, and it would have to be a conspiracy by a very young Karl Rove to fake an honorable discharge, that has been in the military files.

I understand that you would like to see paystubs and 1040's, that's a reasonable request. But I'm assuming that the paperwork that lists the points accrued by Bush to meet his terms of service doesn't convince you of anything?
Nothing that happens between now and the election concerning Bush's guard service will sway any member of the Church of ABB.

I'm wondering who's credibility is more damaged right now, the DNC or CBS.....
After all, when the DNC chairman said:
"I look forward to that debate - when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard," Mr McAuliffe said. "George Bush never served in our military in our country. He didn’t show up when he should have showed up."
Link
And nobody in the media called him on it, it's a toss up as to who is the bigger buffoon.

I am still scared to comment too much but since these documents have been shown to be unfounded or fake they don't matter so much.

That's one thing, with regards Bush's ability to act as Commander in Chief I don't think that it matters except to say that someone with actual military experience is far more justified to comment on and understand issues facing the military than a man that through his priviledged position managed to avoid the military 'in action'.

I think it should be a side note to a less dramatic campaign. The fact Kerry was a noted serviceman who achieved and was decorated is a good thing, he would make a better president as a result of these experiences than a man that avoided real service. It shows a poor character trait for one thing, and for another in the current climate of international conflict it is less abhorrent to have a man that has experienced combat to send troops into warzones to risk their lives than a man who specifically avoided such experiences yet is willing to have people go through them.

This has reached a new low.
NY Times - registration required I think


This is a real headline of a real story. Not the Onion, not a parody. A real headline in the Newspaper Of Record, the New York Times. Fake, but accurate.

Pay no attention to the forgery, but would you please answer questions that are raised by the forgery? Mr. President, please answer questions raised by these forged documents, that we looked for since 1999, and conveniently forged 2 months before the election? Why are you stonewalling - answer the questions!

In answer to the original question for debate - this isn't going to come within 10 miles of touching the Bush campaign, but may hurt the other campaign, if they keep piling on about Guard service 30 years ago, instead of meaningful issues.

How interesting that a secretary who dislikes Bush would find fake documents that precisely voice what she espouses. How fortunate for Dan Rather to have found her.

I think it was the former Senator from Illinois who said,"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."-Paul Simon

"Courage"-Dan Rather

Sure, go ahead and take the talking head route and ignore what she said in the very next sentence:


So you see, even if the documents themselves are not authentic, she is confirming that the information contained in them is accurate. Now if anyone has actually read the link that I have supplied a few times you'll see that there are plausible explanations for this. Most notably the allegation that George W. Bush started "scrubbing" his records around 1997. Therefore, the real documents might have been destroyed, but that doesn't mean they never existed.

Was forging them a mistake? Probably, but I would rather the information get out than a crooked politician scam the system.

Regarding a secretary vs. Killian's son even on Hannity and colmes he admits that they only talked about it a few times over dinner. Isn't it possible that Killian had a favorable opinion at one point about Bush but that changed when he started disobeying orders? I would sure think that Killian's secretary would be in a much better position to answer those questions than his son.

There may be another interpretation.

Hannity's question is rather general. While Killian may have been comfortable talking about Bush in such terms at the dinner table, discussing sensitive military information may have been a different matter.

I wouldn't be too sure in this case.

A longtime Democratic primary voter, Knox said she is not a Bush political supporter.......

Last week, Knox said she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time with the Texas Air National Guard, although she did recall a culture of special treatment for the sons of prominent people, such as Bush and others.

Of course, the article is also contains two seemingly contradicting statements:

She said the military jargon in the documents would be used in the Navy or Army and not the Air Force. Also, she said the font used for the documents did not match fonts used on either the manual Olympia or IBM Selectric typewriters she used while working there........

Knox said last week she had not seen the disputed documents obtained by CBS, but was reacting to news reports challenging their authenticity, primarily by countering claims that Killian did not keep copies.

Q - If the information is correct, why did CBS not feel comfortable running the story without forged memos?
A - Because there is not enough evidence to make the case without them. You have nothing but the word of Barnes, Kerry's Texas campaign chair, who has changed his story over the years, and now the word of a highly partisan secretary, who again noted that these were forgeries, and who last week said that she didn't remember details about Bush's service. CBS admitted that the producer on this bit was chasing this since 1999, and they hadn't run it for lack of evidence - until these memos magically appear, faxed from Kinko's in Abilene Texas, of all places.



Do you realize what you just said here? You are justifying all of the things that you hate. Take a step back. Forging documents that allege misconduct by the President of the United States was "probably" a mistake. Deep breath. And using the public airwaves and the guise of impartial journalism to air forged documents - probably a mistake too? I am gobsmacked.

So you are going to attack the poor little old secretary!

And I read the entire article and I don't see where she "changed her story from last week" as your link declares. I also see that she says she thinks they're fake before she didn't type them, which is hardly conclusive evidence of anything, really.

Keep trying, boys!

Oh, yes: and did you serve honorably, President Bush??

Heh heh.

What a circus.



Where'd my "roll eyes" smiley go??

It is, indeed a circus. I am hard pressed to think of anything so irrelevant and un-newsworthy as an old secretary's opinion of what her long-dead employer might have thought 30 years ago.

OK, how about today's Houston Chronicle then? I believe this is the source the CubeJockey reference about Bush 'purging his recordds.' It's tempting, but against the rules, to post the whole darn thing...this guy sounds like a real reliable source.

No.. Bush didn't run on his Military Record Kerry did. Plus, America already knows how George Bush handles himself during war.



Only of something really damaging comes out, but fake documents and statements from two partisans, aren't all that damaging.

Ok now the Democrats are supporting the forgery of documents if it gets their story across?

This is amazing...

So if the swift boat vets forged documents about Kerry's Cambodia expose it would be ok?

Or if the RNC had forged love letters from Bill Clinton to Monica it would have been ok?

This is becoming hypocrisy at its finest.

You have to be really hard pressed for examples to bring poor ole (open heart surgery) Bill Clinton into this debate

I bet this whole episode is Bill Clinton's fault. Yes I believe you are correct.

Clinton must have really ticked you off.

It keeps getting better for Bush and worse for Rather.

There is now exactly zero of the CBS story that remains unrefuted. ABC smells blood in the water. Staudt must have gotten sick of seeing his name in print (in Times New Roman 12 point font).

Air National Guard Colonel Denies Bush Got Preferential Treatment

I agree that in the role of commander-in-Chief it is better for a President to have experienced combat then to not have.

I also think that this is just one point in a large list of experiences, beliefs, and actions that all come together to determine who would be a better choice.

However, No one has yet proved that young George W. Bush got into the Air National Guard through anything other than volunteering. There are alot of people who were in the service during the Vietnam war who volunteered for the Guard, Reserves or Specific Branch or Rating/MOS (Job) Assignments because they did not want to be drafted and end up in the infantry.

All of those folks who volunteered, regardless of whether they did so to avoid combat or not are to be commended. It was only those that choose to burn draft cards and/or fled to Canada who deserve contempt.

John Kerry Volunteered for the Navy. Most who did so, wanted the Navy because of the limited possibility of seeing combat. However, John Kerry then volunteered for assignment to Swift Boats. This was an assignment that anyone with a brain could see was dangerous and sure to see combat, or at least hostile fire. Whatever John Kerry's reasons for volunteering for this assignment you have to give him credit for doing so.

My biggest problem with this whole issue is that I seriously doubt that Senator John Kerry or President George W. Bush are ANYTHING like young John Kerry and young George Bush. We all grow, we all mature, we all learn from our mistakes. What is important to me is what do these two stand for now, and what do their political records show they stand for? In that regard, IMHO they are both horrible. If only we had a "None of the above" line on the ballot.

And now for the next surprise, yes children the White House thru the Pentagon released new documents of little Georgie. No say it aint so I thought all his documents were released. Wonder what will turn up if they look again.

More Bush Guard records released



Even though the new documents really don't add anything to unanswered questions.

amf Posted: Sep 17 2004, 10:23 AM

I'm not sure if it's her changing her story or faulty journalism, I'll lean towards the former, but here are two different accounts with two different statements:


Link-Sept 14


Link-Sept 15

Several months ago Prsident Bush signed a DD form 180 unlike Senator Kerry, the pentagon and not the president is the gateway for any forms requests... if YOU want a complete copy of the presidents military record all you have to do is file a FOIA request with the pentagon ... he ( the president has waived his right to privacy and did so MONTHS ago ...

now if only John Kerry would do the same ...

My time to gloat

Statement released from Dan Rather:




Now the big question: Where exactly did these documents come from?

Edit to add: I think this has only helped the Bush campaign as it shows those among the ABB crowd will stoop so low as to forge documents to smear the President.

Wow, someone actually admitting in a public forum that they made a mistake? Hmm...I'm sure that no one would stoop so low as to give false impressions based on innaccurate data. Mr. Rather was given false intelligence and acted accordingly (surely he can't be blamed). CBS was merely following the lead of Mr. Rather, thus CBS as a whole can't be blamed either. Oh, did CBS pick only the testimony of experts that favored the claims rather than look at all of them (ala cherry picking)? Afterall, the point isn't that there isn't evidence of the claims, right? The point must be that the Dubya had "potential priviledged, preferential treatment" not that he actually was "entitled". But, once Mr. Rather lands on the flight deck claiming "Mission Accomplished", we can all feel confident that we are in fact safer for knowing this.

It's funny when somebody does not have an actual retort to an argument, they always seem to bring up President Bush, even when it is not on topic.

I have noticed Bill O'Rielly backing up Dan Rather on this story, saying his producers let him down by not investigating this more. Maybe.. But I believe Rather(and the whole ABB bunch for that fact) wanted this to be true so badly, they were salivating at the bit.

Good investigating work there RAthER

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think that CBS and Dan Rather deserve the criticism they're getting. It's funny though when showing the irony of the situation those in the pro-Dubya camp choose to ignore the symmetry (which is indeed on topic). If you were to read my first post in this thread, you'd understand that I believe this whole thing to completely detracts from arguing the real issues of the campaign. Lastly, yep, CBS did a bang-up job with their investigative work. I think that whatever standards one holds CBS, one ought to hold the US government to equal if not higher standards. But, then, that's just me...

I think that you might be trying a little too hard with the symmetry here. Just to clarify the point that you are trying to make:

George Bush asked his experts, the world intelligence community, etc. and they all said "Saddam Hussein has NOT lived up to his UN obligations, he's a threat, he has WMD, he has terror ties, etc." Therefore, he made a decision and went to war. Still haven't found WMDs (OK, a few). But no one has popped up and said that they created fake WMDs and planted them there (I'm sure Wolfowitz has an alibi)

CBS News asked their experts "are these memos OK" and their experts said "NO - we have issues with them, don't run with this because others will see the problems of the documents." Then they went ahead with the story anyway. Then, when the whole world knew that these were forgeries, they obfuscated, denied, said that they were "Fake but Accurate," said that they had an 'unimpeachable source' (Burkett ) and Rather said that there would be "no investigation, no apology nor should there be." Don't these guys have Google?

Rather is beyond arrogant. When he said "I'd like to know if they are forgeries, I'd like to break that story" Um, every news organization in the country already broke that story, Dan.

Now watch - they'll stall and deny and obstruct so that we don't get the name of the Democratic party / MoveOn.org forger until Nov. 4 or so.

Did anyone see Rather ambushed by the Fox News local guy in Texas - priceless. The reported asked if he was duped, and Rather said 'do you feel duped, since you work for Fox News.' Those who live in glass houses...

As the B. B. King's very first hit “3 O’Clock Blues” from 1951 says, "well it’s three o’clock in the mornin’, and I ain’t even close my eyes.” It’s a little after three, but I’m upset and can’t sleep. I don’t like the direction this thread has taken. The “gloating” mentioned in connection with Dan Rather, is somewhat unfair. I’m probably digressing from the topic, but the assault on Rather has already done that, so I come to the defense of a fellow Texan that I’m not, to do a reverse echo of the Dixie Chicks, "ashamed" to say is from my state.

Before I go any further, let me say that I’m not defending Rather and CBS’s sloppy journalism, nor am I defending the delay in admitting what seemed obvious—that documents were forged.

What I am saying, and I will provide a quote to back it up, is that Rather is not the demon some on the right suppose. He has been in journalism nearly a half century and one could argue that up until two weeks ago had a stellar career. My defense of Rather is twofold: 1) his career must be considered in the context of his many decades and 2) he has, even recently, shown great restraint and professionalism.

The first point really doesn’t need amplification, but I offer some documentation on the second. I just picked up Seymour M. Hersh’s new book, Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker wrote the introduction. One of his revelations is that CBS--60 Minutes II--obtained some of the pictures Hersh had, but from a different source.

According to Remnick:



The foregoing passage doesn’t describe the man I heard on depicted Hardball and Scarborough Country. It doesn’t speak of a man on a mission to “get” or bring down the president or a journalist who throws caution and a long distinguished career to the wind to get yet another “scoop.” It speaks of journalistic responsibility and restraint.

In 1991 Larry Sabato published a now classic book entitled Feeding Frenzy: Attack Journalism & American Politics. Sabato updated the book in 1999. He describes the manner in which journalists go after politicians as resembling the “feeding frenzy” of sharks. His examples included how the media went after Dan Quayle over the "potatoe" incident.

I found tonight’s Scarborough Country particularly distasteful. One of Scarborough’s guests tonight was Pat Buchanan. I don’t care for either of them, but together, they are completely intolerable. While they feed on whoever happens to be their current victim, they feed off each other. It ain't pretty. Tonight these two vicious truth shading, news slanting media sharks went on a “feeding frenzy” against one of their own—Dan Rather.

Scarborough and Buchanan--two barrons of dishonest and dishonorable journalism--all but promised to keep it up right through the election.

It's now 4:30 and that "tonight's, uh this morning's, real deal."

BoF:



And.......

They were given this ammunition by whom?

Dan Rather and CBS news. The evidence is becoming clearer and clearer that this was, as Rush (Redliner cringes at the invocation of that name) said, nothing more then a "hit piece".

If anybody forgot about Dan Rathers , it was Dan Rather first and foremost.

This is how the game is played, D R knew this going in. How many times has DR been on the other side of the fence without giving quarter? Now he is the one being investigated and HE doesn't like it?

Like so many powerful people these days they can't admit mistakes, and the lack of maturity that that shows is what gets them deeper in trouble. DR was given the publics trust and HE, not those that appeared on Scarborough Country, violated it.

The Public Trust is an ideal that should never be taken lightly. DR and CBS did. Shame on them. They have brought this scorn upon themselves. This could well turn into the Broadcast News Medias own lil Watergate.

EDITED TO ADD:

Feeling sorrow for Dan Rather is a bit puzzling with the evidence that has come out.

Here, Rather had forged Military documents that could not be authenticated. THAT WAS A HECK OF A STORY IN, AND OF ITSELF!. Where did the documents come from? Who created them? Who would use a forged dead mans name to try to sway an election?

Those were all stories that Rather could have chosen to pursue, where they not? But, instead of using the FACTS to create a piece, CBS and Rather ran with questionable documents to create their own story, and not seek out the true culprits.

Just a short message to Dan Rather and CBS news. If you are in a dingy, surrounded by Sharks, and you want to survive, you probably ought not through the chum bucket overboard!