These forgeries looks bad on CBS more then on Kerry and Bush. 60 Minutes has been considered the greatest, trusted source of television news magazines since it first aired. However, during the last year, 60 Minutes has ran 4 episodes trying to question Bush integerity. Or more so, Dan Rather has been working hard for the Kerry Campaign (making fund raiser appearance for the Democratic party in his daughters home county on the request of his daughter and running 60 Minutes like a tabloid magazine). This scandal appears in the eyes of Americans as shade, and will create a downward spiral effect for CBS news room. How can America trust CBS as news when they pull stunts like this?

I don't care about Bush's military service and I don't care about Kerry's military service.

I care about the environment. I care about civil rights. I care about women's rights. I care about the state of education in America. I care about the lack of health insurance. I care about the slaughter in the Sudan. I care about the meaningless deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens. I care about the massive budget deficits. I care about the next terrorist attack. I care about the future of young African-American men and women. I care about AIDS and other diseases killing us. I care about the crumbling infrastructure of the nation. I care about the lack of quality jobs with wages you can raise a family on. I care about all the crap that teaches kids to be non-thinking zombies, but good consumers.

I don't care about obsessing on who did what 30 plus years ago while there are far more vital issues to address now.

That's my comment about this "controversy." Carry on.

here's the funny thing about those records kerry released ... on his DD-214 it states he is on active duty until 1972...

where did HE go for his guard drills while a leader of VVAW?

i iknow i wont get an answer on that but ok ...

A new article from US News & World Report (a fairly right leaning publication in my opinion) might just bring this back on to the front burner and hurt Bush a bit.



Despite people wanting this to go away and the scandal with the CBS memo, I don't think we are quite done with this yet.

I don't want this to go away, it's mighty entertaining, and it just puts the Dems in a deeper hole when they bring it up. Every time McAullife or Edwards opens their blowhole, they just sound stupid, pathetic and desperate.

CBS's star handwriting and document witness stated two years ago that you could absolutely not verify the authenticity of a document by a copy. Exactly what CBS had him do. The sheer number of experts who are debunking the memo's and the circumstances would have the DNC doing a victory jig, had the tables been turned.

There's a great article in The Hill that lays out the facts very well.


York is a conservative and writes for National Review, but if he's wrong, somebody prove it.
We should now be able to take a page from the Democrats handbook, if the Navy saw fit to award Kerry those Purple Hearts and other medals, who are we to question them?
If the ANG saw fit to award Bush an honorable discharge and stipulate that he accumulated the required points to do so, who are we to question them?

First, I'll start by saying that the other numbers you cited DTOM from 1969 to 1971 are irrelevant because no one is questioning that period, people are questioning the period between 1972 and 1973. So, posting numbers from those periods is really just an attempt to use smoke and mirrors to lead folks away from the real issue. That would be like saying " Johnny is a serial killer and has killed 12 people, but he sure does love puppies look at him playing so well with them! See he's not such a bad guy!"

So it makes sense to only focus on that time period. Now the US News article says that Bush only attended 36 drills in the 1972 to 1973 time period and 12 in 1973 to 1974. The article also says that Bush didn't meet his requirement of 50 points during this time period.

Your quote seems to state the opposite and doesn't give much to support that number. The question I would like answered is how many points does 1 drill buy you? I think that if we can uncover that information it should be fairly simple to determine if he met the requirement or not. Additionally, is there anything besides drill that earns you points?


I could turn the same question around back to you when you and others question Kerry's medals. He was afterall awarded them from the Navy, who are we to question them?

I will say again... The memos brought forth by CBS are forged and CBS has no credibility what so ever in my eyes. They are clearly a political hack spin news machine.
There is no need to post anymore links showing this are there are multiple sources debunking the forged memos.

I, like Dontreadonme, want this to stay in the spot light, especially with buffoons like McAullife barking about these forged documents to fuel their vitriol now. Quite entertaining really.

I guess you had it correct DT... Liberals are not the opposition, they are the entertainment.

Edit to add:

Cube Jockey Said:

No Cube. It is up to you to answer the question posed to you in the first place.

At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation. So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
The Hill


Anytime a reservist or guardsman performs duty, such as RST (re-scheduled training), it earns you points. RST's are authorized by the Commander of the unit to allow people to make up drills missed.



Please do point out where I questioned whether or not Kerry earned his medals.

DTOM, I understand what your article has written, but simply repeating it doesn't really add anything. My question is how many points exactly does attending a drill earn you?

You article says he earned 56 points, the article I saw said he attended X drills and didn't earn the required number of points. Clearly one of them is wrong, the only way to resolve that is to determine how points are calculated. Being that you are in the military I thought you might be able to better answer that than I could.

If the article I cited is wrong, so be it, but I'm not going to give in on it until it is proven wrong and I'm sure you would do the same were the positions reversed.

Agreed, the scandal over the CBS forged documents is rather entertaining (pardon my bad joke ). The longer this stays in the spot light and the more the Democrats focus on it, the worse the situation becomes for the Democrats.

Perhaps the most comprehensive article explaining why Bush served honorably and completely:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/4807

Whether or not this latest questioning of Bush's ANG service is legitimate, I can't help noticing the inability or unwillingness of fellow former Guardsmen to stand by President Bush's side and say, "Yeah, I remember serving with him in Alabama."

Even Kerry, for all of the flack that the Swiftboat Veterans "for Truth" have thrown at him, has a determined core of fellow veterans to stand with him and attest to his deeds. There is no doubt that Kerry served in combat and was decorated for it.

What do we have for George W. Bush? Dental records and pay stubs. And those who cast aspersions on the Navy, how and to whom they awarded medals and the paperwork still seem to place great stock in Air National Guard documentation alone that George W. Bush was present and fulfilled his terms of service, even in the absence of the testimony of other pilots. Once again, we are supposed to give the President the benefit of the doubt, apparently.

It seems awfully one-sided to me, regardless of the questioned authenticity of the documentation CBS found.

While I can't speak to exactly how the points were calculated in 1972, I can tell you how they were calculated in 1982, and I doubt if it changed much.

You receive 1 point for each 4 hour drill period, meaning a normal weekend would get you 4 points. A "3 day weekend" would get you 5 points. And each day of annual training ("2 weeks in the summer") would get you 1 point. As a result, in a normal year, you would earn 36 points for weekend drills, (9x4), 10 points for 3 day weekend drills, and 14 points for summer camp, making 60 points. Makeups for missed drills would be on the basis of 1 day for one point.

As for PE's query, "where are the Guardsmen who served with Bush", here's one...
Bush Served With Me in Alabama

Mind you, it will be interesting to watch Kerry and company continue to squirm as his activities in the early 1970s are examined, but I'll simply ask this:

If the opinions of military members are so important in evaluating which candidate would make a better Commander in Chief, why don't Kerry supporters take into account TODAY'S military?

I could care less where he was while he was in the Air Guard. What I do care about is how he got into the ANG. A lot of people have commitments to family and work, so they pursue service in the guards or reserves, which I totally respect and see as being admirable. At the same time, it's clear that the president and other "fortunate sons" were able to get into the guard to get out of any possibility of being shot at due to the "pull" that mommy or daddy had. The president served in a "champagne unit" made up of other prominent sons of politicians and football players. Does anyone deny that this was a way out during the Vietnam war? I'll grant you that things have changed now, but back then, the guards didn't consist of more than 10% of personnel in Vietnam. Not only that, but it was clear that an influential former Lt. Gov. got Bush into the guards-click here to read about it. It's for reasons like this, that I won't vote for someone who used their family's wealth and prominence to get into a branch of service that would see little combat.

You left out key words that would surely raise the red flag if this had been done by the Democrats. Barnes is the Kerry Campaign Vice-Chair. Barnes has been called the '51st Democratic Senator' by Tom Daschle, and rumors abound of a key appointment in a Kerry administration.
This 'testimony' has come out 55 days before the election, after the Swift Boat vet's ads, and after Bush has started to lead Kerry in polls.
Doesn't this smell a little fishy to you? Would you be so believing if a member of the Bush campaign made similar charges against Kerry?
Will you also condemn Democratic politicians and their sons for serving in Guard units during Vietnam?

I ran across an interesting document (discovered by a blogger) from the Dallas Morning News circa 1999.
Link



PE


And

Link

I would disagree with your info from your source " Bush Served With Me in Alabama".

That interview with Col Calhoun stated that he remembered talking with him from May to October of 1972. But that couldn't be. Bush was not assigned to that base until September of 1972.



So is Col Calhoun's statement true or false? Doesn't sound like a cut and dried answer to me.

Seeing someone before they were supposed to be there, doesn't sound like a reliable witness to me.

And Calhoun was the only person to see Bush in Alabama(when he was not supposed to be there). Oh well.

Getting back to this question (I didn't forget, it was just quitting time )....

MediaMatters.org excerpts an article originally printed in the New Republic.


The article goes on to list at least 3 more instances where people who did moderately questionable things still received honorable discharges. The important point made here is that just because you got an honorable discharge from the military in no way implies that your record was perfect and without flaws.

So, when you think about it from that perspective you could have many answers to your question DTOM. You could say that the ANG didn't really have all the information at the time and therefore went with the standard honorable discharge (even today we don't have Bush's full record despite numerous attempts to get it and the press is certainly more motivated to investigate it than some clerk pushing papers). You could say that the ANG was simply too lazy to go through all the paperwork required for a dishonorable discharge (assuming they knew Bush was AWOL). You could say that the ANG just didn't consider it a big deal, because according to many sources there were tons of pilots at the time and the loss of George W. Bush wasn't seen as a big deal. Or finally, you could go the conspiracy theory route and suggest that Bush used his family's influence to ensure he got an honorable discharge - it certainly wouldn't be the first time that daddy and his money bailed out a spoiled rich kid in trouble.

So, however you choose to look at it, simply saying "he got an honorable discharge" doesn't put the issue to rest.

It's probably difficult to remember exact dates from 30 years ago. If this man was planning a deception, he could have easily looked the dates up.

This is pretty much a non-issue to me. I don't know how many flying hours Bush logged, but I've heard the number is low. IMO, that is a bit of a waste of resources, but I've seen pilots with only 500 flying hours become Generals (the Commander of the base at our last location was one of those). They are usually the politician types. Bush is, surprise, surprise, a politician. Nothing really to see here, IMO.

CJ, you could accuse the ANG of being lazy in many respects such as record keeping, but the yearly points accumulated by Bush should pretty clearly indicate that not only was Bush ever considered AWOL but that there was also no grounds for anything but an honorable discharge. I never implied that Bush earned anything other than standard severance, but I don't think you can draw a conclusion that he was AWOL either.
It seems pretty clear to me that Bush most likely made up several drills that he 'missed' (not being counted for attendance), by RTS'ing. Now Bikerdad, may help shed some light if this was the case years ago, but RST attendance is not annotated on the forms normally used for regular drills, they are:
DA Form 1379 (Unit Record of Reserve Training)
DA Form 1380 (Record of Individual Performance of Reserve Duty Training)

Bush signed an SF 180, authorizing the release of all of his military records (which Kerry has yet to do), and they can't find his DD 214, I don't think it's a stretch if some DA 1380's are also missing.

Missed drills can easily be explained for various reasons, the primary being for employment.

Link

No, it doesnt matter to me if Bush skipped out of nam. It was a worthless and poorly managed war. In short it doesnt hurt Bush in my eyes that he ran from the fight in this debacle. Bill Clinton did the same except Clinton was politically aware enough to have morale reasons not to go. I really doubt Bush was. Kerry does recieve credit though for serving in hostile nam. Kerry was in combat....not the Al Gore hiding behind a desk variety but actually had bullets whizzing by him. So to summarize it doesnt hurt Bush but it is a plus for Kerry.

The problem I have with Bush and nam is his statements that he was ready for the call. That is such a bogus and inapropriate thing to say. The current guard in this war has had 25% call ups in Bush's guard? It was like less then 1%. On top of that Bush flew an obsolete fighter in a war in which ariel combat was non existent.
Bush's odds of ever seeing Nam were without exageration like 1 in 20 million. It is insensitive and misleading for him to say he was ready for the call. He was never in jeopardy of being called. Now that hurts him. If he wouldnt highlight his guard service and make such bogus statements like that I could not care a single bit that he avoided Nam.

Can you point to anytime in any campaign of GWB where he 'highlighted' his Guard service?
I've always agreed that Kerry has the edge on facing hostile fire, and serving his country, even Bush has said that Kerry's service was more honorable than his. But let's not pretend that it isn't the Democratic party and it's allies who have made Kerry's service and Bush's Guard service an issue in this campaign.
Most recently represented by THIS less than truthful video by the DNC.
Remember that when people complain about why the debates in the media aren't focusing on issues that affect us right now.

By highlighting I am speaking on his statements that he was ready for the call.

Someone that hid in the guard in nam with a zero chance of activation shouldnt be saying things like that. I am not blaming him for avoiding the war for the very same reason I do not roast Cheney or Clinton. It is insensitive and ignorant for him to say something like that. My uncle was drafted to go to nam. He had a click in his foot so he ran up and down the stairs trying to make it worse. When that didnt work he joined ROTC which would keep him out for two years. By doing this he avoided nam. He didnt want to die. I do not think less of him for doing this. For trying to injure his foot so he wouldnt have to go. No one should have went to this war. I do not blame anyone who did whatever they could to avoid this war. I blame Bush for equating his guard to the current guard. I blame him for trying to portray an image of readiness to the people when he was anything but.

Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?

Looks like the answer is no. According to the latest Time poll, President Bush has held on to his 11 point lead over Kerry. Here is the article titled Poll: Bush bounce persists and here is the link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/13/poll.tm/index.html

If this is all John Kerry has, he's finished. Rather than wasting his time with wishy washy allegations he needs to give Americans a reason to vote for him. The debates will really be his last chance to do that.

And once again, picking the highest poll that goes in your favor doesn't prove your point. If you actually take the time to look at all the polls on Real Clear Politics you'll see that things are equalizing again. Recent Polls:

Those numbers hardly paint the trend you are suggesting deerjerkydave, and if you follow the statistical trend, Kerry will be back on top in two weeks or so.


When did anything written on America's Debate become representative of either campaign, do we have some campaign staffers posting here that I am unaware of? Kerry is out talking about the issues right now, this was mentioned in passing and hasn't been given near the attention the SBVT thing was given.

Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?

It looks like we don’t know and I doubt polls are going to answer it definitively.

The results we get in polls depends numerous factors including who conducted them, what questions were asked, how the organization went about collecting a random sample, how the organization determines who is a registered voter or a likely voter, etc.

DisInfoPedia has an interesting article on push polling, a technique that asks leading questions.

A push poll is where, using the guise of opinion polling, disinformation about a candidate or issue is planted in the minds of those being 'surveyed'. Push-polls are designed to shape, rather than measure, public opinion. As the campaign progresses, people should be leery of polls that use such techniques. I don’t think that Time conducted a “push” poll, but I would be interested in looking at their sampling technique, what questions they asked and how they asked them.



http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Push_poll



Both political parties also have polling organizations. Strategic Vision is a Republican and although they don’t do push polling, results consistently favor Bush. Please note that while Rasmussin has Ohio a dead heat, Strategic Vision places Bush twelve points ahead in that state.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

The information on electoral-vote changes daily, so it will be something different tomorrow 9-15-040.

While the electoral map is an interesting toy, it often calls a state barely in one camp or the other when the difference may be only one point and well within the margin of error.

It would be wise to take the polls with a grain of salt.

A most timely reminder I think. This entire thread was started based on a report aired by 60 Minutes that utilized "documents" that are now widely believed by experts, including one of CBS's own "experts" as being forgeries http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printerlink). The interview done by Dan Rather with Ben Barnes was little else that a long DNC attack commercial, refuted even by Barnes' own daughter in a link I previously provided here. And now, the DNC is running one of the most viscious personal attack ads I've ever seen a national party run against a candidate, previously linked by DTOM, and even NBC is demanding that their Meet the Press footage be removed from the ad.

So, to re-address the original question posed here for debate, I would have to conclude that not only do these "documents" not hurt President Bush's chances for re-election, they probably bolster his chances. Forging documents is a sign of utter desperation and this new ad sinks even the DNC with all the Clinton-era attack dogs to a new low. The American people aren't as stupid as many of those on the left would have us believe. They're seeing through all of this and I really don't think they like it very much. According to Drudge, John Kerry is polling at the same level as Martha Stewart and just slightly ahead of OJ Simpson.

NO wonder they are so desperate.

Could you please post Bush's statements on his being 'ready for the call' in the TANG as I would like to see the context. Not denying he said it, but I can't find anything on the subject, and I'm a pretty solid Google-er. I think that the consensus is that Kerry is playing up his service (showing home movies at the DNC?) while Bush has pretty much low-keyed it in my eyes.

Latest gossip - MoveOn.org gave CBS the documents, and may have forged them in the first place. Prediction - Dan Rather's head is going to explode on live TV.

By "mentioned in passing", you don't actually mean that the Democrats have RELEASED A VIDEO AND ARE PLACING TV ADS that question Bush's Guard Service, do you? An ad based on the highly biased, false, forgery-riddled CBS report, that features unlicensed NBC footage, resulting in NBC asking them to stop running it?

Kerry is indeed talking issues lately - guns and medicare, to some effect - but the DNC is still out of their collective minds about thie Texas National Guard thing. It's really going to implode.

Edited to add - The Dallas News just found the memo's purpored author's secretary, and she says that the memos are not real.

Edited again to add - this precious quote from the secretary who said that the memos were forged. She also hinted that the documents did reflect some documents that once existed somewhere, but she, um could be a bit biased?

To stray further on topic - I don't see how this story could possibly be relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation, unless by 'leading the nation' he's in charge of holding media accountable for accuracy (the fairness doctrine?). The key witnesses and proponents of the story are huge Democratic donors, someone actually forged memos and CBS showed them on 60 Minutes II, the whole thing really really stinks.

Aquila I don't think we know what impact this issue--alone--will have on the election.

I find it rather ironic that you agree with Amlord about getting the thread off polls and back on track and then link us to a totally irrelevant poll on the Drudge report.

I find it understandable that you would prefer to pick up the OJ zinger as opposed to addressing the main body of my post which does address the documents and the political incest of Dan Rather and CBS. Don't blame you for not wanting to talk about that.

The point I was showing was that no significant change has taken place on President Bush's numbers since the convention. This demonstrates that these allegations have not hurt President Bush. The specific value of the poll is insignificant. Even RealClearPolitics only demonstrates a one percentage change since the convention. I still say the questions about President Bush's military service have not made a real difference, one way or another.

Aquilla I thought I did address one of the questions, but I''ll try again.

Will these newly released records hurt George W. Bush?

Probably not.

Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?

It seems the records were forged, so they will probably not be relevant to his ability to lead. Assuming the records are forged, we still don't know who forged them or how CBS got them. If and when these questions are answered we may have a more complete picture.

I'm sorry, to be so "nuanced," but I don't have a crystal ball and by nature, I've always hedged my bets. History is easier for me that the future.

I still don't think the jury is in on the whole forgery business, although I'm sure that doesn't matter to many - Bush can do no wrong anyway.

I'd like everyone to take a read of this in full. Yes it is from Daily KOS, not the most conservative site on the web but it does provide a very in depth look and quite a bit of analysis on this.

Of particular interest is a quote from Killian's secretary:


This article also gets into why the memo might not have been the original as it discusses some of the "scrubbing" that allegedly went on in 1997.

Is it rock solid proof? Nope, far from it but it sure does make for interesting reading as a good political thriller. This is one of those things that we may never know the truth about. The question of whether it will effect the election one way or the other is unanswered as of right now though.

The truth of the matter is that...even if the documents are shown to be real...nobody will believe it. Its all about credibility and right now, CBS has none. This is the problem with anything in life. Unless it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt at its release...the questions surrounding will always linger.

Furthermore, i do not understand why people choose to believe one person over another. For example, why do people choose to believe some blog or newspaper article over the two children of the commanding officer that supposedly wrote the report? I mean when you have a relative who knows the person better than anyone saying that the documents were uncharacteristic of their father...how could you not believe that?

Will these newly released records hurt George W. Bush?

At this point, they might. According to a CNN story a few minutes ago, a Congressional investigation has been called for to locate the sources of the CBS story...

So, with a Congressional investigation in the wings, I wrote a letter to my Congressman:



Up to this point, none of the bullets fired from Viet Nam seemed capable of reaching the young George W. Bush serving in the Air National Guard in Texas, or Colorado, or Alabama, or Massachusetts, or wherever he remembers serving...

A Congressional investigation however leaves open the possibility that actual records of his service (or lack thereof) may be uncovered. There is an old Chinese saying, "Be careful of what you wish for, it may come true." It may turn out that the President indeed has a right to stand up and say that he is proud of his service to The National Guard. If GWB is going to continue to deny every other document issued by the military, it is time for him to offer more proof than an honorable discharge.

Perhaps, but 60 Minutes could be interesting tonight, the Republicans have thrown down the gauntlet.


Really Leder? Care to apply that to some of your responses in the numerous Kerry/Vietnam threads? Or does that logic only apply when we are talking about the candidate you intend to vote for?

Curmudgeon, what documents is Bush denying??? The only ones I could give credence to your statement are the CBS memos that virtually everybody on the planet except for Rather and the DNC agree are fakes.
I agree with you that some IRS files should be brought to light, but since he has the documents (from the military) stating that he accrued the minimum, or more, points per year AND an honorable discharge, I don't think you're going to uncover any smoking gun.

And I think that all of those things are still in question hence the title of this thread

I'm not saying that I'm right and you are wrong or vise versa but there is still some very conflicting information out there right now. It has basically become a question of which "source" or "expert" do you believe and there really isn't a clear way to resolve that except for the complete release of all records.

Both of the things you mentioned in above have been discussed in detail here and I don't think either is in the bag for one side or the other.

Let's assume as a point of argument that the documents are authentic.

Are the American people so inattentive that nobody will believe it if the documents prove to be authentic?

Your use of the term "nobody" is such a broad generalization that it lessens your point.

You know... if, as a result of the Congressional investigation some documents jump out at the media like a Jack-in-the-Box proving once and for all "Neener neener, Bush's a cheater!" of course the public will believe it. The only question that matters in this scandal is would this archival feat bear electoral fruit by encouraging reluctant Bush supporters to withhold their vote or switch to Kerry.

The answer to that, I feel, is no. The bottom line is Jane Doe doesn't care and didn't side with Bush on his military record to start with. This drive to catch Bush in a "Gotcha!" moment is more about egotistical one-upmanship than stratagem. Win a battle, lose the war.


Do tell, Leder.

ok...i have not been a strong advocate of the SBVT group as i guess you are implying. If you check some of my posts on the subject i say the same exact thing...i believed that there is no solid evidence to prove or disprove the SBVT story. I went on further to say that these veterans are decorated war heros who have the right to be heard and let the american people decide. Its the same case here. Why believe one source over another and rather take in all the information?

Please check my posts or just take my word for it.



Ill concede that point. I guess "most people" is better suited. I am just saying that when there are so many questions surrounding a document such as this...it is hard to change people's minds if they already believe it to be a fake. If there is somehow proof that the memo is real...people may just disregard it right away. (i am talking about the average american as people on here would take it more seriously)

Well....if in fact these memos turn out to be true, which seems unlikely, as I see it, it won't make that big of a difference. And I don't see what people are upset about. So what? Who thinks Vietnam was a just war? Very few people, so what is all the fuss about when someone doesn't want to fight in that war? On the other hand you have John Kerry, who protested the war, then fought for 4 months, 1 of which was training, and then came back to protest it some more. The only way I can see them hurting Bush is if he releases a statement before the true authentication of the memoes is released, and his story is different. But Since the person who's signature was on the memos is dead, and his family disagrees with all aspects of them in their entirety its unlikely they are accurate documents, let alone ones which will sufficiently hurt Bush's campaign.

Notice how the th after 111th is not superscripted, but when you scroll down the page it is.....
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf





http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?P...L20040910b.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/617fgqgo.asp

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5963843/

http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0409/...tics-270377.htm

Boy I think you are going to ever regret writing this leder

Tonight on 60 minutes Dan Rather was on again, and as I predicted earlier today the subject was once again Bush's military record. This time they were interviewing Mrs. Knox, Killian's secretary.

I don't have a complete transcript yet, but she also went on to describe in great detail how Killian felt about Bush, some of the other memos he typed ordering Bush to take his physical and his general disappointment in him.

So, to use Leder's logic, why shouldn't we believe this woman she was after all the trusted secretary of the man in question here

So she said the documents weren't authentic, but the sentiment was very authentic. Make of that what you will but I think that reading this link if you didn't in a previous post could offer a good explanation. Perhaps someone saved a copy of the records which were "sanitized"


What difference does it matter what the family thinks when the person privvy to Killian's personal and professional thoughts says that is the way he felt. 9 times out of 10 your coworkers (and especially your secretary if she is typing your memos) know far more about how you feel about things in a professional capacity than your wife or children will.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't make a habit of coming home and telling my wife every detail about my work life, the people that I'm not pleased with, the politics, etc. My coworkers on the other hand, know pretty much all of that stuff. If I had children I definitely wouldn't be talking to them about it, and I would venture to say that none of you do either.

Edited to add:
As an aside, even with the allegations that have come out about the authenticity of the memos Dan Rather has stuck to his guns and he even made a point of mentioning that in tonight's episode. We aren't talking about some talking head like Hannity or O'Reilly that has no reputation for telling the truth and has little credibility. We are talking about a very senior journalist who has an impeccable reputation. Do you really think he would throw that away so easily?

For starters, I have seen most of this story argued on the television, and have seen little if anything in the newspapers.

What I have heard of George W. Bush's service in Texas was that he was awarded the job due to a political connection, (White Man's affirmative action, one analyst called it), and that he was very good at a drinking game called "Dead Bug." There seems to be a consistent message though, that no one in the National Guard in Alabama (where he was apparently working on a campaign for an anonymous politician in late 1972) or Massachusetts (Where he was attending college in 1973) or anywhere else can recall his completing his annual physical and drug screening, or serving with him, and he apparently never got the pilot's license which he was training for.

I have never been in the military, but I worked with a number of guard members through the years. Consistently, their desks and environs were covered with photos of what they did, and people they served with. It was unanimously an important part of their life. When they needed time off work for guard duty, they would report with orders that sometimes ran to several pages, outlining every activity for a week at a time. Most were in it for the long haul, looking forward to an extra pension if they made it 30 years. That leads me to believe it is reasonable that the military would keep accurate attendance records for 30 year periods, so that people could claim those pensions. (Or be denied them.) I personally doubt that the United States military is so lax in its record keeping that it would discard attendance and duty records of the son of a Congressman who became a President. Further if they had records which confirm that a sitting President had served honorably in the National Guard, I'm certain that they would not hide or discard them.

The President has come from a background of wealth and privilege, and I doubt if he has personally filled out a form 1040 in his life. If he had completed his service, somewhere an accountant probably kept a copy of his earnings records for '72, '73, and '74. If he had completed his service in the guard, somewhere someone would not only remember serving with him, they would be asking for a position in his administration.

I get offers all the time in Spam for a college diploma without any studying. I'm certain that if I went on the Internet and searched for it, someone likely would offer to sell me a certificate of honorable discharge. I don't have a need for such a document, but perhaps George W. Bush purchased one so that he could attend college.

Impeccable? Not according to many professional journalists I know. Dan Rather attended a Democratic Party fund-raiser in Austin, Texas, where his daughter, Robin, and Ben Barnes are both party activists. That along should have given him cause not to handle the interview with Barnes. But, as the argument seems to be going here, "never mind the man behind the curtain." I do find it somewhat hypocritical given some of the invective leveled against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth having a GOP donor from Texas, yet we give a free pass to a MAJOR Kerry fund-raiser from Texas and believe what he said to another Democratic Party activist - the "impeccable" Dan Rather. But there's more, and this isn't the first time Rather has played loosy-goosy with the truth about Vietnam.....

From Anne Morse in National Review we have this......



Later on..... (emphasis mine)



Sound familar? Guys making up stories about their "combat service" in Vietnam and talking all about how bad American soldiers behaved there? Sound a little like something called "Winter Soldier"? Nevermind the man behind the curtain......

Oh well, I'm happy to let this thing continue to play out, it should be interesting.

Yes, it's an election year, so it will continue to play out. It will likely not sway any voters in the end who are already in the ABB league, or True Believers in the Gospel according to George.

It seems that few of us on this site are really undecided on how we will vote this November. Thia story however, is being rehashed on CNN, on talk shows, by comics, etc. It is not likely to just go away because the documents which are shown to us for a few seconds at a time are said to be forged. I have heard it suggested that perhaps they were released to CBS by Karl Rove, in the hopes of discrediting the rumor. Would this administration use forged documents to swing the world's opinion? It seems that I recall the threat of nuclear weapons in Iraq turned out to be based on poorly forged documents alleging that Iraq was trying to purchase Yellow Cake Uranium. We never really got to see those documents for any length of time, either. Perhaps the tip off came when someone noticed that the yellow cake was being ordered from a bakery.

Both Kerry and Bush are on the campaign trail, according to a recent article in the Detroit Free Press, trying to persuade the undecided voter. In Michigan at least, Kerry is doing that by speaking to anyone who is willing to come to one of his speeches. George W. Bush on the other hand, seems to be campaigning hard, but is speaking only to those wealthy Republican voters who may still be undecided. I fervently hope that by seeing him up close, some of them will decide not to vote for him.

This is the best part of Rathergate. That somehow, since the unstated admission is that something underhanded was done, Karl Rove had to be involved.
It is a marvel of human defense that a mind just cannot stop and focus on the first part of this: Something wrong probably was done. Actually something that is a felony. It would do us well to stop and muse that for a moment. Then dispassionately find out who did it. That would be the unbiased way to proceed.

Then piece together the evidence.
1. 60 minutes did not think the Swifties was news enough to tell, though the Dem candidate made this his core issue at his convention. It wasn't important the preponderance of evidence, the funny medals, the coached 'atrocities', the effect on POW's.
2. As noted above Dan Rather is involved in Democrat politics and fundraising via his daughter, hence his relationship with Barnes.
3. These memos can be easily reproduced with Word and have yet to be reproduced with a 70's typewriter.
4. As noted above Dan Rather has given us false stories before that seem to indicate bias.
5. Dan Rather likes the Dixie Chicks. Okay, not my strongest point.
6. No expert has come forward and stated these are genuine documents. Their expert won't come forward. The preponderance of his/her peers disagree.
7. A retired officer is indicated to have applied great pressure, something that is unlikely.

Cubejockey makes an excellent point, however, about family members vs. co-workers. I think we can gently put their observations aside. Still there isn't a clear concensus about this. Others who knew him disagree with the secretary.

Now CBS continues to want questions answered dispite a forged setup. They have much more important question to answer themselves.

But here is the thing CJ. What actually happened is not the current issue. What is the issue is whether or not the documents are fake. Because you see, if the documents are proven to be false, then basically it is only one person's word against another's since their is NO substantial proof.



Ya see, in this case you are just flat-out assuming that his children werent told. Just because you do not go home and tell your wife every detail doesnt mean that is true for everyone else. The secretary that Rather interviewed was not Killian's personal secretary. An interesting fact that came out on last night's Hannity and Colmes. In this case you are completely disregarding the opinion of the man's children and are deciding to side with a secretary which ironically shares the same viewpoints with you.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132245,00.html


Obviously Killian had some knowledge of George Bush's service.

Yes, Killian's family had some knowledge of Lt. Bush, but I doubt it was as great as Killian's secretary. I watched Sixty Minutes II last night and the secretary seemed too be an impartial and credible witness.

I noticed in your quotation from FNC that Colmes dropped out rather quickly and Hannity took over. This happens often enough, but Colmes actually had a rather lengthy question and answer session with Killian.

Here is a brief segment from Colmes portion of the interview. I would encourage everyone to look click the link and read the whole interview.



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...90&#entry123656

Au contraire (he says, using French just to annoy): it's exactly the issue. Did he or did he not fulfill his duty? Whether the docs are forgeries, the secretary certainly isn't one. Or are you going to attack a poor little secretary just to keep up the partisan whitewash?

One person's word against another... hmm... where have I seen that before in this context? Oh! I remember now! The Swifties!! No proof, all the written evidence to the contrary, but Republicans sure played that one out for a while, didn't they?

It's all a circus to keep us from paying closer attention to the real damage being done to our nation by the powers that be.