Full Version: New Questions about Bush's Military Service
New questions have been raised regarding President Bush's service in the National Guard: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/...d.ap/index.html
Kerry's service in Vietnam has brought up time and again as a relevant issue in the election, since conservatives argue that his service is relevant to his ability to lead the nation.
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush? Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
Kerry's service in Vietnam has brought up time and again as a relevant issue in the election, since conservatives argue that his service is relevant to his ability to lead the nation.
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush? Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
There comes a moment when hope can blind you. This question is just such a moment.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
Noooo. I can't believe CNN's QuickVote reports 57% of participants think "a candidate's military history should be a campaign issue." What a waste of air time. Bunch of snoopy people more concerned with drama than issues itself.
There comes a moment when hope can blind you. This question is just such a moment.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
Noooo. I can't believe CNN's QuickVote reports 57% of participants think "a candidate's military history should be a campaign issue." What a waste of air time. Bunch of snoopy people more concerned with drama than issues itself.
This is exactly the type of political game the Democrats would accuse Rove of scheming. This is brought up every time Bush runs a campaign, and is debunked each time. There is no doubt in my mind that 55 days from the election, after Kerry slips in the polls, trotting out a partisan Democrat who is also the Kerry campaign vice-chair, to make charges in contradiction to those he made under oath in 1999......means only one thing. The Kerry camp is desperate and scared.
Even the NYT debunked Barnes' credibility earlier this year.
I Wonder why Kerry isn't running on the issues, as they claim the Republicans aren't?
I Wonder why Kerry said in 1992, "We do not need to divide America over who served and how,I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."
I wonder why Terry McAuliffe has said that Bush didn't serve honorably, yet it's supposedly the Bush campaign that is attacking Kerry's service?
I wonder why Bush has signed an SF 180, authorizing the release of all of his military records, and Kerry hasn't?
I wonder why the hypocrisy isn't being exposed by the 'evil-corporate-conservative-media'?
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
No.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
Not according to statements made by Kerry.
Even the NYT debunked Barnes' credibility earlier this year.
I Wonder why Kerry isn't running on the issues, as they claim the Republicans aren't?
I Wonder why Kerry said in 1992, "We do not need to divide America over who served and how,I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."
I wonder why Terry McAuliffe has said that Bush didn't serve honorably, yet it's supposedly the Bush campaign that is attacking Kerry's service?
I wonder why Bush has signed an SF 180, authorizing the release of all of his military records, and Kerry hasn't?
I wonder why the hypocrisy isn't being exposed by the 'evil-corporate-conservative-media'?
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
No.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
Not according to statements made by Kerry.
QUOTE
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
They can't help him.
QUOTE
In August 1973, President Bush's superior officer in the Texas Air National Guard wrote a memorandum complaining that the commanding general wanted him to ''sugar coat" an annual officer evaluation for First Lieutenant Bush, even though Bush had not been at the base for the year in question, according to new documents obtained and broadcast last night by CBS News.
The commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, wrote that he turned aside the suggestion from Brigadier General Walter B. Staudt, Bush's political mentor in the Guard. But he and another officer agreed to ''backdate" a report -- evidently the evaluation -- in which they did not rate him at all. There is such a report in Bush's file, dated May 2, 1973.
''I'll backdate but won't rate," Killian apparently wrote in what is labeled a ''memo to file." Initials that appear to be Killian's are on the memo, but not his name or unit letterhead.
The August 1973 document, dated as Bush was preparing to leave Texas to attend the Harvard Business School, represents the first apparent evidence of an attempt to embellish Bush's service record as his time in the Guard neared its end.
The four pages of documents also contain an August 1972 order from Killian, suspending Bush from flying status for ''failure to perform" up to US Air Force and Texas Air National Guard standards and failing to take his annual flight physical. The suspension came three months after Killian had ordered Bush to take his physical, on May 14, 1972.
The documents also contain what appears to be Killian's memo of a meeting he had with Bush in May 1972, at which they discussed the option of Bush skipping his military drills for the following six months while he worked on a US Senate campaign in Alabama. During that meeting, Killian wrote that he reminded Bush ''of our investment in him and his commitment."
The commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, wrote that he turned aside the suggestion from Brigadier General Walter B. Staudt, Bush's political mentor in the Guard. But he and another officer agreed to ''backdate" a report -- evidently the evaluation -- in which they did not rate him at all. There is such a report in Bush's file, dated May 2, 1973.
''I'll backdate but won't rate," Killian apparently wrote in what is labeled a ''memo to file." Initials that appear to be Killian's are on the memo, but not his name or unit letterhead.
The August 1973 document, dated as Bush was preparing to leave Texas to attend the Harvard Business School, represents the first apparent evidence of an attempt to embellish Bush's service record as his time in the Guard neared its end.
The four pages of documents also contain an August 1972 order from Killian, suspending Bush from flying status for ''failure to perform" up to US Air Force and Texas Air National Guard standards and failing to take his annual flight physical. The suspension came three months after Killian had ordered Bush to take his physical, on May 14, 1972.
The documents also contain what appears to be Killian's memo of a meeting he had with Bush in May 1972, at which they discussed the option of Bush skipping his military drills for the following six months while he worked on a US Senate campaign in Alabama. During that meeting, Killian wrote that he reminded Bush ''of our investment in him and his commitment."
and...
QUOTE
''These documents represent strong evidence that Lieutenant Bush didn't perform after April 1972, regardless of whether he received a paycheck," said retired Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, who was a top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and now a national security specialist at a liberal think tank, said after reviewing the CBS documents last night that if Killian and Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. had written a truthful evaluation report on Bush, ''he would have been called to involuntary active duty."
Added Korb: ''For the commanding officer to suggest that his [Bush's] evaluation be sugar-coated is a clear indication of the political influence Bush had." Korb said the alleged suggestion by Staudt was also a ''violation of military ethics." An effort by the Globe last night to reach Staudt was unsuccessful. Harris, like Killian, has died.
Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and now a national security specialist at a liberal think tank, said after reviewing the CBS documents last night that if Killian and Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. had written a truthful evaluation report on Bush, ''he would have been called to involuntary active duty."
Added Korb: ''For the commanding officer to suggest that his [Bush's] evaluation be sugar-coated is a clear indication of the political influence Bush had." Korb said the alleged suggestion by Staudt was also a ''violation of military ethics." An effort by the Globe last night to reach Staudt was unsuccessful. Harris, like Killian, has died.
Sounds pretty damaging to me.
QUOTE
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
Yes, for a man who constantly identifies himself as a "war president" to be so fundamentally lacking the ability, or dare I say, resolve to carry out the minimum duty required by his commitment to the National Guard, it's certainly relevant. Of course, I'm sure Bush's supporters here will find a way to justify all of this and somehow compare it favorably to Kerry's wartime record...
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
This is what, the fourth or fifth time these allegations have surfaced? They never got any traction before, I don't see why they would now.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
They didn't in 2000, when the nation had no idea what kind of Commander in Chief Bush would be. We now have four years of direct experience to tell us how Bush will act with the military.
Contrast that with Kerry, with whom we are all guessing how he will handle the military. In Kerry's case, every piece of outside information must be examined, questioned, and determined if it is relevant or not.
Some pundit on TV said it best: (paraphrase) "Those who thought that the Swift Boat Vets were unadulterated liars will no doubt believe these latest allegations are gospel. Similarly, those who embraced the Vets will discard this as political opportunism."
I wonder how long we will have to wait until Bush's DUI and drug abuse charges "re-surface"?
This is what, the fourth or fifth time these allegations have surfaced? They never got any traction before, I don't see why they would now.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
They didn't in 2000, when the nation had no idea what kind of Commander in Chief Bush would be. We now have four years of direct experience to tell us how Bush will act with the military.
Contrast that with Kerry, with whom we are all guessing how he will handle the military. In Kerry's case, every piece of outside information must be examined, questioned, and determined if it is relevant or not.
Some pundit on TV said it best: (paraphrase) "Those who thought that the Swift Boat Vets were unadulterated liars will no doubt believe these latest allegations are gospel. Similarly, those who embraced the Vets will discard this as political opportunism."
I wonder how long we will have to wait until Bush's DUI and drug abuse charges "re-surface"?
QUOTE
They didn't in 2000, when the nation had no idea what kind of Commander in Chief Bush would be. We now have four years of direct experience to tell us how Bush will act with the military.
Contrast that with Kerry, with whom we are all guessing how he will handle the military. In Kerry's case, every piece of outside information must be examined, questioned, and determined if it is relevant or not.
Contrast that with Kerry, with whom we are all guessing how he will handle the military. In Kerry's case, every piece of outside information must be examined, questioned, and determined if it is relevant or not.
Yeah, he mismanaged and squandered resources in exactly the fashion one could expect from a duty-jumping bungler. I guess we'll just have to wait and see with Kerry.
QUOTE
Some pundit on TV said it best: (paraphrase) "Those who thought that the Swift Boat Vets were unadulterated liars will no doubt believe these latest allegations are gospel. Similarly, those who embraced the Vets will discard this as political opportunism."
So what? If the SBV are liars, and Bush did shirk his duty, which it's now abundantly clear he did, what does that statement prove other than that people who hold those opinions are correct. We're not in a moral vacuum here - things are true or not true.
QUOTE
I wonder how long we will have to wait until Bush's DUI and drug abuse charges "re-surface"?
Too long, if you ask me. I'm curious why all these hard-line "personal responsibility" loving Republicans are so willing to gloss over the facts and give Bush a free ride, no matter what comes out about his checkered, indolent, and pampered past.
I was listening to "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on xmradio last night on the way home and had a "moment" enjoying the show. I managed to dig up a transcript and thought I would share:
Lou sums up my feelings as well. I'm tired of spending energy on events that happened before I was able to pick up, much less read a newspaper.
It might do some damage to Bush, I guess. I'm just tired of anyone, regardless of party affiliation, spending so much time on things like this. I'm half tempted to start a 527 and have an ad shout at the top of my lungs "Talk about the problems of today! Not 35 years ago! Focus on the future!" And that goes for both sides so maybe I can just make it a public service announcement. /shrug
My apologies if this takes this off topic. Maybe its better off in casual conversation, but I thought I would share.
Doc
QUOTE
DOBBS: John, I'm going share a thought with you. You may have the distinction of just having filed the last report on what either of these men did 35-years-ago on this broadcast. The fact, so much of this rancor and dispute over the service that has been documented by the air national guard, by the United States Navy. The fact that these 527s are embroiled in this. The focus is so much on what these men did or did not do 35-years-ago. Both have been elected to state office, one a Lt. Governor, another a governor. One president of the United States, and another served in the Senate for two decades. I think on this broadcast, we're going try to go beyond that and turn to what both of these men want to do for this country over the next four years.
(snip)
DOBBS: Well, John, we thank you very much, as always, for your outstanding reporting. And we're going to -- that's our commitment here. We're through with 35-years-ago and we're moving to now and the future.
(snip)
DOBBS: Well, John, we thank you very much, as always, for your outstanding reporting. And we're going to -- that's our commitment here. We're through with 35-years-ago and we're moving to now and the future.
Lou sums up my feelings as well. I'm tired of spending energy on events that happened before I was able to pick up, much less read a newspaper.
It might do some damage to Bush, I guess. I'm just tired of anyone, regardless of party affiliation, spending so much time on things like this. I'm half tempted to start a 527 and have an ad shout at the top of my lungs "Talk about the problems of today! Not 35 years ago! Focus on the future!" And that goes for both sides so maybe I can just make it a public service announcement. /shrug
My apologies if this takes this off topic. Maybe its better off in casual conversation, but I thought I would share.
Doc
QUOTE(Pittslp @ Sep 9 2004, 04:51 PM)
New questions have been raised regarding President Bush's service in the National Guard:
Kerry's service in Vietnam has brought up time and again as a relevant issue in the election, since conservatives argue that his service is relevant to his ability to lead the nation.
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush? Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
Kerry's service in Vietnam has brought up time and again as a relevant issue in the election, since conservatives argue that his service is relevant to his ability to lead the nation.
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush? Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
There's not much new about this story. Will they this story hurt Bush?
That depends in large part on what you want to hear. If voters are so inclined they can investigate this story on their own and come to their own conclusions.
Here is another source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000619121358/...ard_duty+.shtml
Based on the evidence I have seen, I have to conclude that Bush was missing.
Did he have a sick relative to take care of? Was there a family emergency? It's curious how Kerrys war record can be disected and talked about on the cable news shows for two weeks straight, yet Bush and Cheney seem to get a free pass.
countrockula:
QUOTE
Too long, if you ask me. I'm curious why all these hard-line "personal responsibility" loving Republicans are so willing to gloss over the facts and give Bush a free ride, no matter what comes out about his checkered, indolent, and pampered past.
count, that's a good point. Why aren't more Republicans questioning this issue and asking Bush to come clean? Because truth be told, many conservatives are already critical of his fiscal irresponsibility.
Amlord:
QUOTE
Contrast that with Kerry, with whom we are all guessing how he will handle the military. In Kerry's case, every piece of outside information must be examined, questioned, and determined if it is relevant or not.
It is that sort of critical thinking that we should all employ, Amlord. It appears to me, as donttreadonme suggests, that there actually is some kind of "evil-corporate-conservative-media".
For all the talk about being responsible and talking straight, this administration does a pretty good job of stonewalling and fact-spinning.
The Republicans are completely dependent on their image as mighty warriors to get elected. Many men vote for them for this reason alone. The Republicans have to drag out bravado and machismo every single time there is an election.
And lets face the facts, Kerry dwarfs Bush along those lines. Bush sneaked past a war his father helped perpetrate (GHW Bush, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. 1971-1973, as we expanded the war into Cambodia); Kerry served, came home, and told America that the war was wrong. As such, Kerry poses a double threat to the Republican Macho, he served in combat and then renounced that very combat.
This is more than just a problem of 35 years ago, this is a reflection of the Republican campaigns of the 1990s, when many a Conservative Pundit blow hard mouthed off for HOURS about how Clinton dodged the draft. But, BUSH DID TOO!! Now they have to eat those words, every last one.
And lets face the facts, Kerry dwarfs Bush along those lines. Bush sneaked past a war his father helped perpetrate (GHW Bush, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. 1971-1973, as we expanded the war into Cambodia); Kerry served, came home, and told America that the war was wrong. As such, Kerry poses a double threat to the Republican Macho, he served in combat and then renounced that very combat.
This is more than just a problem of 35 years ago, this is a reflection of the Republican campaigns of the 1990s, when many a Conservative Pundit blow hard mouthed off for HOURS about how Clinton dodged the draft. But, BUSH DID TOO!! Now they have to eat those words, every last one.
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush? Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
I don't think so, we've been there, done that, got the T-shirt. There is some speculation out there even that these "documents" may be forgeries. Who knows? Bush's record of service in the National Guard has been discussed over and over again. This is just an attempt on the part of the "Kerry who served in Vietnam" campaign to deflect the focus away from him and attempt to put it back on Bush. And, it's a pretty stupid thing to do quite frankly. The longer that Vietnam remains the focus of this campaign, the worse it's going to get for Kerry.
What is relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation are his past four years in office. That's what the American people will consider in this election.
I don't think so, we've been there, done that, got the T-shirt. There is some speculation out there even that these "documents" may be forgeries. Who knows? Bush's record of service in the National Guard has been discussed over and over again. This is just an attempt on the part of the "Kerry who served in Vietnam" campaign to deflect the focus away from him and attempt to put it back on Bush. And, it's a pretty stupid thing to do quite frankly. The longer that Vietnam remains the focus of this campaign, the worse it's going to get for Kerry.
What is relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation are his past four years in office. That's what the American people will consider in this election.
Will these newly released records hurt George W. Bush?
I think that's an open question. I just heard on the news that Bush will discuss the issue at a national guard meeting next week.
The Boston Globe had some new information concerning a misstatement by White House spokesman Dan Bartlett and that Bush did not fulfill his Guard obligation after arriving in Boston to attend Harvard Business School.
This was a long article and it was difficult deciding what to cut. You might want to read the whole thing.
<snip>
<snip>.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles..._duty_at_guard/
Whether it hurts Bush or not, the issue with him, as with Kerry will not go away. It's too emotionally tied to the war and the decade of the 60s. David Broder, dean of the Washington Press Corps, a man Tim Russert called "the most objective journalist I know" and my personal favorite had some insight into this in a recent Washington Post
<snip>
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug23.html
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
I would like for the campaign to focus on more pressing issues, but because of the recent frontal assault by the Swift Boat Veterans for truth and the bitterness Broder mentioned that still lingers from the 60s, I doubt it.
Bush recently said that he was "proud" of his guard service. If the allegations concerning Texas, Alabama and Massachusetts prove true, then Bush is guilty of a cover up. The deception could cause me to question whether Bush is fit to lead the nation.
All of this, of course, should have been more closely scrutinized in the 2000 campaign. The explanation "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible" never satisfied me.
While Bush got away with such a flimsy excuse, the Bush campaign smeared war hero Senator John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican Primary and the Republicans later besmirched Max Cleland, a triple amputee Vietnam Vet, in Georgia.
Rove has attempted, maybe successfully, to do the same thing to Kerry. If it is successful, it'll be three for three.
If the new allegations are true, Bush is not fit to lead and his removal would be a measure of poetic justice.
I think that's an open question. I just heard on the news that Bush will discuss the issue at a national guard meeting next week.
The Boston Globe had some new information concerning a misstatement by White House spokesman Dan Bartlett and that Bush did not fulfill his Guard obligation after arriving in Boston to attend Harvard Business School.
This was a long article and it was difficult deciding what to cut. You might want to read the whole thing.
QUOTE
But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.
He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The A. 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice.
He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The A. 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice.
<snip>
QUOTE
But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview.
And early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a ''statement of understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory participation" that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty. ''I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation," the statement reads.
And early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a ''statement of understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory participation" that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty. ''I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation," the statement reads.
<snip>.
QUOTE
That assertion by the White House spokesman [edit for clarity: that Bush would not have been honorably discharged] infuriates retired Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard regulations, and reached different conclusions.
''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard."
''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles..._duty_at_guard/
Whether it hurts Bush or not, the issue with him, as with Kerry will not go away. It's too emotionally tied to the war and the decade of the 60s. David Broder, dean of the Washington Press Corps, a man Tim Russert called "the most objective journalist I know" and my personal favorite had some insight into this in a recent Washington Post
QUOTE
Will we ever recover from the 1960s?
What's happening with the bitter dispute over John Kerry's role in Vietnam confirms my fears that my generation may never see the day when the baby boomers who came of age in that troubled decade are reconciled sufficiently with each other to lead a united country.
What's happening with the bitter dispute over John Kerry's role in Vietnam confirms my fears that my generation may never see the day when the baby boomers who came of age in that troubled decade are reconciled sufficiently with each other to lead a united country.
<snip>
QUOTE
Through almost gritted teeth, Marilyn Quayle [edit for clarity at 1992 RNC] declared that those people in Madison Square Garden, who were claiming the mantle of leadership for a new generation, were usurpers. "Dan and I are members of the baby boom generation, too," she said. "We are all shaped by the times in which we live. I came of age in a time of turbulent social change. Some of it was good, such as civil rights; much of it was questionable."
And then she drew the line that has not been erased: "Remember, not everyone joined in the counterculture. Not everyone demonstrated, dropped out, took drugs, joined in the sexual revolution or dodged the draft. Not everyone concluded that American society was so bad that it had to be radically remade by social revolution. . . . The majority of my generation lived by the credo our parents taught us: We believed in God, in hard work and personal discipline, in our nation's essential goodness, and in the opportunity it promised those willing to work for it. . . . Though we knew some changes needed to be made, we did not believe in destroying America to save it."
And then she drew the line that has not been erased: "Remember, not everyone joined in the counterculture. Not everyone demonstrated, dropped out, took drugs, joined in the sexual revolution or dodged the draft. Not everyone concluded that American society was so bad that it had to be radically remade by social revolution. . . . The majority of my generation lived by the credo our parents taught us: We believed in God, in hard work and personal discipline, in our nation's essential goodness, and in the opportunity it promised those willing to work for it. . . . Though we knew some changes needed to be made, we did not believe in destroying America to save it."
<snip>
QUOTE
When she finished, I turned to my Post colleague Dan Balz, a contemporary of the Clintons and the Quayles, and said, "I suddenly have this vision -- that when you guys reach the nursing homes, you're going to be leaning on your walkers and beating each other with your canes, because you still will not have settled the arguments from the Sixties."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug23.html
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
I would like for the campaign to focus on more pressing issues, but because of the recent frontal assault by the Swift Boat Veterans for truth and the bitterness Broder mentioned that still lingers from the 60s, I doubt it.
Bush recently said that he was "proud" of his guard service. If the allegations concerning Texas, Alabama and Massachusetts prove true, then Bush is guilty of a cover up. The deception could cause me to question whether Bush is fit to lead the nation.
All of this, of course, should have been more closely scrutinized in the 2000 campaign. The explanation "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible" never satisfied me.
While Bush got away with such a flimsy excuse, the Bush campaign smeared war hero Senator John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican Primary and the Republicans later besmirched Max Cleland, a triple amputee Vietnam Vet, in Georgia.
Rove has attempted, maybe successfully, to do the same thing to Kerry. If it is successful, it'll be three for three.
If the new allegations are true, Bush is not fit to lead and his removal would be a measure of poetic justice.
QUOTE
There is some speculation out there even that these "documents" may be forgeries. Who knows?
The link you provided - the Cybercast News Service - is a division of Media Research Group - a "rightwing thinktank." Not too credible.
QUOTE
CBS, on its Evening News and in an in-depth report on ''60 Minutes," said it obtained the documents from Killian's ''personal files." Anchorman Dan Rather reported that the White House did not dispute the authenticity of the documents and said the network had used document authorities to verify their authenticity.
QUOTE
This is just an attempt on the part of the "Kerry who served in Vietnam" campaign to deflect the focus away from him and attempt to put it back on Bush. And, it's a pretty stupid thing to do quite frankly. The longer that Vietnam remains the focus of this campaign, the worse it's going to get for Kerry.
I believe CBS news broke the story. Are they affiliated with the Kerry campaign? Antithetical though it may be to your partisanship, Kerry did serve in Vietnam unlike some TANG-skipping and 5-time medical deferrment-getting candidates I could mention. Why should keeping on this be bad for Kerry? Bush and Co. are the ones with skeletons in their closets.
QUOTE
What is relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation are his past four years in office. That's what the American people will consider in this election.
Oh, I hope so, believe me. I hope they consider the loss of life, the stinky economy, the abridged freedoms, the doubletalk about WMD's, the tax cuts for the rich, etc. But considering Bush's moral failure in the face of a military commitment is worthwhile as a sidebar, at least.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 9 2004, 01:10 PM)
This is exactly the type of political game the Democrats would accuse Rove of scheming. This is brought up every time Bush runs a campaign, and is debunked each time. There is no doubt in my mind that 55 days from the election, after Kerry slips in the polls, trotting out a partisan Democrat who is also the Kerry campaign vice-chair, to make charges in contradiction to those he made under oath in 1999......means only one thing. The Kerry camp is desperate and scared.
Even the NYT debunked Barnes' credibility earlier this year.
I Wonder why Kerry isn't running on the issues, as they claim the Republicans aren't?
I Wonder why Kerry said in 1992, "We do not need to divide America over who served and how,I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."
I wonder why Terry McAuliffe has said that Bush didn't serve honorably, yet it's supposedly the Bush campaign that is attacking Kerry's service?
I wonder why Bush has signed an SF 180, authorizing the release of all of his military records, and Kerry hasn't?
I wonder why the hypocrisy isn't being exposed by the 'evil-corporate-conservative-media'?
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
No.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
Not according to statements made by Kerry.
Even the NYT debunked Barnes' credibility earlier this year.
I Wonder why Kerry isn't running on the issues, as they claim the Republicans aren't?
I Wonder why Kerry said in 1992, "We do not need to divide America over who served and how,I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."
I wonder why Terry McAuliffe has said that Bush didn't serve honorably, yet it's supposedly the Bush campaign that is attacking Kerry's service?
I wonder why Bush has signed an SF 180, authorizing the release of all of his military records, and Kerry hasn't?
I wonder why the hypocrisy isn't being exposed by the 'evil-corporate-conservative-media'?
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
No.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
Not according to statements made by Kerry.
I sure was lucky to have 2 slices of bread to go with all that BALONEY you stated.
QUOTE
This is exactly the type of political game the Democrats would accuse Rove of scheming.
The Democrats admire Rove's honesty and they just thought they would like to try the same honest tactics.
QUOTE
Even the NYT debunked Barnes' credibility earlier this year.
Who is talking about Barnes's credibility. There is a lot more to the story than that.
QUOTE
But 60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file. Among them, a never-before-seen memorandum from May 1972, where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about "how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November
In a memo from Aug. 18, 1973, Col. Killian says Col. Buck Staudt, the man in charge of the Texas Air National Guard, is putting on pressure to "sugar coat" the evaluation of Lt. Bush. Staudt, a longtime supporter of the Bush family, would not do an interview for this broadcast.
The memo continues, with Killian saying, "I’m having trouble running interference and doing my job."
On Aug. 1, 1972, Lt. Bush was suspended from flying status, due to failure to accomplish his annual medical examination. That document was released years ago. But another document has not been seen until now. It’s a memo that Col. Jerry Killian put in his own file that same day. It says "on this date, I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended not just for failing to take a physical….but for failing to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards."
He goes on: "The officer [then-Lt. Bush] has made no attempt to meet his training certification or flight physical."
I won't bore you with all the other PARTISAN or UNCREDIBLE people with statements to back them up.
It sure is funny that anyone that disagrees with Bush's account are just plain dirty low down liars. But the swift boat veterans are outstanding citizens of the truth and especially aren't partisan.
I must be missing something here!
QUOTE
I wonder why Bush has signed an SF 180, authorizing the release of all of his military records, and Kerry hasn't?
Meanwhile, the Texas Air National Guard released 128 pages of records on Bush's service from 1968 to 1973, all of which had been previously released by the White House. Two Texas officials said in sworn affidavits that the records were all the Texas Guard had on Bush's service.
After the broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his physical exam and the other suspending him from flight status.
So in essence, two memos were release. How many more records are out there that someone has to sue to get the records thru the Freedom Information Act.
QUOTE
I wonder why the hypocrisy isn't being exposed by the 'evil-corporate-conservative-media'?
What hypocrisy? They were only following the example of Rove. One is hypocrisy and the other isn't.
Too bad there are 2 sets of rules aren't there!
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 9 2004, 05:01 PM)
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
There comes a moment when hope can blind you. This question is just such a moment.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
Noooo. I can't believe CNN's QuickVote reports 57% of participants think "a candidate's military history should be a campaign issue." What a waste of air time. Bunch of snoopy people more concerned with drama than issues itself.
There comes a moment when hope can blind you. This question is just such a moment.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
Noooo. I can't believe CNN's QuickVote reports 57% of participants think "a candidate's military history should be a campaign issue." What a waste of air time. Bunch of snoopy people more concerned with drama than issues itself.
In most cases, I would agree with you that military service should not be an issue in an election. However, based on what we have seen so far, military service has become VERY MUCH an issue in this election, like it or not. I, for one, don't like it, but it is a fact. This is also a credibility issue though too. Given the allegations on Kerry by Bush-Cheney and the Swift Boaters, any issue that arises about Bush being less than 100% honest about his own record is an issue, in my opinion, because it speaks to the fact that the Bush administration views misquotes and changing positions by others as "lies" and "flip-flops" but portrays these same behaviors on their side as protecting our country from the evil terrorists.
radiofreenola
Bush served in the guard, Clinton ran away to Russia and England. There's a bit of a difference unless you're blinded by partisanship.
Gee, Popeye, thanks for calling my post processed lunchmeat. But why oh why did you fail to address the questions in my post?
The SF 180 releases all military records of the signee, including those obtainable under FOIA. So, I'll ask again, why won't Kerry sign an SF 180???????
I won't bore you with my sources either, since, by your post, you would simply call them another item in the food pyramid.
I had previously thought that you were open minded enough to see the hypocrisy on both sides, but I could be mistaken.
Here we have elements of truth and fact on both sides, and both sides are willing to bury their heads in the sand. But the side that is screaming the loudest is doing EXACTLY what they accuse the other of doing. That would be the side that whores itself to unions and then claims that Clelands patriotism was besmirched. That's the side that claims Bush didn't serve honorably and runs on Vietnam, but says that military service shouldn't be an issue.
It's the side that says the swift boat vets are out and out liars, yet look the other way when their candidates 'seared' memory turns out to be false.
And the argument the rest of us get is, we're just doing what Rove does (but can't be proven), Bush doesn't want to lose the 'macho vote'....we just want to debate the issues, did you know I served in Vietnam?.....blah.....blah.....blah......
countrockula
But why doesn't that seem to apply to Democrats?
Pierzin
I'm wondering if you're saying that with a straight face.....since the Today Show will be airing several segments concerning Kitty Kelly's tabloid trash book on Bush next week.
QUOTE
This is more than just a problem of 35 years ago, this is a reflection of the Republican campaigns of the 1990s, when many a Conservative Pundit blow hard mouthed off for HOURS about how Clinton dodged the draft. But, BUSH DID TOO!! Now they have to eat those words, every last one.
Bush served in the guard, Clinton ran away to Russia and England. There's a bit of a difference unless you're blinded by partisanship.
QUOTE
I sure was lucky to have 2 slices of bread to go with all that BALONEY you stated.
Gee, Popeye, thanks for calling my post processed lunchmeat. But why oh why did you fail to address the questions in my post?
QUOTE
So in essence, two memos were release. How many more records are out there that someone has to sue to get the records thru the Freedom Information Act.
The SF 180 releases all military records of the signee, including those obtainable under FOIA. So, I'll ask again, why won't Kerry sign an SF 180???????
I won't bore you with my sources either, since, by your post, you would simply call them another item in the food pyramid.
QUOTE
What hypocrisy? They were only following the example of Rove. One is hypocrisy and the other isn't.
Too bad there are 2 sets of rules aren't there!
Too bad there are 2 sets of rules aren't there!
I had previously thought that you were open minded enough to see the hypocrisy on both sides, but I could be mistaken.
Here we have elements of truth and fact on both sides, and both sides are willing to bury their heads in the sand. But the side that is screaming the loudest is doing EXACTLY what they accuse the other of doing. That would be the side that whores itself to unions and then claims that Clelands patriotism was besmirched. That's the side that claims Bush didn't serve honorably and runs on Vietnam, but says that military service shouldn't be an issue.
It's the side that says the swift boat vets are out and out liars, yet look the other way when their candidates 'seared' memory turns out to be false.
And the argument the rest of us get is, we're just doing what Rove does (but can't be proven), Bush doesn't want to lose the 'macho vote'....we just want to debate the issues, did you know I served in Vietnam?.....blah.....blah.....blah......
countrockula
QUOTE
We're not in a moral vacuum here - things are true or not true.
But why doesn't that seem to apply to Democrats?
Pierzin
QUOTE
It's curious how Kerrys war record can be disected and talked about on the cable news shows for two weeks straight, yet Bush and Cheney seem to get a free pass.
I'm wondering if you're saying that with a straight face.....since the Today Show will be airing several segments concerning Kitty Kelly's tabloid trash book on Bush next week.
QUOTE
The SF 180 releases all military records of the signee, including those obtainable under FOIA. So, I'll ask again, why won't Kerry sign an SF 180???????
I could be wrong about this, but isn't the SF180 used to request military records? Isn't the DD214 the document in question, and is that not posted on his website?
QUOTE
QUOTE
We're not in a moral vacuum here - things are true or not true.
But why doesn't that seem to apply to Democrats?
We're not in a moral vacuum here - things are true or not true.
But why doesn't that seem to apply to Democrats?
What are you talking about? The point I was making is that just because you point out that Bush turned tail on his TANG duty, as has now been amply displayed, doesn't mean you're duty bound to call Kerry a lying traitor. I've looked over a lot of the SBVT stuff, and frankly I think it's a sneaky, manufactured, partisan attack with almost no basis in reality. Bush's lack of commitment to his duty, however, is now a matter of public record. If you want to try to justify Bush's cowardice through some kind of bizarro moral relativism, be my guest, but don't accuse me of doing the same thing.
QUOTE(countrockula @ Sep 9 2004, 04:25 PM)
If you want to try to justify Bush's cowardice through some kind of bizarro moral relativism...
Cool it with the inflammatory comments. It's getting a little old warning you about this, countrockula.
TOPICS:
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush? Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
TOPICS:
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush? Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
You know, this is the problem with no-holds-barred political campaigning. Everything becomes fair game.
Perhaps President Bush should not be blamed for assuming that those who weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths got the same careful consideration he got when selecting the military branch in which they would serve. Maybe his father's connections decided that he shouldn't have to ask them for favors regarding his son's placement in the most sought-after unit of the Guard.
Maybe George W. felt it was his due to skip the drills required of everyone else because Daddy was running for office. What's it to the rest of us if he did, right?
What could it possibly mean to the country that a privileged young man would continue to expect to receive privileged treatment during a war where so many were not given choices and were dying in the jungles of Southeast Asia?
You all are right. It is none of our business. It is irrelevant to the type of leader our Commander-in-Chief is. It only speaks to his character and his view of life. September 11th changed all that. He has become Super Leader.
Perhaps President Bush should not be blamed for assuming that those who weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths got the same careful consideration he got when selecting the military branch in which they would serve. Maybe his father's connections decided that he shouldn't have to ask them for favors regarding his son's placement in the most sought-after unit of the Guard.
Maybe George W. felt it was his due to skip the drills required of everyone else because Daddy was running for office. What's it to the rest of us if he did, right?
What could it possibly mean to the country that a privileged young man would continue to expect to receive privileged treatment during a war where so many were not given choices and were dying in the jungles of Southeast Asia?
You all are right. It is none of our business. It is irrelevant to the type of leader our Commander-in-Chief is. It only speaks to his character and his view of life. September 11th changed all that. He has become Super Leader.
QUOTE
I could be wrong about this, but isn't the SF180 used to request military records? Isn't the DD214 the document in question, and is that not posted on his website?
You'll get no argument from me on that, where the heck is it?
My point in my post was not to deify Bush, but to point out some hypocrisy.
Bush needs to find a DD-214......and Kerry needs to sign an SF 180. But since Kerry has made prior military service an issue in this campaign, shouldn't he go first?
QUOTE
You'll get no argument from me on that, where the heck is it?
My point in my post was not to deify Bush, but to point out some hypocrisy.
My point in my post was not to deify Bush, but to point out some hypocrisy.
But that's what I'm saying. Isn't the SF180 used to request the DD214? He already has his DD214 on his website. Link
Noted, but:
Link
This illustrates why, in fairness, if he put his money where his mouth is, he would sign a 180.
QUOTE
94 pages of records unreleased?
Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."
What could that more than 100 pages contain? Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush.
Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."
What could that more than 100 pages contain? Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush.
Link
This illustrates why, in fairness, if he put his money where his mouth is, he would sign a 180.
Fair enough. Kerry should hand over the full file and Bush should find his. Agreed.
QUOTE(countrockula @ Sep 9 2004, 02:23 PM)
QUOTE
There is some speculation out there even that these "documents" may be forgeries. Who knows?
The link you provided - the Cybercast News Service - is a division of Media Research Group - a "rightwing thinktank." Not too credible.
Once again, the media are getting scooped by 'not too credible' right wing bloggers. Please please please take a look at this link.
MS word vs. 1973 memo. (Link probably slow due to high net traffic)
More (admittedly biased) analysis here:
indc journal - note the voluminous links within the story itself.
command-post
My bet, based on what I've seen online today - Dan Rather and CBS, plus the Boston Globe used a forged document and an unworthy source for this story. Because they were so eager for this story to 're-surface' they needed new news. At the very least, they were lazy and re-created something that they didn't really have a copy of. Could be pretty embarassing, if they have to address this.
QUOTE
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
I'm not sure, it depends on whether the public has had enough of Vietnam or not, God knows I have.QUOTE
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
No. I don't care what Kerry did in Vietnam, I don't care what Bush did during Vietnam, and I didn't care what Clinton didn't do in Vietnam. Vietnam is history, when was the last time a presidential election was so heavily dragged down with history?CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Sep 9 2004, 02:05 PM)
QUOTE
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
I'm not sure, it depends on whether the public has had enough of Vietnam or not, God knows I have.QUOTE
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
No. I don't care what Kerry did in Vietnam, I don't care what Bush did during Vietnam, and I didn't care what Clinton didn't do in Vietnam. Vietnam is history, when was the last time a presidential election was so heavily dragged down with history?I wholeheartedly agree with your statements, Pat. This Vietnam thing is just sad. Folks with vendettas in both parties are getting their fifteen minutes and the US electorate is paying the price. I don't believe the "character" references are salient to who can be a good leader: not on Vietnam, not on "flip-flopping" and not on whatever the talking-point-du-jour happens to be. Fanatics have overthrown the political process.
The latest story as covered by today's Boston Globe, says in part:
and
Will these newly released records hurt George W. Bush?
What these records consistently have shown, apparently, is that the United States military is capable of playing CYA. If the truth were to come to light, someone might be embarrassed, and that could lead to disciplinary action, transfers, etc.
It occurs to me that George W. Bush should be able to go elsewhere to find the documentation that he actually attended the required guard drills, etc. I recall a series of letters that I got from a former employer. I had been underpaid by 25 cents. Would I please come down and pick up the check? No. Round trip bus fare would have cost me $2.00. Would I please write them a letter? That would cost me 37 cents postage to say I didn't need the 25 cent check. After a great deal of unanswered correspondence from them, they mailed me a check for 17 cents, with an attachment showing how much had been withheld for State and Federal Taxes, and for Social Security. The following year, I got a W2 from them. The 25 cents is also reflected in my annual earnings reports from Social Security.
It occurs to me that if George W. Bush was serving actively in the Guard at the time, that his pay records would confirm that. The military however, has "lost" any such records. They would however, I presume, have filed W2s with the government to show what was withheld for Social Security, Income Taxes, etc. Presumably, whether George was living in Texas, attending school in Boston, or working on a campaign in Alabama; he filed income tax returns for the years in question. He should also be able to request duplicate returns for the years in question. (Which would include photocopies of his W2s.) He should also be able to request earnings statements from Social Security for the years in question, and demonstrate that his earnings through his Guard Duty years were consistent year to year with what others in his unit were paid.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
It depends on where you're coming from...
ABB His "steady leadership" has led us into war, deficits, unemployment, declining respect in the world... His record to date as President is as bad as any President that I can recall. I'm sorry, but his payroll records showing that he actually reported for guard duty as required likely would not change my opinion of him as a national leader.
Semper Fi! I doubt if payroll records (as evidenced by Federal Campaign records) showing that he was working on a political campaign in Alabama during the years he was supposed to be in the Texas Air National Guard would sway any true believers. They would likely point to a lack of evidence that he had shown up as a speaker, find other campaign workers to say they had never met George, etc. After all, if his payroll records in the National Guard are meaningless, why should his records as a campaign worker be of any value? Follow the Leader Without Question!
Undecided Voters Perhaps undecided voters need something to help define his character though. These records might show that he was valiantly defending his homeland against an air attack from North Vietnam, or that he was taking a firm early stance in his attempts to rid the nation of Democrats, or that he was skipping out on all of his duties to have a drink somewhere.
QUOTE
The documents also contain what appears to be Killian's memo of a meeting he had with Bush in May 1972, at which they discussed the option of Bush skipping his military drills for the following six months while he worked on a US Senate campaign in Alabama. During that meeting, Killian wrote that he reminded Bush ''of our investment in him and his commitment."
and
QUOTE
Former military officers said last night that the four documents obtained by CBS, two of which should have been in Bush's publicly released file, contain evidence that political influence may have come into play as he sidestepped his training requirements in his final two years of service, from May 1972 until May 1974.
Will these newly released records hurt George W. Bush?
What these records consistently have shown, apparently, is that the United States military is capable of playing CYA. If the truth were to come to light, someone might be embarrassed, and that could lead to disciplinary action, transfers, etc.
It occurs to me that George W. Bush should be able to go elsewhere to find the documentation that he actually attended the required guard drills, etc. I recall a series of letters that I got from a former employer. I had been underpaid by 25 cents. Would I please come down and pick up the check? No. Round trip bus fare would have cost me $2.00. Would I please write them a letter? That would cost me 37 cents postage to say I didn't need the 25 cent check. After a great deal of unanswered correspondence from them, they mailed me a check for 17 cents, with an attachment showing how much had been withheld for State and Federal Taxes, and for Social Security. The following year, I got a W2 from them. The 25 cents is also reflected in my annual earnings reports from Social Security.
It occurs to me that if George W. Bush was serving actively in the Guard at the time, that his pay records would confirm that. The military however, has "lost" any such records. They would however, I presume, have filed W2s with the government to show what was withheld for Social Security, Income Taxes, etc. Presumably, whether George was living in Texas, attending school in Boston, or working on a campaign in Alabama; he filed income tax returns for the years in question. He should also be able to request duplicate returns for the years in question. (Which would include photocopies of his W2s.) He should also be able to request earnings statements from Social Security for the years in question, and demonstrate that his earnings through his Guard Duty years were consistent year to year with what others in his unit were paid.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
It depends on where you're coming from...
ABB His "steady leadership" has led us into war, deficits, unemployment, declining respect in the world... His record to date as President is as bad as any President that I can recall. I'm sorry, but his payroll records showing that he actually reported for guard duty as required likely would not change my opinion of him as a national leader.
Semper Fi! I doubt if payroll records (as evidenced by Federal Campaign records) showing that he was working on a political campaign in Alabama during the years he was supposed to be in the Texas Air National Guard would sway any true believers. They would likely point to a lack of evidence that he had shown up as a speaker, find other campaign workers to say they had never met George, etc. After all, if his payroll records in the National Guard are meaningless, why should his records as a campaign worker be of any value? Follow the Leader Without Question!
Undecided Voters Perhaps undecided voters need something to help define his character though. These records might show that he was valiantly defending his homeland against an air attack from North Vietnam, or that he was taking a firm early stance in his attempts to rid the nation of Democrats, or that he was skipping out on all of his duties to have a drink somewhere.
OK, somebody square this one for me. The current Democratic star of the hour, former Lt. Gov Barnes stated Here, that as Lt. Gov, he got GWB into the guard.
Barnes was elected Lt. Gov in 1969, yet GWB entered the Guard in 1968.........
Now, I know a highly partisan Democrat wouldn't fib....but what could be the disconnect??
Barnes was elected Lt. Gov in 1969, yet GWB entered the Guard in 1968.........
Now, I know a highly partisan Democrat wouldn't fib....but what could be the disconnect??
QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Sep 9 2004, 04:47 PM)
The latest story as covered by today's Boston Globe, says in part:
and
Will these newly released records hurt George W. Bush?
What these records consistently have shown, apparently, is that the United States military is capable of playing CYA. If the truth were to come to light, someone might be embarrassed, and that could lead to disciplinary action, transfers, etc.
QUOTE
The documents also contain what appears to be Killian's memo of a meeting he had with Bush in May 1972, at which they discussed the option of Bush skipping his military drills for the following six months while he worked on a US Senate campaign in Alabama. During that meeting, Killian wrote that he reminded Bush ''of our investment in him and his commitment."
and
QUOTE
Former military officers said last night that the four documents obtained by CBS, two of which should have been in Bush's publicly released file, contain evidence that political influence may have come into play as he sidestepped his training requirements in his final two years of service, from May 1972 until May 1974.
Will these newly released records hurt George W. Bush?
What these records consistently have shown, apparently, is that the United States military is capable of playing CYA. If the truth were to come to light, someone might be embarrassed, and that could lead to disciplinary action, transfers, etc.
Your judgements are based on documents that may very well be forgeries.
Since I doubt anyone else is looking at the right wing wacko sites I'm visiting, I'll summarize:
1 - There is no way that a military man in 1973 writes a memo with the subject "CYA"
2 - If he does, he doesn't write it in Times New Roman 12 point font with the exact default typespacing and tab settings as Microsoft Word in 2004.
3 - Again, if he does, he doesn't have a raised "th" in smaller font above the 187th, because typewriters didn't do that in those days... Similarly, one document refers to “1 st Lt. Bush” with a space between the numeral 1 and the ‘st’? Could Like someone is trying to keep MS Word from making the "st" go to superscript.
4 - Why do the documents have a mix of straight quotes and 'smart quotes' - you know, the kind that curve in automatically on MS Word?
5 - Note that Dan Rather didn't spend much time questioning the guy's motivations for talking, even though he is a major Kerry contributor. Didn't work that way for the Swift Boat guys. Oh wait, Rather never interviewed them...
Much more to come out on this, with big egg on the face for CBS and Boston Globe.
Edited to remove reply to removed post
Wow!! 
Now this is rich.. It is coming out all over the place that this so called memo was forged. CBS and The Boston Globe are gonna have alot of 'splaining" to do.
Honestly though, I wouldn't have expected any less from them.
And to answer the debate questions:
This won't hurt a bit... and now shown to likely be forgeries, this will help.
And in light of the new information the second question is irrelevant.
Now this is rich.. It is coming out all over the place that this so called memo was forged. CBS and The Boston Globe are gonna have alot of 'splaining" to do.
Honestly though, I wouldn't have expected any less from them.
And to answer the debate questions:
This won't hurt a bit... and now shown to likely be forgeries, this will help.
And in light of the new information the second question is irrelevant.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Sep 9 2004, 06:15 PM)
Your judgements are based on documents that may very well be forgeries.
As I said,
QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Sep 9 2004, 05:47 PM )
It depends on where you're coming from...
The debate questions were:
Will these newly released records hurt George W. Bush?
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
My background is not military, but CYA is a phrase I heard frequently in an industrial career that spanned over thirty years. It did not sound false to my ears.
I have not had the opportunity to exam the original documents, or a facsimile in detail to note the itemized references to MS-Word. Admittedly, I would expect a document from that era to be typed on an IBM Selectric or something akin to it. The military has never been noted for its affection for ten cent screwdrivers or dollar store tools. At the same time, if someone is attempting to forge a credible document, I would expect them to turn to the tools of that time.
Nonetheless, my point was that if George W. Bush wants to put to rest the rumors that he did not fulfill his obligations in the "Champagne Unit" by attending training, getting a physical, earning his pilot's license and flight suit, etc.; there are alternative ways to prove that he was in the guard, reporting for duty, and being paid on a regular basis. I suggested that the Internal Revenue Service would have records available of his tax returns for the years in question, including W2 forms filed by anyone who paid him for his time, labor, etc. I presume that the military would file such forms the same as a civilian employer. I also suggested that his Social Security records, which would reflect wages and salaries paid, should reflect that of other members of his guard unit.
My opinion of his "leadership" skills:
QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Sep 9 2004, 05:47 PM )
His "steady leadership" has led us into war, deficits, unemployment, declining respect in the world... His record to date as President is as bad as any President that I can recall. I'm sorry, but his payroll records showing that he actually reported for guard duty as required likely would not change my opinion of him as a national leader.
made no reference whatsoever to whether or not he attended guard meetings, or performed to specifications. Rather, I referenced his oft touted "steady leadership" over the past 3 - 4 years that has led the country into a recession and a war.
I concluded that these latest documents/charges, whether proven or unproven would not sway those of us in the ABB crowd, nor was it likely to sway those of you who are "True Believers," marching to the tune of Hail to the Chief.
The story placed Bush simultaneously in the National Guard in Texas, attending school in Boston, and working on a campaign in Alabama. If you want to prove he spent time in the guard, try disproving the other allegations.
As I inferred, I am certain that somewhere in the Republican party are loyal members who would be proud to say that their campaigns were run with no help at all from George W. Bush.
I've placed the challenge out in other threads for anyone to prove this President actually earned a college degree. The consistent thing I can point to over a lifetime is that every time I have been in the home or office of someone with a college degree, there have been bookshelves and books. This President has a librarian for a wife, yet admits he hates to read. On the morning of Sept. 11, he was in an elementary classroom holding a copy of a book. I am not going to raise the issue of what the title was, but has anyone yet heard any tape of the President reading that goat story aloud to the children?
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 9 2004, 06:14 PM)
OK, somebody square this one for me. The current Democratic star of the hour, former Lt. Gov Barnes stated Here, that as Lt. Gov, he got GWB into the guard.
Barnes was elected Lt. Gov in 1969, yet GWB entered the Guard in 1968.........
Now, I know a highly partisan Democrat wouldn't fib....but what could be the disconnect??
Barnes was elected Lt. Gov in 1969, yet GWB entered the Guard in 1968.........
Now, I know a highly partisan Democrat wouldn't fib....but what could be the disconnect??
Hmm...
Perhaps he got offered the job of Lt. Governor in return for the political favor of getting the sons of wealthy and influential people into the Champagne Unit of the Air National Guard... Just a thought.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 9 2004, 06:14 PM)
OK, somebody square this one for me. The current Democratic star of the hour, former Lt. Gov Barnes stated Here, that as Lt. Gov, he got GWB into the guard.
Barnes was elected Lt. Gov in 1969, yet GWB entered the Guard in 1968.........
Now, I know a highly partisan Democrat wouldn't fib....but what could be the disconnect??
Barnes was elected Lt. Gov in 1969, yet GWB entered the Guard in 1968.........
Now, I know a highly partisan Democrat wouldn't fib....but what could be the disconnect??
Just to correct this mistake, he was Speaker of the Texas House in 1968. Plenty powerful enough to make it happen. So what if he said he was Lt. Gov at the time?
And so what, really, about all this fuss over something that happened 35 years ago? Enough!
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush? Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
People are going to give more weight to the last 4 years than something that happend 35 years ago. Both Kerry and Bush have enjoyed a level of priviledge that most of us will never enjoy. I am more concerned about what they will do now as President and Commander in Chief that what they did decades ago. Yes, it is an indication of character and ethics, but character and ethics are situational.
Who among us are the same person we were 30 or 40 years ago?
I will hold my nose and vote for Bush. His actions lately are slightly less repugnant that those of Mr. Kerry.
People are going to give more weight to the last 4 years than something that happend 35 years ago. Both Kerry and Bush have enjoyed a level of priviledge that most of us will never enjoy. I am more concerned about what they will do now as President and Commander in Chief that what they did decades ago. Yes, it is an indication of character and ethics, but character and ethics are situational.
Who among us are the same person we were 30 or 40 years ago?
I will hold my nose and vote for Bush. His actions lately are slightly less repugnant that those of Mr. Kerry.
QUOTE(Countrockula)
QUOTE
There is some speculation out there even that these "documents" may be forgeries. Who knows?
The link you provided - the Cybercast News Service - is a division of Media Research Group - a "rightwing thinktank." Not too credible.
There is some speculation out there even that these "documents" may be forgeries. Who knows?
The link you provided - the Cybercast News Service - is a division of Media Research Group - a "rightwing thinktank." Not too credible.
Gee, given some of the "sources" cited here by the left.....
Oh well, if you don't like that messenger, how about ABC News? Another "rightwing group" you figure? From this we get the following....
QUOTE
Sept. 9, 2004 — Questions are being raised about the authenticity of newly discovered documents relating to George W. Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War.
[snip]
"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available … indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"
Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:
The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.
[snip]
"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available … indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"
Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:
The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.
Opps!!
radiofreenola
countrockula
Pierzin
dontreadonme
[QUOTE]
I'm wondering if you're saying that with a straight face.....since the Today Show will be airing several segments concerning Kitty Kelly's tabloid trash book on Bush next week.[QUOTE]
No offense, dontreadonme, but that is how I see it. I dont consider Kitty Kelly as very credible, and I can't watch the Today show,
, so you've got me there!
But then I don't consider a lot of left wing conspiracy sites as credible news either.
I did say that with a straight face. I see MSNBC and CNN and Headline News, and one of those networks is still talking about the RNC, almost a week after it's over! What is up with That???
But then I don't consider a lot of left wing conspiracy sites as credible news either. If someone runs a story, and no one disputes it, and they have sources to back up their story, it's fair game in my book. See my comments in the Mouthpiece Journalism thread. I'm sorry, I digress.
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush? Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
If they are valid, then they should hurt Bush. Absolutely. Are they relevant? Yes.
The mere fact that it became a story is something in and of itself, since people have been known to sue this administration just to obtain records that fall under the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act.
In my humble opinion, it is essentially as relevant as a president who says "Read my lips"(no pun intended). Is there a problem here? Why is there a controversy? Why don't both parties lay their cards on the table regarding Vietnam? Who has more to hide? Simple logic tells me if a person is not forthcoming about his or her past, they must have something to hide. I mean, shouldn't we expect the most of our commander in chief?
If these are new allegations that are in fact proven to be false, then the media has a responsibility to report that also.
If I falsified my past so that I could get a great job with cushy benefits, and then I did a terrible job on my watch and continued to lie about many things, not just falsifying my records, and then my actions had catastophic effects, I would expect to get fired. It's a matter of principle.
QUOTE
This is more than just a problem of 35 years ago, this is a reflection of the Republican campaigns of the 1990s, when many a Conservative Pundit blow hard mouthed off for HOURS about how Clinton dodged the draft. But, BUSH DID TOO!! Now they have to eat those words, every last one.
countrockula
QUOTE
We're not in a moral vacuum here - things are true or not true.
Pierzin
QUOTE
It's curious how Kerrys war record can be disected and talked about on the cable news shows for two weeks straight, yet Bush and Cheney seem to get a free pass.
dontreadonme
[QUOTE]
I'm wondering if you're saying that with a straight face.....since the Today Show will be airing several segments concerning Kitty Kelly's tabloid trash book on Bush next week.[QUOTE]
No offense, dontreadonme, but that is how I see it. I dont consider Kitty Kelly as very credible, and I can't watch the Today show,
, so you've got me there! But then I don't consider a lot of left wing conspiracy sites as credible news either.
I did say that with a straight face. I see MSNBC and CNN and Headline News, and one of those networks is still talking about the RNC, almost a week after it's over! What is up with That???
But then I don't consider a lot of left wing conspiracy sites as credible news either. If someone runs a story, and no one disputes it, and they have sources to back up their story, it's fair game in my book. See my comments in the Mouthpiece Journalism thread. I'm sorry, I digress.
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush? Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
If they are valid, then they should hurt Bush. Absolutely. Are they relevant? Yes.
The mere fact that it became a story is something in and of itself, since people have been known to sue this administration just to obtain records that fall under the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act.
In my humble opinion, it is essentially as relevant as a president who says "Read my lips"(no pun intended). Is there a problem here? Why is there a controversy? Why don't both parties lay their cards on the table regarding Vietnam? Who has more to hide? Simple logic tells me if a person is not forthcoming about his or her past, they must have something to hide. I mean, shouldn't we expect the most of our commander in chief?
If these are new allegations that are in fact proven to be false, then the media has a responsibility to report that also.
If I falsified my past so that I could get a great job with cushy benefits, and then I did a terrible job on my watch and continued to lie about many things, not just falsifying my records, and then my actions had catastophic effects, I would expect to get fired. It's a matter of principle.
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
One can only hope. It'll serve the GOP right to get a taste of their own medicine.
On a more objective level I think that it all depends on how many news cycles this information gets in the media. If it gets anywhere near the attention that the Swift Boat Vets thing did, it'll be very bad for Bush if the current polls are to be believed.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
I'd say that since the GOP has decided to make Kerry's Vietnam record relevant, Bush's record, or lack thereof, is certainly fair game as well.
I personally don't place any value in smear tactics like this as far as deciding how to cast my vote, but apparently a decent portion of the American population does. I don't care what the candidates did 30 or 40 years ago, I care what they have done recently and what they promie to do with the next four years.
One can only hope. It'll serve the GOP right to get a taste of their own medicine.
On a more objective level I think that it all depends on how many news cycles this information gets in the media. If it gets anywhere near the attention that the Swift Boat Vets thing did, it'll be very bad for Bush if the current polls are to be believed.
Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
I'd say that since the GOP has decided to make Kerry's Vietnam record relevant, Bush's record, or lack thereof, is certainly fair game as well.
I personally don't place any value in smear tactics like this as far as deciding how to cast my vote, but apparently a decent portion of the American population does. I don't care what the candidates did 30 or 40 years ago, I care what they have done recently and what they promie to do with the next four years.
Those 'records' are bogus. Independent examinations show they were created with technology that wasn't even in existence back then.
Not surprising though. CBS runs loud and hard with the 'story' and will whisper an 'oops' somewhere down the road.
Fortunately, most Americans are moving past these '30 years ago' dramas. We realize that what truly counts is a tad more recent. Like maybe the positions these candidates take on current issues. I know this is a tough chore with Kerry, but if you look hard enough you'll find the real deal. Start with his voting record.
Not surprising though. CBS runs loud and hard with the 'story' and will whisper an 'oops' somewhere down the road.
Fortunately, most Americans are moving past these '30 years ago' dramas. We realize that what truly counts is a tad more recent. Like maybe the positions these candidates take on current issues. I know this is a tough chore with Kerry, but if you look hard enough you'll find the real deal. Start with his voting record.
QUOTE
I'd say that since the GOP has decided to make Kerry's Vietnam record relevant, Bush's record, or lack thereof, is certainly fair game as well.
I agree that it's fair game, as is every aspect of a candidates record, but its extremely disingenuous to somehow claim that the GOP made Kerry's Vietnam record relevant. That statement is a slap in the face of honest debate.
Kerry, from the beginning, ran on his Vietnam record. We have speech transcripts from his Senate career showing that he mentioned his serving in Vietnam at seemingly every opportunity. It's great to be proud of your service, but give us a break already.
Bush has never run on his Guard service, if he had, this alleged AWOL controversy would have legs, but it will fall flat, just as it has every other time his opponents have brought it up.
You do concede, will you not, that Kerry has personally attacked Bush's Guard record, while Bush has not done so to Kerry?
You do know that Kerry said in April........before the Swift boat veterans had said a word , “George Bush has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” and “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
If he is found to be 'misleading' the country about he time he served then yes, they could well be devastating.
As far as I can make out the Kerry campaign has suffered from not being aggressive enough. If the Republicans can score so much damage from the Swift Veterans for truth when they are attacking what should be one of Kerrys strongest fronts with small amount of dubious evidence then the Democrats have to come out swinging with Bushes National guard service. There is far more to go on and whether or not it's a decent way to go about it the fact is there are huge gains to be made. Republicans will accuse them of being petty, regurgitating the past and settled arguments, not focusing on the future etc. But so what? As unpleasant as it might be it works.
Bush's service smells like a lie. It has the 'feel' of a lie. (I apologise for being vague here, especially on a forum where much more substance to an argument is required and more often than not -given.) But there is no meat to his claim. Forget the documents, dental records etc, I want to hear the stories. Where are the friends he made? Where are the tales of what they got up to? He was clearly a bit (being generous here) of a maverick, there must of been incidents. This man went on to be president of the united states and nobody remembers him? partisan link but the quotes are sourced It's just too unlikely, surley there is more background than lost records and medical requests. If a child told me he had been to school that day and he can prove it because his attendance record says so, but no teacher remembers him, no friends saw him and he's not sure of how he spent the day I think I'd be inclined not to take the claim at face value.
If he is found to be 'misleading' the country about he time he served then yes, they could well be devastating.
As far as I can make out the Kerry campaign has suffered from not being aggressive enough. If the Republicans can score so much damage from the Swift Veterans for truth when they are attacking what should be one of Kerrys strongest fronts with small amount of dubious evidence then the Democrats have to come out swinging with Bushes National guard service. There is far more to go on and whether or not it's a decent way to go about it the fact is there are huge gains to be made. Republicans will accuse them of being petty, regurgitating the past and settled arguments, not focusing on the future etc. But so what? As unpleasant as it might be it works.
Bush's service smells like a lie. It has the 'feel' of a lie. (I apologise for being vague here, especially on a forum where much more substance to an argument is required and more often than not -given.) But there is no meat to his claim. Forget the documents, dental records etc, I want to hear the stories. Where are the friends he made? Where are the tales of what they got up to? He was clearly a bit (being generous here) of a maverick, there must of been incidents. This man went on to be president of the united states and nobody remembers him? partisan link but the quotes are sourced It's just too unlikely, surley there is more background than lost records and medical requests. If a child told me he had been to school that day and he can prove it because his attendance record says so, but no teacher remembers him, no friends saw him and he's not sure of how he spent the day I think I'd be inclined not to take the claim at face value.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Sep 10 2004, 07:00 AM)
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
One can only hope. It'll serve the GOP right to get a taste of their own medicine.
One can only hope. It'll serve the GOP right to get a taste of their own medicine.
Interesting take in the the news round-up this morning on the 'net. Dan Rather is going to come out of this looking like the partisan hack that he is. Good riddance to bad rubbish. And from no less a right-wing conspiracist than CBS themselves, according to drudge this morning. Rather asked ZERO tough questions of Barnes, a guy who is chairman of the Kerry campaign in Texas, and CBS is likely to get a spanking for taking both the man and the documents as legit. Outstanding.
QUOTE
CBSNEWS LAUNCHES INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AFTER SUSPICIOUS BUSH DOCS AIRED
CBS NEWS executives have launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush's National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
"The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday.
CBS NEWS executives have launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush's National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
"The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday.
As for Barnes 'misquote' - do you think that at least the 'impartial journalist' Dan Rather could have maybe, um asked him about it? You know - Gee Mr. Barnes, you were a powerful TEXAS democrat, you raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Kerry's re-election, and now you are saying that as Lt. Gov, you got GW Bush into the Nat'l Guard. Casting aside the obvious motivation for you to change your story, and that you've previously said under oath that you never spoke to the Bush family about it... You weren't Lt. Gov that year when he got in. Did you mean when you were Speaker of the House? If I were a journalist, I may have asked that question, but hey.
NY Post:
QUOTE
I thought on Wednesday that it was scandalous for "60 Minutes" to turn over a good deal of its time on Wednesday night to one Ben Barnes, a one-time Texas political powerhouse who now claims he got George W. Bush into the National Guard.
The problem is not, as some would have it, that Barnes has raised half a million dollars for Kerry. The problem is that Barnes has already lied about this on videotape, and I use the word "lied" without difficulty, where he says he pulled strings for Bush when "I was lieutenant governor of Texas."
The thing is that George W. Bush was sworn into the National Guard in May 1968. Ben Barnes didn't become lieutenant governor until 1969.
The problem is not, as some would have it, that Barnes has raised half a million dollars for Kerry. The problem is that Barnes has already lied about this on videotape, and I use the word "lied" without difficulty, where he says he pulled strings for Bush when "I was lieutenant governor of Texas."
The thing is that George W. Bush was sworn into the National Guard in May 1968. Ben Barnes didn't become lieutenant governor until 1969.
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush? Should they also be viewed as relevant to Bush's ability to lead the nation?
At this point, I doubt it. Now that the truth is likely to come out, the connections of Barnes to Kerry and the sleaze of forged documents will hurt Kerry and probably CBS News, if anyone.
QUOTE
Will these newly released records hurt George E. Bush?
It would appear, that if the revelations about the possible forgeries of these documents are true, then quite the opposite will be true and the issue of GW's service will become mute. This only helps GW.
The truly disturbing issue here is, if the documents are revealed as frauds, is how low politics have sunk. Using a dead Man's signature on a fake document is about as low as it gets.
If the documents are fake then, "from the gutter to them is not up".
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 10 2004, 01:31 PM)
You do concede, will you not, that Kerry has personally attacked Bush's Guard record, while Bush has not done so to Kerry?
To me it doesn't really matter because it is a difference without a distinction DTOM. Maybe I'm just more cynical than you are, but I think you have to be pretty partisan to believe in your heart of hearts that the GOP didn't have their hands in the whole swift boat thing - winning points here on AD aside.
I actually applaud Kerry for finally hitting back a little bit with Bush's service and I really hope this thing catches on. It shows me he wants to win and he has finally realized that he can't do that against the GOP's tactics unless he gets his hands dirty.
QUOTE(Carlitoswhey)
Now that the truth is likely to come out, the connections of Barnes to Kerry and the sleaze of forged documents will hurt Kerry and probably CBS News, if anyone.
Why should that matter Carlito? The swift boat vets were pretty clearly linked to the Republican Party by major donors and no one seemed to care. Why would this be any different? Additionally, most of that swift boat stuff was discredited and that also didn't matter, it still had an effect. This is attack politics, what you say doesn't have to be true, only plausible.
Actually shouldn't the debate questions of this thread be a moot point because the "memos" were faked?
Catches on?!? What? You want more democrats to forge documents because they have NOTHING?
And if you are applauding Kerry for this CJ, are you saying he was behind the forged documents? I sure as hell don't want that kind of man to be president.
QUOTE
I actually applaud Kerry for finally hitting back a little bit with Bush's service and I really hope this thing catches on.
Catches on?!? What? You want more democrats to forge documents because they have NOTHING?
And if you are applauding Kerry for this CJ, are you saying he was behind the forged documents? I sure as hell don't want that kind of man to be president.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Sep 10 2004, 02:34 PM)
Actually shouldn't the debate questions of this thread be a moot point because the "memos" were faked?
Has that been proven yet? I sure haven't seen anything to that effect as far as evidence in this thread. I think you may be confusing your desire for them to be forgeries with the rumor they may be forgeries.
A little common sense and effort goes a long way...
If you would like I can post some links to the actual memo, which is identical to MS Word.
I will go out on a limb here and say these memos are forgeries.
QUOTE
"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available … indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"
Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:
The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.
Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:
The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.
If you would like I can post some links to the actual memo, which is identical to MS Word.
I will go out on a limb here and say these memos are forgeries.
If the documents are truly fake, how stupid can the Democrats be?! There is such a WEALTH of real information out there to discredit George W. Bush; why in the wide wide world of sports would they attempt something like this?! ...Not that either candidate's service/lack thereof amounts to a hill of beans when it comes to the issues of 2004-2008...
The issue of miltary service/lack thereof is so freaking TIRED. Can we please quit beating the dead horse?
As far as I'm concerned, we should hogtie both candidates, throw 'em on a boat, and take them far far out to sea, dump them in shark-infested waters and let them try to make their way to a deserted island, and then maybe we could just start over. These yahoos have got to be the 2 most sorry-a.. choices we've EVER had for the highest office in the land.
I'm sure the FBI will be knocking on my door if they read that. HA!
edited to add: BTW, you can make a pseudo-superscript on a typewriter (it's not quite as neat)...I did it for years before computers became commonplace.
The issue of miltary service/lack thereof is so freaking TIRED. Can we please quit beating the dead horse?
As far as I'm concerned, we should hogtie both candidates, throw 'em on a boat, and take them far far out to sea, dump them in shark-infested waters and let them try to make their way to a deserted island, and then maybe we could just start over. These yahoos have got to be the 2 most sorry-a.. choices we've EVER had for the highest office in the land.
I'm sure the FBI will be knocking on my door if they read that. HA!
edited to add: BTW, you can make a pseudo-superscript on a typewriter (it's not quite as neat)...I did it for years before computers became commonplace.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Sep 10 2004, 10:44 AM)
The issue of miltary service/lack thereof is so freaking TIRED. Can we please quit beating the dead horse?
As far as I'm concerned, we should hogtie both candidates, throw 'em on a boat, and take them far far out to sea, dump them in shark-infested waters and let them try to make their way to a deserted island, and then maybe we could just start over.
As far as I'm concerned, we should hogtie both candidates, throw 'em on a boat, and take them far far out to sea, dump them in shark-infested waters and let them try to make their way to a deserted island, and then maybe we could just start over.
At last, you and I agree
Totally sick of this, but I still believe that it's Kerry's fault (separate thread) we are talking about Vietnam.QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
edited to add: BTW, you can make a pseudo-superscript on a typewriter (it's not quite as neat)...I did it for years before computers became commonplace.
Indeed, but not in a different font size, unless you change the ball. And the guy's wife says that he couldn't type, etc..... from ABC News - Marjorie Connell, the alleged memo-author's wife:
QUOTE
"The wording in these documents is very suspect to me," she told ABC News Radio in an exclusive phone interview from her Texas home. She added that she "just can't believe these are his words."
<snip>
Connell said Killian did not type, and though he did take notes, they were usually on scraps of paper. "He was a person who did not take copious notes," she said. "He carried everything in his mind."
Killian's son, Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father, also told ABC News Radio that he doubts his father wrote the documents. "It was not the nature of my father to keep private files like this, nor would it have been in his own interest to do so," he said.
<snip>
Connell said Killian did not type, and though he did take notes, they were usually on scraps of paper. "He was a person who did not take copious notes," she said. "He carried everything in his mind."
Killian's son, Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father, also told ABC News Radio that he doubts his father wrote the documents. "It was not the nature of my father to keep private files like this, nor would it have been in his own interest to do so," he said.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Sep 10 2004, 10:02 AM)
If you would like I can post some links to the actual memo, which is identical to MS Word.
I will go out on a limb here and say these memos are forgeries.
I will go out on a limb here and say these memos are forgeries.
QUOTE
In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles..._duty_at_guard/
Assuming the documents were forged, I don't think we can assume that Democrats forged them. Sleeper, you did not say Democrats did this, but the implication is now on cable news.
I was watching Alan Murry, CNBC political analyst moments ago and he said nobody knew how the documents got there, but that there was no evidence it was done by Democrats.
Meanwhile CBS has just said that the documents were inspected by an "independent expert" and that they stand by their authenticity.
We may have to let this one play out without jumping to conclusions.
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 10 2004, 09:21 AM)
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Sep 10 2004, 10:02 AM)
If you would like I can post some links to the actual memo, which is identical to MS Word.
I will go out on a limb here and say these memos are forgeries.
I will go out on a limb here and say these memos are forgeries.
QUOTE
In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles..._duty_at_guard/
Assuming the documents were forged, I don't think we can assume that Democrats forged them. Sleeper, you did not say Democrats did this, but the implication is now on cable news.
I was watching Alan Murry, CNBC political analyst moments ago and he said nobody knew how the documents got there, but that there was no evidence it was done by Democrats.
Meanwhile CBS has just said that the documents were inspected by an "independent expert" and that they stand by their authenticity.
We may have to let this one play out without jumping to conclusions.
We may indeed have to let this "play out", although the American Spectator is reportedly claiming that it was the Kerry campaign that supplied CBS with the "memos". I haven't been able to find the link to that though, so we'll see. Meanwhile though, another part of this story and the interview on 60 Minutes with Ben Barnes has some rather interesting developments. Quite a bit of "political incest" going on with this one. Turns out that Dan Rather did a fund-raiser for the same county Democratic Party that Ben Barnes, and Rather's daughter are active in.
No big deal, we all know about Dan Rather and his politics, shouldn't surprise anyone, but now this little gem has surfaced. The above link is to a talk radio station in Arlington, Texas, WBAP and they had an interesting caller disputing Barnes' claims on 60 Minutes. Her last name is also Barnes. Coincidence you say? Not really, she's Ben Barnes' daughter. From that interview on WBAP......
QUOTE
BARNES: I love my father very much, but he's doing this for purely political reasons. He is a big Kerry fund-raiser and he is writing a book also. And [the Bush story] is what he's leading the book off with. ... He denied this to me in 2000 that he did get Bush out [of Vietnam service]. Now he's saying he did.
Later on....
QUOTE
CROWLEY: So, I hate to put you in this position, but I will ask you, do you think your father, Ben Barnes who was on "60 Minutes II" with Dan Rather last night – do you believe that he lied on the air to the American people last night about President Bush?
BARNES; Yes, I do. I absolutely do. And I think he's doing he's doing it for purely political, opportunistic reasons – trying to get John Kerry elected and trying to make Bush look like the bad person. ... Like I said, he's going to be trying to promote his book that he's got coming out.
BARNES; Yes, I do. I absolutely do. And I think he's doing he's doing it for purely political, opportunistic reasons – trying to get John Kerry elected and trying to make Bush look like the bad person. ... Like I said, he's going to be trying to promote his book that he's got coming out.
So, yeah, let's let this all play out. As long as it takes.
According to the American Spectator, the Kerry campaign are the ones that passed this memo onto to CBS News: Anatomy of a Forgery They were skeptical of the source even back then:
Even CBS was skeptical about the sourcing, but they must have decided to run with the story anyway:
Now accusations are flying over who is responsible here: CBS News, the Kerry campaign, or (of course) Karl Rove.
What is particularly troubling is that despite the dubious source of the memo, Democrat Tom Harkin jumped in with two feet, saying that the record now shows that he did not fulfill his duty. Kerry was smart enough to avoid comment when asked at a rally yesterday.
This certainly is not going to help the credibility of any further mudrakers against Bush...
QUOTE
More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.
The oppo researcher claimed the source was "a retired military officer." According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.
"More than a couple people heard about the papers," says the DNC staffer. "I've heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity."
The concerns arose from the sourcing. "It wasn't clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn't confirm from what file, from what original source they came from."
The documents that CBS News used were not documents from any of Bush's personnel files from his time in the National Guard. Rather, CBS News stated that they were documents uncovered in the personnel files of Killian. That would explain why the White House or the Pentagon had never before released or even seen them.
(emphasis mine)The oppo researcher claimed the source was "a retired military officer." According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.
"More than a couple people heard about the papers," says the DNC staffer. "I've heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity."
The concerns arose from the sourcing. "It wasn't clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn't confirm from what file, from what original source they came from."
The documents that CBS News used were not documents from any of Bush's personnel files from his time in the National Guard. Rather, CBS News stated that they were documents uncovered in the personnel files of Killian. That would explain why the White House or the Pentagon had never before released or even seen them.
Even CBS was skeptical about the sourcing, but they must have decided to run with the story anyway:
QUOTE
A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.
"The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush's file that had Killian calling Bush 'an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.' And someone who Killian said 'performed in an outstanding manner.' Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different."
The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. "This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn't show it," says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.
"The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush's file that had Killian calling Bush 'an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.' And someone who Killian said 'performed in an outstanding manner.' Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different."
The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. "This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn't show it," says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.
Now accusations are flying over who is responsible here: CBS News, the Kerry campaign, or (of course) Karl Rove.
What is particularly troubling is that despite the dubious source of the memo, Democrat Tom Harkin jumped in with two feet, saying that the record now shows that he did not fulfill his duty. Kerry was smart enough to avoid comment when asked at a rally yesterday.
This certainly is not going to help the credibility of any further mudrakers against Bush...
QUOTE(Amlord)
What is particularly troubling is that despite the dubious source of the memo, Democrat Tom Harkin jumped in with two feet, saying that the record now shows that he did not fulfill his duty. Kerry was smart enough to avoid comment when asked at a rally yesterday.
Apparently though, John Edwards was not smart enough to avoid comment. From today's Nashua Telegraph.......
QUOTE
NASHUA - President Bush should have to explain newly released records that reveal his former Texas National Guard superior was asked to “sugar coat” performance records after finding Bush failed standards to be a trained pilot, Sen. John Edwards said Thursday.
“I think they are reasonable and legitimate questions the White House ought to answer,” Edwards said during an interview with The Telegraph.
CBS News released 1972 and 1973 memos Wednesday from Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who had commanded the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron where Bush served.
“I think they are reasonable and legitimate questions the White House ought to answer,” Edwards said during an interview with The Telegraph.
CBS News released 1972 and 1973 memos Wednesday from Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who had commanded the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron where Bush served.
Opps!!!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.