BS: Bush AWOL revisited

Subject: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:11 PM

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.

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 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice.

On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, "It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months. . . " Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.

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.

Yet Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973, the records show.

The reexamination of Bush's records by the Globe, along with interviews with military specialists who have reviewed regulations from that era, show that Bush's attendance at required training drills was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been ''satisfactory" -- just four months after Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months.

Bartlett, in a statement to the Globe last night, sidestepped questions about Bush's record. In the statement, Bartlett asserted again that Bush would not have been honorably discharged if he had not "met all his requirements." In a follow-up e-mail, Bartlett declared: "And if he hadn't met his requirements you point to, they would have called him up for active duty for up to two years."

That assertion by the White House spokesman 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."

Even retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel chief who vouched for Bush at the White House's request in February, agreed that Bush walked away from his obligation to join a reserve unit in the Boston area when he moved to Cambridge in September 1973. By not joining a unit in Massachusetts, Lloyd said in an interview last month, Bush "took a chance that he could be called up for active duty. But the war was winding down, and he probably knew that the Air Force was not enforcing the penalty."

But Lloyd said that singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. "There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing," he said.

Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, said after studying many of the documents that it is clear to him that Bush "gamed the system." And he agreed with Lloyd that Bush was not alone in doing so. "If I cheat on my income tax and don't get caught, I'm still cheating on my income tax," Korb said.

More in Today's Boston Globe!

And the AP reports this, quashing the white House's Party Line that he was excused from duty because the Plane he flew was obsolete:

The records show his last flight was in April 1972, which is consistent with pay records indicating Bush had a large lapse of duty between April and October of that year. Bush has said he went to Alabama in 1972 to work on an unsuccessful Republican Senate campaign. Bush skipped a required medical exam that cost him his pilot's status in August of that year.

Bush's 2000 campaign suggested the future president skipped his medical exam in part because the F-102A was nearly obsolete. Records show Bush's Texas unit flew the F-102A until 1974 and used the jets as part of an air defense drill during 1972.

A six-month historical record of his 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, also turned over to the AP on Tuesday, shows some of the training Bush missed with his colleagues during that time.

Significantly, it showed the unit joined a "24-hour active alert mission to safeguard against surprise attack" in the southern United States beginning on Oct. 6, 1972, a time when Bush did not report for duty, according to his pay records.

Bush's lone service in October was outside Texas, presumably with an Alabama unit he had permission to train with in September, October and November 1972.

As part of the mission, the 147th kept two F-102a jets - the same Bush flew before he was grounded - on ready alert to be launched within five minutes' warning.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:24 PM

Looks to me like he gambled that he would not be called up to active duty and won the bet. Should he have located another unit in the Cambridge area and followed through with his commitment? Absolutely! Does the fact that he didn't mean that he is not qualified to be re-elected? Of course not.

He was honorably discharged from the Airforce Reserve. Has the paper to prove it too.

This is just another dirty tricks effort on the part of the Democrats to discredit Bush. Of course on the Mudcat no real effort is needed.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:29 PM

No, DougR, it's like the man said. He cheated on his taxes and didn't get caught. That doesn't mean he's innocent!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: PoppaGator
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:29 PM

Anyone whose daddy wasn't so comfortably connected with the upper echelons of the CIA and Pentagon WOULD have been called to active duty after such repeated absenses-without-leave.

After just one such violation of the rules, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:32 PM

Nerd, what are you hoping to accomplish by acting as the Mudcat Kerry propagandist? Starting three simultaneous anti-Bush threads in a row?

Give it a rest, will you? It's getting REALLY tiresome for you to keep rehashing old news like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:40 PM

Hey, did I mention Kerry? YOU are the one who seems obsessed with Kerry, GUEST, given all the rabid anti-Kerry threads you started a few weeks ago. Did you think we had forgotten, you naughty hypocrite?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:43 PM

There was a very interesting discussion on Terry Gross' Fresh Air today: "Journalist Wayne Slater talks about George Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove. Slater's book on the subject, Bush's Brain, has been adapted into a documentary film." Visit this link and enter September 8, 2004 for the correct interview to listen to the program.

Guest, you give it a rest. It's propaganda when it's a lie, and that is what Bush and Rove are pushing, not Kerry. The depressing part of all of this is that Bush's dirty tricks go unexamined by such a high percentage of the electorate.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:43 PM

I think you have another guest in mind, Nerd. You might be chagrined to know I'm not that guest, but a regular Mudcatter, who is getting mighty fed up with the same old candidate propaganda every time I open a thread, and see certain names as the originators of the threads.

In case you are wondering Nerd, your name comes up often enough in that context.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:46 PM

Not real often, GUEST. I don't start too many threads of any kind. And you really can't blame me for mistaking you for another guest. If you want to speak your mind as a member, do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:48 PM

By the way, to blanket several different threads with the exact same post could certainly be considered "tiresome." So whether you are the usual GUEST or not, you ARE a hypocrite in this matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 03:30 PM

"another dirty tricks effort on the part of the Democrats to discredit Bush." DougR

This perception may be the main problem that the Right Wing has: a failure to see that exposing the truth is not a "dirty trick".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 04:02 PM

The father of dirty tricks is Karl Rove and his tutelage from Lee Atwater. His religion is to win at all costs. He doesn't care who it hurts, or who he damages on the way to his victory. He is an amoral individual who is probably paid handsomely for his service. He wants to realign America like William McKinley tried to do for the dominance of business in the Republican Party. He is trying to destroy Democrats in any way he can. He has a direct mail business as a consultant. Karl Rove will be worth millions if he defeats Kerry.

Now he claims distance from the "Swift Boat for Truth" liars. He probably is involved because he has been in every other ancillary group that surrounds the dirty tricks groups of the Republicans.

"He is a brilliant political operative" says Wayne Slater, author of the book "Bush's Brain. What he doesn't mention however is the cheapening of the political process in the hands of this operative. Lee Atwater on his deathbed
apparently decided that what he did was wrong and not good for the country.
Will Karl Rove make the same assessment?

In the meantime, this amoral behavior spills onto his protege, the guy he got to be governor of Texas who fraudulently cooked the books on inflating the so-called "Texas Miracle" and raised test scores in the schools there. It follows that this kind of individual would not only not condemn those false Swift Boat ads but wiggle his way out of duty in the Guard. The pattern of evidence is there in Bush's behavior. The new wrinkle, as Nerd has correctly pointed out can be seen on "Sixty Minutes" where the man that got Bush out of duty in Vietnam testifies and the articles in today's New York Times by men in the same unit with Bush attest to the fact that he wasn't there.

New evidence deserves new considerations.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Kim C
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 04:42 PM

So people who try to discredit Bush are truthful, and people who try to discredit Kerry are not? How do we know for sure?

In just about every political election, each side will try to discredit the other, by any means necessary. It's nothing new.

Buyer beware.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 04:50 PM

Also GUEST,

just out of curiosity,

(1) Do you consider ANY discussion of Bush's wrongdoing to be Kerry propaganda? If not, then your post is irrelevant.   Remember, I never mentioned Kerry, nor did either of the articles I quoted. So you're just blathering.

if you DO consider any criticism of Bush to be Kerry propaganda, and you truly are "getting mighty fed up with the same old candidate propaganda every time [you] open a thread,"

then

(2) Why would you open a thread whose title announces that it criticizes Bush?

Seems to me you KNEW what was going to be in the thread. So don't try to make yourself sound like an innocent bystander hit by a propaganda bomb!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: kendall
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 04:51 PM

In the end it will make no difference. 90% of us have made up our minds and nothing will change them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 05:08 PM

Barnes tonight on "Sixty Minutes" about W's Awol.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 05:09 PM

Exactly my point, kendall. Which begs the question, why aren't we having more meaningful discussions about the politics? This forum is as polarized as the electorate. Nerd isn't going to gain and Kerry converts, and DougR isn't going to gain any Bush converts.

Seems the forum Republicans and Democrats are at an impasse here, a stalemate, standoff, call it what you will. So what is the point of simply rehashing the same material over and over. I never thought it possible the election threads would be worse rehashes than that movie Spaw loves to hate, but...it does make one wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 05:30 PM

I find that Nerd's initial post details some supporting facts of which I was not aware. These help to buttress my own arguments in discussions with people regarding Bush's military record. That is one of the values of such posts.

Thank you, Nerd.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 05:43 PM

GUEST: Your 05:09 post: you are absolutely right! No one is going to change anyone else's mind here on the Mudcat. Kendall is right too. I think just about everyone here has made his/her decision, and little can be accomplished by rehashing everything already said.

So have at, you Bush bashers, from now on you will be singing to the choir, as far as I'm concerned. (Unless I change my mind :>))

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 06:00 PM

Actually, I think this argument is wrong on both sides. Both Bush and Kerry fulfilled their military duty when they were young men in their twenties, and both got honorable discharges and were not subjected to any disciplinary action. Kerry was in combat and got medals, and Bush was not in combat and not on full-time active duty. both, however, played by the rules and did what it took to get finished with their obligation.

But that's about as far as it goes. We have to remember that military service is a game to young men in their twenties. You do certain things, you get a discharge. You do certain extra things, you get a medal. The military keeps records of discharges and some medals and some disciplinary actions, but any documentation beyond that is very sketchy. I did my time in the civilized environment of Berlin, in 1970-73. Years later, I needed to get pay information so I could get retirement credit for my military service - the records were no longer complete, so much of the information had to be extrapolated. If you were to question my military service, I wouldn't be able to prove or disprove much. Most of the records are gone, and I flat-out can't remember much of it. But there is proof called a DD-214, that shows I did my time and got an honorable discharge. My time of trial is over - the result of that trial is the DD-214.

I think the same is true for Bush and Kerry. Most people know that at the time Bush served, the National Guard and Reserve were a joke, weekend recreation for boys who wanted to legally evade the draft. Still, it was completely legal. Bush played the game and got his discharge, so I don't think he can be faulted for that. He passed the test and got his papers. Lots of people missed Guard and Reserve meetings and got honorable discharges - why should Bush be thought of differently? After all, he has never claimed to have been heroic in military service, or in anything. Nonetheless, he did his duty.

Everybody also knows that combat duty in Vietnam was NOT a joke, and Kerry should get credit for having gone through it. He played the game, did what was required to get his medals and discharge, and got out. He passed the test and got his papers - but the papers do show he should get extra credit for medals and combat duty. This was over thirty years ago - it's far too late to question the validity of the test.

For both Bush and Kerry, the only true record of their service is that DD-214. They had to fulfill certain requirements to get credit on that document, and they did what it took. It's really unfair to put those documents to the test now, all these years later. The evidence beyond those discharge documents is incomplete and misleading. Any attempt to reconstruct the military service of Bush and Kerry is bound to have skewed results. It's just not fair to try it. I think we should accept their discharge records, and stop trying to smear these men for something that happened so long ago, when they were so young.

I think both sides should be ashamed their smear attempts in this matter.

-Joe Offer, Democrat-

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 09:50 PM

This Column is by Byron White:

Before you fall for Dems' spin, here are the facts

What do you really know about George W. Bush's time in the Air National Guard?
That he didn't show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

News coverage of the president's years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush "deserted" (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went "AWOL" (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren't unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

"In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," Campenni says. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

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

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

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

A 1970 evaluation said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

A 1971 evaluation called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a 1972 evaluation called Bush "an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer."

Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush's service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry's record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And, as it is with Kerry, it's reasonable to look at a candidate's entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it's important or not in November.

The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans' attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush's service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry's.

In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush "has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty." Earlier, Kerry said, "Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question."

Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

That's fine. We should know as much as we can.

And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 10:04 PM

I don't CARE about war records or military service. At issue is the man's ability to run a country. Bush can't, IMO. He has been less than candid with the electorate. He has been manouvered by lotsa BIG money, and he has sold his own countrymen/women out in the process. It's that friggin' simple.

I was gonna say that he couldn't organize a one-car funeral, but I see on another thread that he's arranged for a helluva lot more than one. Remember that when you vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Bert
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 10:38 PM

Aw Doug, You know we'd love to change your mind and we'll keep trying. What would make you change?   

The price of gas maybe, which has doubled since Bush has been in power. I know it is going down a little now that the election is getting nearer, but wait to see what it will be in 2005 if Bush gets back in.

A vote for Bush IS a vote for higher gas prices. He's already proved that one.

And what about the price of beef. I've seen ground beef selling around here for over $4 a pound. And hot dogs at $3.99 a pound.

So how high do prices have to go before you change your mind Doug?.

Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 10:47 PM

Guess what, folks?

Everyday that Vietnam and who-did-what stays in the middle of the campaign is another day that Karl Rove sleeps well.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 11:28 PM

Remember when the USA 'wouldn't trade arms for hostages'--even though it did? How come now it's willing to trade lives for oil and not care that the whole world sees that?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: kendall
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:09 AM

Some of us DO care!

Anyone see 60 Minutes last night? 'bout time someone worked up enough balls to out that lying phony coward.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:59 AM

More than 1000 members of the US military dead. In this war. A war against an evil person who was absolutely no threat to anyone in this country. A projected defecit of $442 billion. A net jobs loss of over 1,000,000. Significant infringements upon personal rights.

Personally, the present concerns me a lot more than what two twenty-somethings did over thirty years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 02:09 PM

GROK: "trading lives for oil." Horse Pucky! Provide proof that the U. S. has stolen oil from Iraq or bury that subject. Pure BS.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 02:21 PM

As to the subject of the thread: Bush served six years in the Texas National Guard. That's a matter of record. Two of those six years wwere spent on active duty. He transferred to the inactive reserve after his two year stint. He was honorably discharged. Thousands of Americans did the same thing. Cheany is derided for seeking deferments. Thousands of others did too, to pursue education or because they had families. It was all legal and proper, but now ...it becomes a terrible thing to have done.

All of this is old regurgitated crap that Bush has faced in every political campaign he has been involved in. It has been hashed over and hashed over. There ain't nothin' there guys (and gals)!

Did I watch the 60 Minutes show? Not on your life! It's old history.

Oh, and tell me something my friends ...why is everyone so upset about the Swift Boat ads questioning Kerry's veracity, and nobody seems a bit concerned about the shite ads Move On America has been running that deride Bush? Why are the Swift Boat folks called shite for practicing their First Amendment rights, while Kerry backers are tolerated, even cheered, for running some of the most scurlous ads in TV history?

I'll answer my own question. The Move On ads are okay because they represent the POV of (guessing)98% of the folks that post on the Mudcat.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Kim C
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 02:36 PM

Joe Offer, I think that is just about the most intelligent post anyone has made on the matter, and I (mostly conservative) agree wholeheartedly. Very well-said.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 04:14 PM

Bush is a weak man--his particular character flaw, played out over and over in his public life, is that, when push comes to shove, he cannot fullfill the promises that he has made, and he is not able to complete the work he has begun--

The fact that he walked away from his military obligations comes up over and over again, because shows a pattern that he repeats, over and over again--

He shows great promise, but after he embarks on a something, he founders, flounders, and then slowly walks away from it. From his oil businesses to the search for Osama Bin Laden, to the "Liberation of Iraq"--all grand plans, all botched--he conceals his failure by viciously attacking anyone who calls attention to it, or who might call attention to it--

The people that he has let down most of all are the people who believed in his leadership--He promised to bring the country together behind the conservative cause, and, instead, has personally alienated so many people with his stubborn, impulsive, actions and his abusive and demeaning manner that all the real issues have been forgotten--

My great fear is that the animosity and rancor he has so unecesssarily created between us will
continue after the election,no matter who wins--

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 04:16 PM

When DougR says

"the shite ads Move On America has been running that deride Bush,"

I presume he means the ad CONTEST that they ran some time ago, which did get some pretty hard-hitting entries. But those ads, contrary to what the screaming heads on Fox may have told us, never ran on TV. They could only be accessed on the Move On website, and only in random batches of ten ads (including repeats) from the hundreds of entries, so you could watch a thousand spots or more (including repeats) without ever seeing the two that Fox found so offensive. I know because I wanted to see them and my wife and I spent hours and hours downloading batches of ten ads, only to find those were not among them.

The only one of those hundreds of ads that made it onto TV showed children working in a factory to dramatize the point that SOMEONE will have to pay back the mortgage Bush has taken out on our future through the massive deficit and mounting debt...in other words, it focused on the future and the domestic agenda, just as people here are suggesting. It made a legitimate point (whether you agree is another question), was a beautifully crafted ad, and said nothing about Bush's character or his past.

The only ad that MoveOn is currently running suggests that Rumsfeld should be fired for encouraging the abuses at Abu Ghraib. I think they have plans to run a few spots featuring real republicans explaining why they are voting for Kerry. Nothing offensive there.

There is a separate organization called MoveOn PAC, which has a couple of ads running. One shows still images of bush with a voice impersonator telling the truth about Iraq (no WMD, No nuclear capability, etc) and then saying "if he'd told the truth, would we have gone to war?"

The other ad they're running shows CEOs talking about why they like Bush and ordinary people about why they like Kerry. Both are a little ham-handed, but there is nothing scurrilous, or even "scurlous" about any of these ads. None of them perform character assassination. All of them focus on important issues.

So what the heck is DougR talking about? Only he knows for sure.

I'm guessing it's the ads from yet another source, Texans for Truth, which call into question Bush's military service. But they are different from the Swift Boat ads in one important respect: the people in them aren't lying.

In the swift boat ads, several people say "I served with John Kerry." What they mean is they were in Viet Nam at the same time as Kerry, but didn't know him or know much about him back then.

Several of the people who now say he didn't deserve his medals have campaigned with him in the past, saying he DID deserve them. But no new evidence has come out concerning his injuries that could have changed their minds. What has changed is that people are now paying good money for criticism of Kerry.

One guy says he was the doctor who treated Kerry's famous first wound. But he isn't: you can check the records.

Every living member of Kerry's crew--every eyewitness to the wounds--supports Kerry and says he did deserve the medals. None of the guys in the swift boat ads can demonstrate that they were there when Kerry was wounded or treated. Yet they claim to know if he deserved the medals.

In short, they've been paid to lie.

In the Texans ad, people whe really WERE in Bush's unit say "I was in your unit and never saw you."

That's a pretty big difference, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 04:27 PM

By the way, even more NEW information came out on CBS last night. Most important were four memos from Bush's Texas commanding Officer. One makes it clear that Bush was suspended for failure to meet USAF/Texas Air National Guard standards AND failure to take his physical, which is different from the White House's previous claim. It means that even beyond the physical, his performance had been subpar and he was NOT meeting his obligations. In another, the CO complains that he is being pressured from above to whitewash Bush's bad record.

So again, an honorable discharge doesn't prove much. We have direct evidence in the CO's own writing that Bush was not serving adequately, but that this was hidden because of his dad's (then a former congressman and current UN ambassador) influence.

So his father got him an honorable discharge. That doesn't mean he served adequately.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 05:01 PM

ANy moment now, DOug will pop up and assert that nothing new was revealed in the new material.

DougR the incredibly import distinction is in the intention of the ads. The intention of the SBFT ads was to defame falsely. The intention of the MoveOn ads was to get the truth out about a situation that has been coveredup by the media. An important difference.

Once given the facts, no-one needs to defame Bush; his record shows him up for the violent destructive incompetent that he is.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 05:14 PM

Nope, it'll be "that's just your opinion Nerd"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 05:30 PM

"GROK: "trading lives for oil." Horse Pucky! Provide proof that the U. S. has stolen oil from Iraq or bury that subject. Pure BS."

DougR

Dearest Doug:

The Iraq invasion is strategic and tactical positioning to enable the USA to control oil in the mid-East. That is my OPINION.

It is not pure BS; it is pure speculation.

GROK

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 05:37 PM

DougR - I have to say this publicly.   In another thread that I started, "Why George Bush? Why John Kerry?" you made some very eloquent statements about why you support George Bush. I truly could understand where you were coming from because it appeared you were speaking from the heart. I completely respect your stand based on that.

However, in this thread and in others, you are coming across as nothing more than an ornery old bastard. Just for fun I did a check and I notice in over 6000 posts, I could not find a single post that you made for any non-BS subjects. It really comes across that you are just looking for arguements, knowing that on boards like this you will be outnumbered by liberals.   

When you make statements like "Did I watch the 60 Minutes show? Not on your life! It's old history" and when you mentioned previously that you would never watch Michael Moore's film, you seriously hurt your credibility. It is one thing to have an informed opinion, but it appears that you are doing nothing more than spouting views you hear on shows like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. You aren't questioning anything your candidate says.    At least 99% of the liberals who post on these threads DO question moves that Kerry or others make.   You are just taking the opposite opinion.

Why DougR? You are obviously a well-educated man and you could be contributing to really good discussions. Instead you appear to be simply stirring the coals trying to create a spark. Why would anyone get enjoyment from that?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 10:46 PM

By the way, I should also point out that Move On didn't MAKE any of the contest ads. They just announced a contest and people submitted the ads. MoveOn had no control over the content. The winner was chosen by vote, and I think it says a lot about MoveOn's members that such a tasteful,well-crafted, smart, issue-oriented ad won the vote. The ones that called Bush names or threw pies in his face (and there were ads like that, some of them quite funny but inappropriate for a serious organization) didn't even come close.

According to political news expert Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg School at U Penn, the "Child's Pay" as is the ad that has gotten the most FREE air time in history...because it is so good, and because the Super Bowl Network (I forget which it is) claimed they did not run political ads during the game but then ran a pro-Bush spot, creating some controversy over whether they had censored the ad because of its politcal position. Because of that the ad was in the news for a few days and many people saw it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 06:12 AM

Nerd,

"We have direct evidence in the CO's own writing that Bush was not serving adequately,"

The report this morning on the papers are that

1. the son of the deceased Col. says that his father would not have written anything like at least one of the papers being quoted. But then, I guess his son would not knbow how he spoke/wrote)

2. The "reports" that are being quoted are done on computer printout- But the military at that time was using typwriters.

So, when the final analysis of this is that it is all a bunch of made-up lies to smear Bush, I am sure you will make the same made about the Swift boat ads, and criticise the Kerry campaign for it.

Thanking you in advance for a fair and even-handed treatment,

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 01:26 PM

Bruce,

First, to be fair, the son has only questioned the memo about pressure to whitewash. He believes the one where Bush was censured for failure to meet Air Force standards.

His reasons for disbelieving the memo abotu whitewashing is not because of personal knowledge of his father, but because:

"It just wouldn't happen. The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things. ... No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

Yeah, and no president in his right mind would tape record his conversations the way Nixon did. Nevertheless, he did it.

This sounds like a son unwilling to believe his dad did something stupid. I can sympathize, but I don't consider it an expert opinion.

Remember, too, that the memos were unearthed by CBS, not by a shadowy group made up of former Republican lobbyists and Nixon employees.

The AP reports:

CBS stood by its reporting. "As is standard practice at CBS News, the documents in the 60 Minutes report were thoroughly examined and their authenticity vouched for by independent experts," CBS News said in a statement. "As importantly, 60 Minutes also interviewed close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian. They confirm that the documents reflect his opinions and actions at the time."

The White House distributed the four memos from 1972 and 1973 after obtaining them from CBS News. The White House did not question their accuracy.

The deal about computer printouts versus typewriters? I haven't heard it before Beardedbruce. But I don't think that's something CBS would have missed. And I think the White House would have said something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 01:43 PM

I would be shocked if someone was going to forge a document and make such a stupid mistake. Obviously a PC of that type was not arround in 1972. A forger would know that and find a typewriter like the ones they were using. Typewriters are like fingerprints, I'm sure the FBI could trace the print exactly.   I would also be shocked if CBS couldn't figure that out.

Beardedbruce, as a Kerry supporter I would be outraged if this were a forgery AND it was traced back to the Kerry campaign. Dirty tricks are wrong, but so is jumping to conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:00 PM

Hey, it turns out the "independent document analyst" who concluded that the memos are forged is one Sandra Ramsey Lines.

She is indeed a respected forensic analyst.

She is also a reliable donor to "The Wish List" a Republican 527 soft-money organization. So it occurs to me that she might be eager to claim these documents are forged, and perhaps also corruptible. I'd like to know who CBS uses to verify documents.

You can find this stuff out at the publicintegrity.org website--actually search on people's names. She's not a huge donor, about $500 in the past year or so. But most Americans give zilch to political causes, suggesting she is a very committed Republican.

BTW, you can tell it's the same woman because they give her profession on one of the forms.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:09 PM

Re: computer printouts versus typewriter.

I have stuff that I turned out on my Royal portable typewriter before I got my first computer in 1983. I now have, sitting on my desk, an Epson Perfection 1650 scanner that came with all the attendant software, including a copy program and an optical character reader. If I want copies of my typewritten material (which I keep in a real 3D folder in a real 3D filing cabinet) I can take the typewritten original and put it in the scanner. Then I pull up "Epson Smart Panel" on the computer screen and click on "Copy." The scanner scans the typewritten document and a few seconds later, my Canon S630 inkjet printer extrudes a fresh copy of the typewritten document. Then I put the typewritten document back in its folder and close the drawer.

I could also "Scan to File." This allows me to save a copy of the typewritten document in a computer file and print out as many copies as I want at any time. Or I could click on "Scan to OCR" (Optical Character Reader), save it in a computer file, and do the same thing.

The fact (assuming that it is a fact) that CBS had computer printouts rather than the original typewritten copies (with the Air National Guard would probably want to keep for their permanent records) makes more sense than it would for them to have the actual originals.

In fact, for their permanent records, all branches of the military have quite probably scanned a lot of their records and put them into computer files. Saves a helluva lot of space compared to having to have warehouses full of filing cabinets.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:10 PM

That's a good point too, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:24 PM

I think the issue with the "forgery" is the superscript-style lettering that appears in the dates. For "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron the "th" appears in a smaller font and it is raised. I know you can raise the line 1/2 step on typewriters, but I'm not sure if typewriters had choices of fonts back then. I remember having a manual typewriter where you could insert different print heads, but I cannot see someone doing that to type 111th in such a manner.

Interesting. I'm sure the truth will come out.   Again, it seems highly unlikely that someone would do such a lousy job of forging a document.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:43 PM

The "Scan to File" or "Scan to OCR" allows one to put a document into a word processor file (MS Word, WordPerfect, etc.). And most word processors default to putting "st", "nd", "th", etc., following a number into a smaller superscript font. If you don't want them to do that, you have to change the default.

If that's how the copies were made, that would explain it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:48 PM

sorry, I just go by what thepress is telling me...


Seems to be as much doubt as about the Swift boat info...


And NOW you are taking the word of the White House as gospel?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 03:01 PM

beardedbruce,

you can only conclude that "there is as much doubt as about the Swift Boat info" if you want to believe that. The swift boat info was produced by an independent group of character assassins, none of whom were in a position to know what they were talking about. The memos were produced by CBS News.

In both cases, of you follow money trail, it leads to Republican lobbyists and soft money groups: in the first case from the Swift Boat vets themselves, in the second case from the "independent analyst" who is attempting to discredit the memo.

And I don't take the White House's word as gospel. I think their stonewalling is interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 05:45 AM

Nerd:

Have you looked into where Dan Rather and his editors have donated money to either party? Have you checked whether his experts have donated money to a campaign? If not, your claim that the expert who says the memos are fake is lying, just because you do not want to believe it is a hypocritical statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 08:33 AM

Ahhhhhh, but wait.... It will take exactly 2 months to determine if the documents are real or not...

When is the election?

Hmmmmm, the boys seem to be doing that run out the closk thing again...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 09:55 AM

Ron Olesko makes some interesting points about DougR. I remember questioning why he was a member of this forum when I first arrived here some years ago. But I've never taken the trouble to discover that he contributes nothing to Mudcat's core business.

However I don't think Ron's suggestion that Doug is obviously well educated should go unchallenged. I have seen no evidence of that; in fact I have the impression of a man driven by self interest to the exclusion of all else - including the interest of his children's generation (to judge from his celebrating of the monstrous budget deficit and the surrender of Alaska's wilderness to short-term commercial interests). Still, I have to keep in mind the depressing thought that he might be speaking for most of his fellow Americans.

Even accepting Joe's points about the respective military service records of Bush and Kerry, there is one thing I cannot get my head around. How can most Americans, when presented with those respective records, conclude that it is Kerry who is the fraud? Can there really be that many unquestioning Americans who, like Doug, absorb all their information through partisan channels and resolutely close their minds to all else?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Peace
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 01:37 PM

"Can there really be that many unquestioning Americans who, like Doug, absorb all their information through partisan channels and resolutely close their minds to all else?"

Peter,

Many of us fear the answer to that question.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:03 PM

DougR,

You're wrong about the hypocrisy of trusting Dan Rather. The difference is that I already know a lot about him and his integrity. Indeed, americans have had countless opportunities to decide if we trust Dan Rather or "60 Minutes." He has been under intense scrutiny since he was a convention correspondent in the 1960s. The show has been at the forefront of "TV Magazine" journalism since the inception of the genre. So far, I can remember not one instance in which Rather's integrity or honesty has come into question--although some might have preceded my consciousness, as I am much younger than he. I can remember a few instances in which 60 Minutes got things wrong, and they always correct themselves promptly. In fact, they are one of the few such shows that re-run old stories and then say: since then, it has become clear that x, y and z. In other words, they take every opportunity to correct themsleves. Therefore, I can make a rational and informed decision to trust Dan Rather, regardless of his personal politics. And I can also make an informed decision that when 60 minutes says "we stand by our analysis" I can trust it, especially because I know that if they ARE wrong, they will come out and say it.

I had never heard of this Lines woman before. She is an obscure figure, not affiliated with (say) a well-known lab, police department or university. Thus, the public has had no opportunity to assess her work, and there is no paper trail that I can easily access. She works, apparently, for private clients. (Who her clients were, in this case, remains unknown).

Checking her out on the web, you find out only a few things about her: she is a document analyst, lives in Arizona, is a member of some forensic societies, and is a committed Republican donor. I found this to be interesting.   

By the way, new evidence has come to light in this as well. Lines's only justification for saying that this had to be a word-processed document was that the "th" was raised and shrunk to a smaller size, as a superscript. several problems:

(1) IBM made several typewriters in that era which could do this, which the Government often used. CBS has found IBM people and repair people to testify to this.

(2) Several unchallenged documents from Bush's records, released by the white house, also have this feature, so obviously these typewriters WERE used by various of his units.

(3) several of the documents do NOT have this feature, and some have it sometimes and don't have it other times. This sounds much more like a typewriter with a special "th" key (which the typist was unaccustomed to using) than like Word, which converts the th automatically to a superscript every time.

Given these facts, it almost seems as if this "document expert" was fully expecting to be debunked eventually.

As Bobert says, it's all about casting doubt, not about proving anything. Hopefully the doubt will last two months, or at least until the next orange alert.

Subject: Rather's response
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:07 PM

Dan Rather also responded to the allegations of forgery last night. Here's part of what he said and did, as reported in Salon:

Some people, Rather said, "including many who are partisan political operatives," contend the documents are fake. Rather was not impressed with their arguments. "These critics have focused on something called superscript that automatically makes a raised 'th.' Critics claim it didn't exist," he said. But CBS showed one document not in dispute that was released by the White House. The document is from 1968, but lo and behold, there is a raised, smaller "th."

Then there's the font question. "Some analysts outside CBS," as Rather called them, claim the font looks like Times New Roman, which they say was not available in the 1970s. CBS called the company that distributes this typing style, Rather said, and it turns out the style has been available since 1931.

And he pointed out that all of the critics of these memos -- and experts who are being quoted by news organizations are basing their judgments on copies that inevitably deteriorate with photocopying, faxing and downloading.

Putting the type-style and superscripting aside, there is the issue of Killian's signature, which is not a main focus of the debate. CBS' analyst, Marcel Matley, says the signature on the memos was the same as another document signed by Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer.

It's clear that Rather is feeling Swift Boated by the allegations that began in the right-wing blogosphere and crept into the major newspapers under headlines that warned of "serious questions" about his work. "Are you surprised these questions are coming about?" Rather asked his analyst Matley. "We're not," Rather added.

Clearly, Rather said, his piece was based not solely on the documents -- that were provided by solid sources, he said -- but on a "preponderance of evidence." As far as Rather is concerned, his work here is done. He ended tonight by saying: "If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:08 PM

Must respond to Peter K and Ron, but most respectfully.

Because you believe a certain way, you attack others who believe differently. And your attacks are highly personal. You cannot comprehend that there are those, even educated ones, that do not share your view of what you perceive would be a perfect world.

Well, if a college degree makes one educated, I have one.

My beliefs are every bit as valid, from my point of view, as yours.

Some facts: Liberals are not the only people in the world who are educated. Liberals are not the only people in the world who are well-read. Liberals are not the only people in the world who have compassion for other people. Liberals are not the only people in the world who love folk music (it is not necessary, however, to embrace the liberal philosophy that the majority of folk music fans seem to have). Liberals do not, though they think they do, do not have all the answers to all the problems of the world.

Now. I did that without attacking either of you. I didn't question your "education", didn't attempt in any way to discredit you.

You have a right to have an opinion on any subject you choose. I respect that. But so do I.

On to other things: I don't believe the Kerry campaign is responsible for the CBS report. That is CBS' responsibility. At the moment, they are standing by what they aired. That makes sense because if it turns out that the documents they presented as evidence are proven to be fake, it should destroy the credibility of Dan Rather, and the whole CBS New program. Having said that, I do not hear anyone from the Kerry campaign crying about the fact that CBS aired it, whether legitimate evidence was used or not.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 03:10 PM

Doug, You do have excellent taste in wine. But perhaps the assumptions some folks make about your educational background have to do with your tendency to comment on other people's posts, not with reasoned argument backed by facts or references (i.e., links to web sites where people can verify the information for themselves), but with little more than one line comments including the remark "horse pucky!" Calling someone's argument "horse pucky" is not something one finds in Socratic dialog.

Of the 60 Minutes report, you say, "That makes sense [that they are standing by what they aired] because if it turns out that the documents they presented as evidence are proven to be fake, it should destroy the credibility of Dan Rather."

True indeed. It would also make sense that they are standing by what they aired because they have thoroughly checked all the details, including possible allegations of forgery, and had every reason to believe that their report is accurate well before they aired it.

I do have some insight into the processes here. Although nowhere near on this high level, I have worked as a broadcast news director, and a time or two have had to go through the process of vetting stories whose veracity I knew were going to be questioned.   These stories were thoroughly checked, double-checked, and rechecked again—including details about the authenticity of documentation—before we aired them. Not to have done so could have resulted in law suits against the station I was working for. CBS has far greater facilities than I had, so I'm confident that the report has gone through at least as rigorous a truth-check as I could have put a story through.

Had 60 Minutes come out with a report, complete with similar documentation, that John O'Neill's "Swift Boat Veterans" were telling the truth about Kerry, I would have little choice but to accept the 60 Minutes report as true.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 04:38 PM

Don Firth...you are a man worthy of admiration. Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Genie
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 04:55 PM

Doug, the reason the Kerry campaign is not denouncing the 60 Minutes report on Bush is pretty clear:
1. It was a report by a respected news organization, not a political ad put out by people with questionable credibility.
2. The funding for the SBVFT ads is tied clearly and directly to Mary Spaeth and other major contributors to Republican party campaigns -- yet the ads, by using the name "...Veterans for Truth," pretend not to be politically motivated.
3. Most of the documents presented by CBS were official military documents.   The first Swift Boat ads were CHALLENGING the validity of official military documents and medals awards. (In fact, O'Neill and his cohorts in effect attempted to cast doubt on the significance of ALL veterans' medals.)
4. The primary voice behind the Swift Boat Vets' ads is KNOWN to have been carrying on a vendetta against John Kerry since 1971, mainly (or solely?) because of Kerry's anti-war activities after his discharge.   Many of the others who contributed to O'Neill's book and the ad also dislike Kerry for the same reason.
5. The issue about the appropriateness of challenging someone's character and record is whether the "report" is fair, accurate, and transparent in their origins.   Both SBVFT ads fail that test in a big way.   THAT's why those ads should have been pulled and should not have been given free air time by the media -- NOT because they were "negative" or because they used "soft money."

BTW, when moveon.org did run an ad a few weeks ago suggesting that Dubya was AWOL from the National Guard, John Kerry immediately asked them to pull it, saying he wanted to focus on current issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:59 PM

Don: you believe the 60 Minutes report because it was reported by a highly respected news organization. I would add to you statement, a highly biased to the left news organization.

A news story in the Dallas Morning News reported this morning (available on the Drudge report)that the person who supposedly wrote the memos left the National Guard a year or so before the date on the memos. Did CBS miss that little point? It would seem so. Also, I heard an interview with the son of the Lt. Col. who, supposedly, wrote the memos yesterday. He said he told the CBS producer who called that he doubted the authinticity of the memos, and that his mother shared his opinion. Did CBS report that? I don't think so. He said he also gave the producer the names of people who flew with Bush and even shared an apartment with him. Did they contact him? I don't think so. Ths son also reported that his dad thought highly of Bush as a person and as a pilot. Was that reported? I don't think so.

Also from the Drudge Report: "Retired Major General Hodges, Lt. Col. Killian's supervisor at the National Guard told ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt." Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud." Was this reported on 60 Minutes?

CBS responded to Hodges: "We believed Col. Hodges the first time we spoke with him. We believe the documents are genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 07:12 PM

Doug, you're being silly. Most of what you accuse 60 Minutes of not reporting hadn't happened yet. For example, the CO's CO NOW saying he thinks the documents are computer generated. Of course he does. Lots of people do NOW. Before the Republican operative Ms. Lines made that claim, it was not in play, and he did not think that.

Other stuff you have no evidence for.   How do you know if 60 minutes called Bush's old roommate or not? Maybe his statements were irrelevant.

Of course, once the attack dogs get moving, they'll find people to say whatever they want. Is there anything they won't try to discredit?

Finally, 60 Minutes does NOT have a reputation as being a "highly biased left-wing program," DougR. How about the Drudge Report?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 07:25 PM

"Doug your being silly." Thanks Nerd, I'm beginning to expect that type of reply from you.

If you wish me to add to my post that in my opinion, CBS News and 60 Minutes is a mouth-piece for the left-wing, I am more than willing to do so. If you were to add up the minutes on 60 Minutes this year devoted to praising and promoting Kerry, though, compared to simply reporting on the president, I think you would find they have leaned very heavily in the direction of Kerry.

As to the memos, let's wait and see, okay. Your argument that evidence found "after the fact" is not legitimate is more than silly. It's ridiculous!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 09:32 PM

Nerd, you have never answered my question: Who did Rathers and his producer donate money to? Who did his "experts" donate money to?

" Republican operative Ms. Lines " PROVE THIS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 09:36 PM

DougR - I think you misunderstood my comments and felt I was attacking you personally.

First of all, I NEVER questioned your education. For you to say that I did so is a plain LIE. I actually said the opposite. I feel that your contributions CAN be quite informative, and as I said above, your post in "Why Bush? Why Kerry?" was eloquent and you made valid points why you support Bush. I highly respect that.

I don't think you realize how you are coming across in other posts. You are attacking those that question you, and we are questioning you by your refusal to examine evidence that contradicts your stand.   First you question the report from the "liberal" news gathering of CBS. I think you confuse "liberal" with "ethical". Most newsgathering organizations do not slant the news. There are rules, such as verifying and questioning information when creating a story. Of course they make mistakes, and they are admonished for it. The media serves as a watchdog, and you are very shortsighted if you choose to forget how they kept the pressure on Bill Clinton through his presidency.   

I understand that the conservative right likes to paint the media as a bunch of "liberals", but the facts are in plain view.   Why would a website like the Drudge Report have validity and CBS have none?

I have to turn your own words on you - You cannot comprehend that there are those, even educated ones, that do not share your view of what you perceive would be a perfect world.   You summarily dismiss reports that put Bush in a bad light. You have publicly stated that you refused to watch Farenheit 9-11 and 60 Minutes. Even when evidence is presented, you simply dismiss it and point to the Drudge Report.   Drudge is not known for fact checking.   He simply prints any story that comes his way.   More often than not, his stories disappear because there is no validity.

As you said about the memos, let's wait and see. But based on your posts, it seems like your mind is already made up.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 09:56 PM

DougR:

What I was claiming was silly was your saying "Did 60 Minutes report that?" about things that happened AFTER 60 minutes had aired. Eg, the CO's superior changing his story. He could NOT have thought the documents were computer generated until that story was floated by Lines. As you say, he had not seen the documents, nor did 60 minutes imply that he had. So the idea that they were computer generated came from Lines's report, which happened AFTER 60 Minutes aired. You were blaming 60 Minutes for not reporting on the future.

That IS silly, no matter how you look at it.

beardedbruce, I DID answer your question. I said that Dan Rather has a track record of honesty going back 40 years which has never been questioned. Therefore, even if he IS liberal, which I have no way of knowing, I would not suspect his motives. The same would go for (say) Lou Dobbs at CNN, whose politics are very conservative. If Lou tells me a fact, I am inclined to believe him. If he tells me he had a document authenticated, I believe that too. Therefore, who Dan Rather or Lou Dobbs supports is irrelevant because each has proven integrity. (Full disclosure: I have met Lou Dobbs. I have never met Dan Rather)

No one has heard of Lines before. She is a steady Republican donor. She was certainly paid by SOMEBODY who has conveniently remained anonymous, to make a judgement, which happens to contradict CBS. Many of the facts she claimed were true in that judgment (eg. you couldn't do superscripts on a typewriter in 1970) are contradicted by the White House's own set of records on Bush's time in the guard, and by IBM, and by the repair experts consulted by CBS. In other words, for such a big expert she gave a piss-poor report.

So take your pick, bb. Either she's a fraud or she's lying. I can't prove that she's a Republican operative, but it seems very likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 10:09 PM

bb,

Last time I talked about the issue of believing Dan Rather even though I don't know whom he donates to, I addressed the answer to Doug by mistake. It was intended to answer you, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 10:41 PM

bb, this might be a better answer for you:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org), Dan Rather has not made any political donations to candidates. According to publicintegrity.org, he has made no contributions to 527s, either.

So my answer is: Dan Rather contributes to no candidates and no 527 soft-money organizations.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:19 AM

anybody hear that US News & World REport (NOT a "liberal" mag by any stretch) is coming out with more independant evidence next week that GWB shirked even more duty than we've seen so far? i saw a report from a story listed at the buzzflash.com site. should be interesting. gosh, how many forged documents, bitter partisan storytellers, and fraudulent news organizations could there be?
by the way, has even one person shown up yet that says they served with bushie during the time in question? how do you bushbuddies explain that away?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 08:06 AM

DougR, you don't have many compliments paid to you round here, so don't overlook the few that do come your way. I was taking Ron Olesko to task because he described you as educated. Signs of your education are not evident to me, and I don't see a college degree as having anything to do with it. (I would say that, not having one.)

Suppose a dentist close to retirement boasted that he ignored refresher courses, the professional journals and the training packages provided by the supply industry because he had passed an exam 40 years ago. Is that a dentist you'd choose to drill your teeth? Well that's about where you are when you try to discuss current affairs.

As I've said before (maybe only in PMs) I don't understand the hang-up about personal attacks. We are (and we are accountable for) our opinions. What's the point of trying to pretend your opinions are somehow an entity discrete from yourself? If you were to espouse racism, that would make you a racist in my book, not some neutral being who happened to hold racist opinions.

On the other hand you are quick to claim that those of us who don't share your views are as conditioned in our thinking as you are in yours. To have my thought processes put on a par with yours is, in my opinion, a personal attack on me. But it doesn't trouble me. I just happen to think you're wrong, because there are examples on the record in this forum where I have indeed changed or modified my thinking in the face of intelligent arguments.

I happened to agree with Ron in this thread (with that one exception mentioned above), but elsewhere I have disagreed with him on a fairly serious issue. Likewise with many other Mudcat folk, often on issues to do with Ireland. In your case, I can't remember any instance of your underpinning your position with anything approaching rational argument. So how you expect to exert any influence I don't know. "Horse pucky" is indeed about as sophisticated as your reasoning gets.

But back to superscript ordinals, and I have to say they are a revolting innovation. They look pretentious, serve no good purpose and are to my eye typographically disruptive. Why not ditch them altogether, superscript or otherwise, and this would avoid any possiblity of embarrassment for Dan Rather etc. "July 4" surely looks tidier than "September 11th." And both look better than rendering the phonetic suffix like a footnote or trademark symbol.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 08:12 AM

Nerd:

Thank you re Rathers. But how about the experts he selected? And his producers? If you call into question one expert, you should at least examine the opposing ones for the same bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 12:47 PM

bb,

Marcel Matley, the expert consulted by Rather: No Candidate Donations. For info on 527s, I need to know the state where he lives.

If you wish to find evidence about every person who works for 60 Minutes, knock yourself out. The sites are Publicintegrity.org and opensecrets.org. If you wish to claim that they are Democratic donors, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

I have shown that Lines is a Republican donor, and indeed this is now being reported in places like Salon.com

Happy searching!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:10 PM

Ron: you seem rivited to the point that there is no proof of media bias. I assume you are familiar with Bernard Goldberg's book, "BIAS, A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News,"whether or not you have read it.

Those of you who are so convinced there is no bias at CBS, or other media, might gain something from reading it.

I will pause now, so that numerious posters can attack Bernard Goldberg.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:32 PM

I will pause now, so that numerious posters can attack Bernard Goldberg.DougR LOL I didn't know you had a sense of humor, Doug.

Yes, I have read Bernard Goldberg's book. It's a good idea to read another, more factual, book alongside. In his book Goldberg utilizes innuendo, extrapolation and tremendous leaps of fancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:37 PM

I don't understand the hang-up about personal attacks. We are (and we are accountable for) our opinions.

Personal attacks aren't when you tell someone you disgree with them, or even when you say that something they have said is hateful or absurd, or that they are racist in their views.

They are when people start insulting someone they disagree with in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with their opinions, or which go beyond those opinions in an unjustifiable way.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:37 PM

Doug, I would hardly regard the Drudge Report as a reliable source for unbiased news.

And Bernard Goldberg notwithstanding, it is a bit difficult to justify the epithet "liberal news media" when you consider that about 90% of the news and entertainment outlets in the United States is owned by five mega-corporations, large conglomerates not exactly known for their espousing of liberal ideas. One can find at least some information on the ownership of CBS and other broadcasting networks here, here, and here.

Some time back, while in England, Dan Rather made the comment to a BBC reporter that there were many stories he would like to air, but his bosses would not let him. The BBC reporter reported Rather's remark to the British news media, and when Rather returned to New York, he got his hand slapped for it. So even though some may characterize Rather as "liberal," any tendencies he may have along those lines is reined in by what his employers will allow him to do.

I find it highly interesting that, in the current climate, any station that reports the unfiltered news or airs any kind of in-depth report rather than just brief sound bites or talking heads shouting at each other, is invariabley branded as "liberal." The same goes for any network or station that doesn't always act as a cheerleader for the administration. I think it's because these stations occasionally air programs or reports that the administration and/or some major corporation would rather the public not know.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:58 PM

Don: I don't think I ever said there was anything WRONG with being liberal.

I won't argue whether or not ownership of media outlets becomes involved in managing the "news" because I simply don't know if they do or not. I would think, though, that any ethical newsperson who felt that to be the case, and it was contrary to their own belief, they would find another line of work.

Ebbie: Perhaps you could supply me with your suggestion for a more factual book to read other than Bernie Goldberg's. Goldberg is a Emmy winning thirty year veteran at CBS, and I would think that he might have picked up a thing or two during those years that led him to write the book.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:16 PM

Doug, to abandon working in the news media, as you suggest, to find another line of work because one has difficulty finding outlets for honest news reporting is to abandon the temple to the philistines. An honest and dedicated news person keeps trying.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 04:08 PM

Still Don, if corporate America is truly conservative, and votes Republican as so many of you claim, and if, as you say, the owners of the networks manage the news, why wouldn't CBS kill the Bush story before it ever aired?

It would seem to me that it would be in the interest of CBS to see GWB re-elected.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 04:47 PM

back to the AWOL thing for a moment. i repeat my question...not one person has come forward to say they served with GWB during the time under scutiny... is there an explanation for this from any of the bushbuddies or any story or link you can cite to explain this? doesn't it seem odd to you at all? in fact, has anyone come forward that he worked with on the political campaign that he uses for his excuse? any links or stories on that? c'mon you loyal bushies, let us know where these stories are hiding.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 05:55 PM

Well, Doug, one would think this one story would indicate a liberal bias, but if they are that liberal, why, then, did they agree to the Bush administration's pressure to quash any talk of body counts and suppress any filming of returning coffins (e.g. note the cat-fit they had over the one photo of flag-draped coffins)? The Bush administration was fully aware that actually seeing some of the reality of war on the news media in the Sixties and early Seventies was one of the things that precipitated the anti-Vietnam war movement. The only program that ever actually personalizes the statistics (silently shows portrait photos of the most recent casualties at the end of each program) is The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. This, of course, makes PBS a bunch of "flaming liberals."

I think there is a bit of what seems like schizophrenia in the news departments of the Big Three (ABC, NBC, and CBS), at least as far as politics is concerned. But if you understand the motivation, it all becomes clear (in a murky sort of way). In the "infotainment" industry, if it's an entertaining pot-boiler, it's liable to make the six o'clock news. They did back-flips of glee when the Swift Boat bunch launched their "Trash Kerry" attack. That, and the logical follow up, airing the conflict over Bush's questionable National Guard records (maybe that's their idea of "fair and balanced news), keeps the folks glued to the screen—so they'll see the commercials in between "news" breaks. Political campaigns and the mud-slinging therein is great "reality television." But—not only is the "informed electorate" that Thomas Jefferson spoke of as necessary for sustaining democracy not on the back burner, it's not even on the stove at all.

It's called "bu$ine$$." And in thinking of the next quarterly report, it's amazing how willing they are to do things contrary to their own long-range interests, which would be to see that Bush is re-elected so that people such as Michael Powell will continue to be in charge of the FCC.

Believe me, I could tell you about some pretty hairy stuff from my own experience about how far broadcasting companies are sometimes willing to go to pander to those who buy commercial time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 06:02 PM

But actually, all of this, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (!?) attack on Kerry and the sudden emergence of documentation about Bush's National Guard service (or lack thereof) is a marvelous distraction.

It keeps people from taking a good long look at the real issues.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Genie
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 06:03 PM

Don, the corporate media didn't kill the Bush story before it ever aired because they (with the exception of Fox) need to perpetuate the illusion that they are at least "fair and balanced," if not "liberal."   Millions and decades have been spent painting the TV media as "liberal" precisely to pressure them into shifting their "balance" to the right, as well as to make their attacks on Democrats and on the left more effective. ("Gee, if the liberal media are questioning John Kerry's war record there really must be some truth to those charges!" "Gee, if the liberal media call Kerry a flip-flopper, it must be true!")

If the networks and cable channels did not air any criticisms of Bush, the independent viewers and even the more open-minded "conservatives" and Republicans would start to discount them. (How many independents and open-minded Republicans really believe they're getting true, unbiased, undistorted info from Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Oliver North, Sean Hannity, etc?)

Far more effective to let the anti-Bush news AIR while simultaneously airing the charges of "forged" documents.

(Had the SBVFT ads been shown early on by the news channels along with disclosure of John O'Neill's history, the money trail behind those ads, and challenges to the most inaccurate and misleading statements in those ads, those ads might have backfired the way they should have.   That's not the way the media handled it.)

PS
Joe Offer, I think your take on the whole issue of candidates' military service is a fair and wise one. However, since the media did not take that attitude re the attacks on Kerry, it's a bit unfair for them to suddenly adopt it now, just when the shoe's on the other foot. They let Kerry's reputation be besmirched quite unfairly -- especially the distortions of his Senate testimony -- for over a month of high-profile coverage at a crucial campaign phase. To now disallow the question of military records is a lot like a boxing referee turning a blind eye while one fighter lands a barrage of below-the-belt punches and then suddenly announcing, "OK, that's enough. From now on I'll enforce the rules strictly."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 10:52 PM

hear's a link to the US news&world report story i mentioned earlier.
href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

still waiting to hear about my previous question about the failure of a single person to testify that they served with GWB during the time under scrutiny...doug...larryk...anybody...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 10:53 PM

i'll try the link again

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 11:17 PM

Joe Offer,

I am in complete agreement with your post, even though as you know from our discussions at the Getaway, we are sometimes on different sides, as I suspect, we are now. (My recollection is that is was a discussion about Cheney failing to turn over the list of names that he consulted on energy policy, and I pointed out that Hillary had done the same thing on her consultations on health policy.) But I enjoyed your discussion as far more light that heat, unlike many of the posts (including some of my own) on the Mudcat.

As for the ensuing CBS case; as I said in another post on a different thread, we may have already seen the October Suprise of this election, though it may become known as the October Backfire.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 01:47 PM

This from Barbara O'Brien, a well-known journalist, typesetter and blogger:

I studied typography as an academic discipline (circa 1971) as part of the old journalism school curriculum at U of Missouri. I spent roughly 30 years in the book publishing business, most of which was on the production side dealing with type compositors and printers. I have worked with typography and printing processes from the end of the raised-metal-type era to current digital technology. I have designed and written complete type specifications for more books than I can remember.

As a production editor in the 1980s I became especially good at measuring the type in books to be reprinted so that corrections could be made by patching the film. To do that, I had to measure the old type and match font, body size, ledding, and letter spacing exactly. This is not a skill people need much any more, since books are stored digitally. But I still know how to do it.

I'm bouncing around the web seeing wingnuts flying off about proportional letter spacing and kerning and whatnot, and I'm telling you these people are off the wall.

Why? Because, if you need to measure type (body size, ledding, letter spacing) and match it exactly, you have to work with original documents. If you are measuring a photocopy of an original document, the measurements can be off by half a point or more. If you are measuring a photocopy of a photocopy, the distortion grows to more than a point. If you are measuring a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy scanned into a PDF file, e.g. the Killian documents, forget it. The "kerning" and letter spacing you think you see may or may not exist on the original document. Probably not, in fact.

I know this because I learned it from my old film patching days. If all I had to work with was a photocopy, my patch wouldn't match. I had to measure the original printed page.

So, let's dispense with the "proportional type" theory. I've looked at the PDF files, and IMO the quality thereof is too far removed from the original (the wavy baselines are a dead giveaway) to know what the original type proportion was. And any "kerning" one might see is probably the result of distortion that occurs in photocopies that are generations removed from an original.

Now, let's shift focus onto the capabilities of common electric typewriters, circa 1972. As I've already explained, the IBM Selectric was very common. By 1972 the offices of America had replaced old manual uprights for electric typewriters, and the Selectric II, introduced in 1971, was the best.

By the time I graduated college in 1973 it would have been shocking to walk into a business office and not see Selectric IIs or similar. It would be as unusual as using a rotary phone today.

And Selectrics produced documents in a variety of type fonts, including Greek letters and all manner of esoteric scientific/mathematical symbols. You really could type open and close quotation parks and curly apostrophes. Superscript type was easily created by shifting. Even a reduced superscript "th" was technically possible, in spite of what the wingnuts are saying now.

It's true that some whizbangs took a couple of extra steps. People ask, Why would Killian have gone to the trouble of creating a reduced superscript "th"? But we're talking about the early 1970s here. Let's be frank -- in those dear departed times, real men did not touch typewriters. Trust me on this. It's highly probable Killian scribbled a note and gave it to one of the office "girls" to type up for his signature. The office "girls" hardly ever bothered about putting their initials on such documents, in spite of what the secretarial practice books said. But the "girl" would have typed the document very nicely.

Finally, I understand the wingnuts find it astonishing that the type seen in the Killian documents can be reproduced exactly in word processing documents today. But to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of typography, this is not astonishing at all. Times Roman characters produced on a lintotype machine in 1960 will match Times Roman characters created in Microsoft Word today. If two Times Roman characters were not exactly the same, one of them would not be classic Times Roman type, but something else.

Type faces have been consistent for many generations. We still use some type faces that pre-date machine-made type, in fact; e.g., Garamond, still in use after four centuries.

I've collected a few books published and printed in the 19th century. I promise you it is possible to recreate the pages of those books digitally. You could set pages in Quark that exactly match the fonts, spacing, margins, etc.; save as PDF files; and "age" the files in PhotoShop, and I doubt any expert in the world could tell the difference by looks alone. Probably an analysis of ink and paper would reveal the difference, but that's outside my expertise.


[...]

Could the Killian documents be forgeries? Could Paul Wolfowitz be a space alien? Anything is possible.

But there is no evidence I've seen so far that has persuaded me the documents are forgeries. And I'm the best expert I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 01:57 PM

This from the Boston Globe...Forgery is looking less and less likely as experts change their mind or are shown to be wrong.


After CBS News on Wednesday trumpeted newly discovered documents that referred to a 1973 effort to ''sugar coat" President Bush's service record in the Texas Air National Guard, the network almost immediately faced charges that the documents were forgeries, with typography that was not available on typewriters used at that time.

But specialists interviewed by the Globe and some other news organizations say the specialized characters used in the documents, and the type format, were common to electric typewriters in wide use in the early 1970s, when Bush was a first lieutenant.

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

Analysts who have examined the documents focus on several facets of their typography, among them the use of a curved apostrophe, a raised, or superscript, ''th," and the proportional spacing between the characters -- spacing which varies with the width of the letters. In older typewriters, each letter was alloted the same space.

Those who doubt the documents say those typographical elements would not have been commonly available at the time of Bush's service. But such characters were common features on electric typewriters of that era, the Globe determined through interviews with specialists and examination of documents from the period. In fact, one such raised ''th," used to describe a Guard unit, the 187th, appears in a document in Bush's official record that the White House made public earlier this year.

Meanwhile, ''CBS Evening News" last night explained how it sought to authenticate the documents, focusing primarily on its examiner's conclusion that two of the records were signed by Bush's guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. CBS also said it had other sources -- among Killian's friends and colleagues -- who verified that the content of the documents reflected Killian's views at the time.

One of them, Robert Strong, a Guard colleague, said the language in the documents was ''compatible with the way business was done at that time. They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being."

But William Flynn, a Phoenix document examiner cited in a Washington Post report Thursday, said he had not changed his mind because he does not believe that the proportional spacing between characters, and between lines, in the documents obtained by CBS was possible on typewriters used by the military at the time.

Flynn told the Globe he believes it is ''highly unlikely" that the documents CBS has obtained could have been produced in 1972 or 1973.

Flynn said his doubts were also based on his belief that the curved apostrophe was not available on electric typewriters at the time, although documents from the period reviewed by the Globe show it was. He acknowledged that the quality of the copies of the documents he examined was poor.

[?]

Bouffard, the Ohio document specialist, said that he had dismissed the Bush documents in an interview with The New York Times because the letters and formatting of the Bush memos did not match any of the 4,000 samples in his database. But Bouffard yesterday said that he had not considered one of the machines whose type is not logged in his database: the IBM Selectric Composer. Once he compared the Bush memos to Selectric Composer samples obtained from Interpol, the international police agency, Bouffard said his view shifted.

In the Times interview, Bouffard had also questioned whether the military would have used the Composer, a large machine. But Bouffard yesterday provided a document indicating that as early as April 1969 -- three years before the dates of the CBS memos -- the Air Force had completed service testing for the Composer, possibly in preparation for purchasing the typewriters.

As for the raised ''th" that appears in the Bush memos -- to refer, for example, to units such as the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron -- Bouffard said that custom characters on the Composer's metal typehead ball were available in the 1970s, and that the military could have ordered such custom balls from IBM.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 06:51 PM

It seems that many distinct questions are being lumped together here.

Some of those questions are:

      1) Did Georges W. Bush fulfill his duties during his National Guard years?

       2) Did 60 Minutes or the DNC resort to fabricating documents to smear Bush?

       3) Does any of this have squat to do with Bush's ability to perform the duties of president?

To question 1, Bush served AT LEAST 700 DAYS during his 6 year commitment. Almost two straight years to begin his service. Both of these figures are unusually high. As a Guardsman during the same general period, I was only required to put in about 370-390 days for my honorable discharge. Bush must have been doing something extra that the military wanted him to do. Covert operations? Train foreign pilots? One can only speculate since these activities were not part of his "official" records.

Question 2, the documents 60 Minutes used are copies. They claim that their source will not remit the "origionals" and 60 Minutes will not tell who the source is. These facts make discussions of type style absurd since the "origionals" were represented as hand written and signed. The copies are mechanically assisted in some way, photocopied, and are also (I believe) unsigned.

Question 3, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 07:44 PM

just one point of Barbara O'Briens quote above

....need to measure type (body size, ledding, letter spacing...

even though its pronounced ledding, surely she means leading.
(as it refers to lead as in lead type)

one other point, minor as well, letterpress is still around
its just used for specialized applications like, crash imprinting
numbering, foilstamping and diecutting.

a printer friend I know can set lead type and start printing an envelope in the time it takes a computer to boot up and run pagemaker.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 07:45 PM

DougR - you make a good point about Brian Goldberg. You make a very bad point when you say I am "rivited to the point that there is no proof of media bias". I never said that. I do think that CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS do a better job of being ethical.

Goldberg makes a point that this supposed "liberal" bias began during the Reagan years, when right wing conservatives began airing talk shows and people like Rush Limbaugh got their start. If anything, it was overcompensating.

I assume that if you feel that there is a liberal bias at CBS, then you must acknowledge that there is a conservative bias at Fox.   Is that what fair and balanced is supposed to be?

In my years at CNBC there were many conservatives in the newsroom. I do think they did their best to keep it balanced at the time.   With the advent of Fox, I think most news has become a circus.

Again to my point, I think you are only focusing on one source - or several sources from the same viewpoint. Fair and balanced means gathering thought from a variety of sources and then YOU make the decision.   Since you have said that you won't watch 60 minutes or watch Michael Moore, and the only sources you've quoted are conservative in nature, I have to assume that you are simply following party line when you make these statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 07:48 PM

You can bet that a National Guard outfit during an active war in the 70s would not have access to the best equipment at any level. Upon my completion of my active service in the Nam in 69 I was in a Marine Corps reseve outfit in Washington DC (4th CAG) operating out the the Navy Yard. We had crap to work with, and I suspect that no Reserve unit had the "modern" gear spoken to above. And to break someones heart, there were no "girls", there were clerk typists, who pounded on manuals.

This one will be easy since some of the units other documents will display the same characteristics, as the Killian memos, or is CBS/Democrat group going to tell us there was a special typewriter, purchased just to do the Bush memos? Also the units TO&E (no I'm not going to tell you what it stands for) will deliniate all items with serial numbers, and I suspect someone is already on that track as I write.

BTW I write as an ex-cop, who used and then disgarded Questioned Document Examiners, when easier more determnative information was available.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 07:57 PM

Can you explain why the documents that Bush himself released have the same typeface issues, including the subscript "th"?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 08:08 PM

Sorry, Claymore.

Documents claimed by Bush himself have the same feature, so obviously it WAS in use in at least some of his units.

The argument that goes "I was once in a Guard unit in New hampshire, so I can definitively what one in San Diego was like...you weren't in the guard so you don't know," won't work here. You were not in Bush's unit. Bush's unit obviously, by his own admission, by his own documents, had such a typewriter. There is no question about the specialized character.

The only question that remains is proportional spacing, which many of the same typewriters, including the Selectric Composers, had.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 09:15 PM

Unless origional documents are produced, including signatures, these 60 Minutes copies are phoney.

The burden of proof is on 60 Minutes. Period.

All talk of type style, font size, Selectric II balls, etc. (ad nauseum) can be considered intentional obfuscation.

The phoney copies have been rejected by Killian's son, his wife and his commanding officer. Only 60 Minutes like them.

If authentic, the documents must have been stolen from Killian's wife's house. They are personal and were never part of Bush's official records, most of which were recently released.

If this plays out as many people suspect it will, this story will eclipse Watergate, since it shows both political corruption and collusion by members of the major mews media.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 09:51 PM

PDQ. You have no proof either PDQ. Wishful thinking perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:01 PM

Ron:

What part of the concept "burden of proof" don't you understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:02 PM

The same one that you aren't grasping.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:25 PM

Ron:

You said "as a Kerry supporter I would be outraged if this were a forgery AND it was traced back to the Kerry campaign. Dirty tricks are wrong, but so is jumping to conclusions."

What will you do to back up this statement? Vote for Bush?!!

I have an idea. We don't have too many crows in Buzzard's Roost, Nevada, but our favorite bird here is big, black and homely. I'm quite sure that, once baked into a pie, that you could not tell the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:35 PM

Uh, pdq, what Ron is saying is that your statement

"If authentic, the documents must have been stolen from Killian's wife's house. They are personal and were never part of Bush's official records, most of which were recently released."

Would also require proof. Remember, these were memos written BY Killian, not TO him. Thus we know that, if they are genuine, he did NOT have the only copy; the recipient must have had one, too.

There are plenty of ways for a copy to have gotten to CBS, and none of them require robbing Killian's house.

Second, just because Bush didn't release them doesn't mean they're private. They are NOT personal, in fact. They are, in fact, memos written on Guard stationary from one officer to another. That means that, if genuine, they ARE part of the official record. Just not of the "most" that Bush released.

Wonder why that would be, PDQ?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:37 PM

What bug got into you PDQ?? I hope you are taking something for it.

Frankly, I would not vote for Kerry is this is true. I would not vote for Bush either.   Unlike you, I did not drink the Kool-aid. I hold my elected officials feet to the fire. I do not believe in blind faith.

I do not have a clue as to what you were trying to say in that last paragraph, except for the possiblity that you were trying to say something about "eating crow".   If you truly read my comments, you would see that I have nothing to "eat crow" about, no matter how this turns out. Unlike you, I do not jump to conclusions. However, I do try to use logic.

"Burden of Proof" is a concept for the courts by the way. Journalism relies on ethics. One of the rules is that you verify facts. That does not mean using the Drudge Report as one source and three other media outlets that quote Drudge as "confirmation". It means you are given a fact and you verify it. Based on what CBS said, they had several analysis done on the documents. More than one person verified the information they contained.

Could they be forgeries?   Of course they could. That would be the downfall of CBS and Dan Rather in particular.   While I can't say for certain that Rather was above the board, I find it highly unlikely that he would jeopardize his career for something like this. He does not stand to gain but has everything to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:54 PM

After the ambulance wrecked and the coffin spilled out into the street, someone remarked "remains to be seen".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 11:43 PM

drumroll please.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 11:54 PM

An eggroll is the best you are going to get. Made with fresh faux crow, maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Sep 04 - 01:05 AM

Just as a point of fact, the fact that Mr. Bush earned a certain number of "points"...842 in 4 years according to pdq's post Sept. 8 at 9:00 pm...doesn't mean that he served 700 days as pdq stated today at 6:40 pm. Retirement points can be earned in a number of ways: active duty counts 1 for 1, weekend drills count 2 for 1 (ie, one weekend equals 4 points) and correspondence courses count 1 point for each 5 credit hours. In addition, reserve/guard members get 15 points per year just for belonging, whether they show up or not. The maximum points earnable in a year is 365, but only 50 is required to have a "good year." Any figure over 100 points in a year would indicate a significant amount of active duty.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Sep 04 - 02:21 AM

Still, US News and World Report finds that Bush was held to a lower than normal standard and failed to meet even that. Strange, huh? I think PDQ is FOS.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 14 Sep 04 - 12:06 PM

You sure have some strange tastes PDQ.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 14 Sep 04 - 12:41 PM

artbrooks:

Please read (yes, actually read) my post of 08 Sep 04 - 09:50 PM. It contains facts that are part of public record such as the fact that Bush served "80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years."

My quick calculation shows that 80 weeks (the time Bush served in the first two years of his enlistment) equals 560 DAYS, not "points". His weekend and summer duties over the next four years clearly gave him 700 (or more) DAYS of service. Probably close to twice what the average Guardsman (like myself) put in.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 14 Sep 04 - 01:13 PM

All of this debate about military service is detracting from the real issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 12:01 AM

But I bet Kim C won't point that out when Kerry's record is being questioned

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 09:47 AM

If PDQ's calculations are correct, 700 days of military service almost equals his vacation time as President!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 10:00 AM

Umm, GUEST, I have said it all along, about BOTH candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 05:50 PM

of course they didnt have new times roman around in those days
everyone used crazy hippy type - grand funk railroadica.
p
its typical of the bush campaign to discredit any attacks
(who cares whether or not kerry a few hundred yards inside cambodia or not - we know for sure bush was a couple million yards east of cambodia) and kerry didnt have a problem volunteering for what was actually one of the most dangerous assignments in vietnam - which
pretty much says it all about their character.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 06:20 PM

I was in Angola once in the same way...was OFFICIALLY in Namibia, but crossed the Kunene onto Angolan soil, where nobody but a few people in my raft saw me. No reason, just the other side of the river...it was peacetime. No records indicate I was there, no one could ever prove I was there, and the ten or so people with me could easily be discredited if you tried hard enough. So what would it prove if I said "I was in Angola in 1998" and the Bush Administration told everyone I was not? Or if I made a mistake and it was really 1997 (I really can't remember...funny how it's hard for a northerner to remember what time of year anything is without seasons as a guide).

Anyway, back to the memos:

Interestingly a half-and-half answer came from Killian's secretary today (yes, Claymore who knows everything about every guard unit ever, a real-life "office girl," who was using a state of the art IBM Selectric according to her own testimony, not pounding on a manual).

She says she thinks the documents are retyped versions of actual memos. She says she is pretty sure that the content is genuine, and pretty sure that the physical memos are not the originals she typed back then. She alludes to a "CYA" file and other details that certainly sound like the documents we've seen.

" ... She said that although she did not recall typing the memos reported by CBS News, they accurately reflect the viewpoints of Col. Killian and documents that would have been in the personal file. Also, she said she didn't know whether the CBS documents corresponded memo for memo with that file. 'The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones,' she said. 'I probably typed the information and somebody picked up the information some way or another.'"

(Dallas Morning News)

And, by the way, she says her typewriters DID have the raised superscript "th," even the mechanical Olympia that preceded the Selectric.

Inconclusive at best--especially since she's now 86 and this was thirty years ago.

But on the bright side it proves Claymore can sometimes be a windbag!

Also, it shows that this will be another whitewater: long after the initial evidence is discredited (that pesky "th"), pushy investigators will overturn more and more and more, never proving anything but making CBS look pretty bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 19 Sep 04 - 04:03 PM

Sorry, guys I can't let this rest.

Ron, In your post of 13 Sept at 7:57, you stated

" Can you explain why the documents that Bush himself released have the same typeface issues, including the subscript "th"?

This was a complete and absolute lie. As numerous papers of some repute, The Washington Post, Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, and LA Times have reported, the "th" matched NONE of the previously released documents. You need to applogize or source your contention, NOW!

As for the others, yes it does appear in Bushes unit, which was ANG had a female secretary, but she did not use the typewriter previousl mentioned and I repeat: NONE OF THE OTHER DOCUMENTS FROM THAT UNIT SHOW THE TYPEFACE IN QUESTION.

Moreover, as a long time Democrat even she said the docuemts were fake.

It now appears that the documents were forged by a long time Bush hater and typical Democrat named Bill Burkett, who gave the forged documents to Max Cleland, the triple amputee and formerly well regarded GA Senator, who is working for the Kerry campaign, to deliver to Rather. As this story unravels, the only question left is how low can the Democrat/CBS cabal go...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Sep 04 - 08:58 PM

But let us not forget:   the secretary said that although she did not type the documents herself, the information they contained is accurate. And she was in a position to know.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Sep 04 - 09:00 PM

Furthermore, it supports the same information from other sources. These documents are not the only ones.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 12:01 AM

Claymore, You seem to have missed my post of "15 Sep 04 - 06:20 PM."

CBS actually showed a picture of a document released by Bush that DID have the "th" superscript, in the report the night after the forgery claims started coming out. Furthermore, the secretary not only said she didn't think she typed the documents, but also that BOTH the manual typewriter she used in the late 60s and the Selectric she got in the early 70s were capable of that character. Funny how you heard some of the things she said but not others, Claymore. Where do you get your news?

You can see an example from Bush's released papers at this address:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/superscrptth.jpg

You'll notice that on the second line there is a superscript "th" and later there are non-superscripted forms. This is the same pattern you see on the disputed memos, with the small "th" appearing in a minority of instances. This is absolutely NOT what you'd expect from a word processor, (which automatically converts every "th" to a superscript unless you disable it) and exactly what you WOULD expect from a typewriter with a special key, which the typist only sometimes remembers to use.

Oh, by the way, remember how you said they didn't have "office girls" with IBM Selecric typewriters, but clerk typists bashing away on manuals?

Turns out they had "office girls" with IBM Selectrics, just like the lady said.

Seems you don't know as much as you think you do, Claymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Charley Noble
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 08:41 AM

Well, this story may still have legs. Let's see what CBS comes up with in their next segment.

Apparently it is extremely difficult for experts to verify the source of typing if they are working from photocopies, or copies of photocopies which seems to be the case here. The originals may also have been scanned in so they could be electronically transferred which would also alter their original "signature."

The jury should still be out on this one but I bet the story will get more interesting.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST, Claymore
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 12:17 PM

Washington Post, Sunday Page A-7 "Though many theories have been proposed about the use of a Selectronic, no-one to date has been able to duplicate the type face, overcast, proportional spacing or the exact position of the proffered "th"".

In addition, they displayed in full, on page A-6, several of the original documents, as well as the ones presented by the Corrupt Broadcasting System (CBS) and with notes and arrows pointing out different signatures, type faces, etc. You would have to be demented or Democrat not to notice the really obvious differences.

And AP is running with the Cleland connection with the Kerry camp as the one who gave the material to Rather. I'm sure there will be many more twists in the road over Memogate. I have many Democratic friends and the one thing we all agree on is, if Kerry had never stood up at the Convention and declared himself "Present for Duty", with that stupid "gull-wing " salute, and his Swift boat crewmen behind him, this never would have happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 01:30 PM

Claymore - I have nothing to apologize for. As you should be able to see when you compare the documents, the Bush released documents also contain a subscript. I never claimed they matched EXACTLY or were printed on the same typewriter. The fact is, subscript was available on typewriters at the time.

It appears to be a moot point. As CBS now admits they cannot vouch for the authenticity of the documents, it appears we were all misled. I find this very sloppy and unexcusable. The canons of journalism demand that a reporter verifies their source. CBS failed, badly. This will be a huge mark on Rather's career, and an event that will taint his accomplishments.

It is still in question as to who created the documents and who slipped them to CBS. All accounts show that these documents were faxed directly to CBS from a stationary store in Abilene.   There is no proof that Cleland had a direct hand in this, nor is their proof that Republican strategist Karl Rove planted this information as yet another dirty trick.

Also, no one has denied that the story itself was incorrect. The questions still remain and they have not given evidence that Bush did not receive preferential treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 01:43 PM

The funny thing is how the issue of the provenance of the documents has completely displaced the issue about Bush's immoral conduct in the Guard, about which there is no dispute. If it true that CBS bought into a forgery than they are sloppy and should inherit some embarassment over it.

If it true as it seems to be that Bush lied about his service to the whole nation, he should inherit even more embarassment for that, as the author of the falsehood rather than merely an unwilling dupe.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 04:18 PM

As Ron said- Lets wait and see what the truth it.   Well, we waited and Dan Rather has made a statement (you can read the text on the Drudge Report) that the documents are false, and they would not have run the story or used the documents if they knew last week what they know today.

Seems to me that CBS was very "Nixonian" in trying to stonewall this story and cover up.    The source of the documents was Billy Bidwell (spelling?) in Texas- a man who on his web site compared Bush to Hitler and Napoleon.   A man who the Boston Globe refused to print because of misstatements.   A man who said he was punished and sent to some place where he got VD and than had to retract the statement because he admitted it was "overstated".   This would the source that CBS but all their faith in?   Give me a fucking break.

Several experts told CBS that the docurment was questionable but CBS chose to run it anyway.    So much for the credibility of CBS.   Maybe Rather ran it to get back at Bush for the run on with his father.   (that is a joke- for those of you conspiracy theory people who think Bush invaded Iraq to get back at Sadaam for the assasanation plot on his father)

O'Reilly replayed the interview last year with Rather.   Fascination.   O'reilly asked why he didn't cover some anti democrat stories.   Rather replied that they would cover both sides equally, but did intensive fact checking and would not cover a story until it had been proven by reliable sources and documents.    I laughed by ass off watching him say that.

Will Michale Moore call Rather a liar for misleading us about the Bush record?

Finally, I don't give a rats ass about Both Kerry and Bush's war records.   I care more about where they would lead us as president.   The more time the democrats spend on viet nam and the national guard, the closer I get to lighting my "virual" victory cigar.

I think I will go and reread Rathers apology again...just for fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 04:45 PM

One point Larry - Rather and CBS did not come out and say that the documents are false. They said they cannot prove the authenticity and that the confirm their sources.   It is a minor point.

Otherwise, believe it or not, I agree with everything you say. This is a huge black eye for CBS (pardon the pun). My high school journalism teacher would have flunked me if I did something like this. Let me take that back, he would have thrown me off the school paper.

Even IF Bidwell is right (and it does appear that the context of his story is true), the fact that CBS blantantly blew this story by not checking their facts and getting confirmation. I could FAX a story to CBS saying that George W. had joined the KKK during his "missing" years in the service, but that obviously would be lie and CBS would be stupid to report such a thing. They need credible evidence. Using the "evidence" they way they did turned the attention away from the basic facts, which still indicate that George W. was indeed "sugar coated".

The problem is, most networks try to outdue each other. It isn't a matter of being right, it has become a matter of being first. I witnessed it first hand at NBC. Shame on CBS.

Yes, let's wait and see where this goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 06:08 PM

Ron et al. I refer you to washingtontimes.com go to nation/politics for the AP story "Ex-guardsman gave Bush records to Cleland" on 9/19, which speaks of Bill Burkett (correct spelling) emailing Cleland at the Kerry headquarters, after going through "seven layers of bureaucratic kids" at the Kerry campaign, getting ahold of Cleland and asking how and where to send the documents. This is an AP story from a Burkett interview and an obtained email. Read it for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Displaced Camelotian
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 08:20 PM

What if the documents were real? What would they show? That 30-odd years ago a twenty-something rich boy accepted the opportunity to learn to fly F-102s (not the most forgiving airplanes of the period) in TANG rather than go to Vietnam. Later, a few more strings were pulled to let him slack off. For some unascertained reason, he failed to take a required physical. More strings were pulled to give the rich boy an easy time till he finished his 6 years in the Guard.

That is the worst the the documents would show, if they were real. They'd show that Bush was a pampered rich boy thirty-odd years ago. Admirable? No. Criminal? No. Scandalous? Perhaps when it all happened.

But Bush, like Kerry, has a much more recent, more extensive, and more significant record up for discussion.

I can't believe that the "old CBS" of Eric Sevareid and Walter Cronkite would have run with such a flimsy story, or that if they had that the public and the media would have been so caught up in it. The media, not just CBS, now seem to believe what voters want is a succession of "gotchas."

What the candidates have done in public life and what they offer to do in the future are what we need to be looking at.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Peace
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 08:27 PM

Bush was stupid, foolish and unwise thirty years ago. That doesn't bother me. He still is today. THAT bothers me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 08:36 PM

Nerd:

You said

" I said that Dan Rather has a track record of honesty going back 40 years which has never been questioned. Therefore, even if he IS liberal, which I have no way of knowing, I would not suspect his motives. The same would go for (say) Lou Dobbs at CNN, whose politics are very conservative. If Lou tells me a fact, I am inclined to believe him. If he tells me he had a document authenticated, I believe that too."

Maybe you should have questioned his experts as much as you did the ones who disputed the documents...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 08:43 PM

CBS can't vouch for memos

By David Bauder
ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK -- CBS apologized today and said it was misled about the authenticity of documents used to support a "60 Minutes" story that questioned President Bush's Vietnam War-era National Guard service, after several experts denounced them as fakes.
    "We should not have used them," CBS News President Andrew Heyward said. "That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."
    CBS also said it was commissioning an independent panel to review the incident, and would announce the name of the participants shortly.
    The White House said the affair raises questions about the connections between CBS's source and Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign.
    CBS's concession was a major blow to the credibility of the news organization and anchor Dan Rather, who reported the story and issued his own apology Monday.
    "We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry," he said. "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism."
    Almost immediately after the Sept. 8 story aired, document experts questioned memos purportedly written by Bush's late squadron leader, saying they appeared to have been created on a computer and not a typewriter that was in use during the 1970s.
    CBS strongly defended its story, and it wasn't until a week later - after the military leader's former secretary said she believed the memos were fake - did the news division admit they were questionable.
    Even then, Rather said no one had disputed the story's premise: that the future president had pulled strings to get a relatively cushy National Guard assignment and failed to satisfy the requirements of his service.
    Rather this weekend interviewed Bill Burkett, a retired Texas National Guard official who has been mentioned as a possible source for the documents. His interview was to be broadcast on "CBS Evening News" on Monday.
    CBS said Burkett acknowledged he provided the documents and said he deliberately misled a CBS producer, giving her a false account of their origin to protect a promise of confidentiality to a source.
    The Associated Press could not immediately reach Burkett for comment.
    Rather said he would not have gone ahead with the story Burkett admitted that the documents were not authentic.
    "That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where - if I knew then what I know now - I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question," he said.
    "Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully," he added.
    The documents were said to have been written by Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, indicating he was being pressured to "sugarcoat" the performance ratings of a young Bush, then the son of a Texas congressman, and that Bush failed to follow orders to take a physical. Killian died in 1984.
    White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush was told about the CBS statement as he flew to Derry, N.H.
    "CBS is now for the first time publicly acknowledging that the documents were likely forged and they came from a discredited source," McClellan said. "There are a number of serious questions that remain unanswered and they need to be answered. Bill Burkett, who CBS now says is their source, in fact is not an unimpeachable source as was previously claimed. Bill Burkett is a source who has been discredited and so this raises a lot of questions. There were media reports about Mr. Burkett having senior level contacts with the Kerry campaign."
    For "60 Minutes," it's the biggest ethical mess since the 1995 incident captured in the movie, "The Insider," which depicted the newsmagazine caving to pressure from CBS lawyers and not airing a whistleblowing report from an ex-tobacco executive.
    The call for an independent review was also reminiscent of CNN's "Tailwind" scandal in 1998. The cable network retracted a story that the U.S. military had used nerve gas in Laos during the Vietnam war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to the daily or weekly printed edition
Back to Nation/Politics

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 10:31 PM

Those who were on the scene at the time of those documents have testified that while the documents are irregular, the facts that they document are exactly what was going on.

The forgery was a disgusting extreme. The offences they sought to document were another.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 11:22 PM

Interestingly, the AP distorts what Rather said in an incoherent sentence:

" Rather said he would not have gone ahead with the story Burkett admitted that the documents were not authentic. "

As is clear from Rather's quote later, what he said was that he would not have gone ahead with the story AS AIRED, a significant difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,marks
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 11:43 PM

Well

"One point Larry - Rather and CBS did not come out and say that the documents are false. They said they cannot prove the authenticity and that the confirm their sources.   It is a minor point."

Oh, OK then. And the only reason Dan Rather has not been arrested and tried for molesting mountain goats is that there is insufficient evidence to get a conviction.

Next time you watch CBS, put your cursor after the C and mentally press backspace. Won't change a thing, but at least you will have a laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 21 Sep 04 - 01:10 PM

A couple of more interesting details:

In Texas, as in many other states, there is a law that makes it a felony to create, modify or transmit official documents in order to create or verify false statements, conditions, or status. This is also true in the Federal system. You can bet there are prosecutors in both the State and Federal jurisdictions looking to cut the heart out of CBS, the Democrats who assisted Burkett, and anyone else involved in this mess.

And generally another State won't serve another States warrant unless the Governor of that states agrees, or there is an extradition hearing. But can you imagine if the Texas prosecutor starts serving grand jury supoenas to Kerry campaign workers in battleground states that have Republican Governors?   Watch the skies and wait...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 04 - 01:18 PM

So we're all going to be suckered according tot he flick of the GOP wrist into haring after Rather and the documents instead of the substantive issue, the ground truth about the weasel in the Air Guard?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 21 Sep 04 - 01:54 PM

Honestly. There's so far no evidence the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this. But Claymore calls for Grand Jury subpoenas.

He would obviously revel in such dirty tricks, because he wants Bush to win and does not care if the election is fair and legal.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Sep 04 - 02:01 PM

I heard a good point made today.   Bush actually confirmed the information in the documents was true.

When CBS first broadcast the story, the White never came out and said that the documents were forged. The word "probably" was used by Laura Bush. IF the information that the story contained was wrong, wouldn't they have been more emphatic and declared the documents false instead of "questioning" the authenticity of how the documents were created? IF Bush knew the information was a lie, they would have been all over it IMMEDIATELY. Instead they raised "questions".

If someone typed a story about me that I knew was false, I would be all over the details, not the paper it was printed on.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 21 Sep 04 - 05:14 PM

Sorry you wishful thinkers, but AP is reporting that Burkett "communicated several times with high ranking Kerry campaign officials" before he released the forged memos. One name out already is Max Cleland, but others in the Kerry campaign are sure to follow.

The old investigative motto during Watergate was "Follow the money"; I suspect that in in Memogate it will be "Follow the sleaze".

And Ron, to answer your question above; Hell no! If your political enemy was using forged documents to make any kind of a case against you, and you have experts telling you they are forged (which I'm sure Bush knew within twenty minutes of the broadcast), you stand back and watch the corrupt idiots fall on their swords. And you kill two really incompent birds with one stone, CBS and the Kerry campaign. It was masterful, and I bet Bush was a little ticked at Laura for almost giving it away.

And if you get a local Texas prosecutor to throw a grand jury supoena at Burkett for his computor and his email records, and at Kinkos for the fax records, the prospects are simply delicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Sep 04 - 05:31 PM

Very true Claymore. If this guy Burkett hoodwinked the Democrats and CBS, he is really good!   Just like the swift boat clowns that hoodwinked the Republicans.   Doesn't anyone check their sources anymore?   All this crap from both sides. Shameful.

If the Democrats thought the documents were real, then by all means they should have pushed to get it out.

This campaign makes me long for the days when the scandals centered around breaking and entering the Democratic Headquarters or trying to topple a president because of a blowjob.

By the way, Bush still has denied the facts that the documents alluded to. He probably can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Chris Green
Date: 21 Sep 04 - 05:36 PM

To be honest couldn't give a toss about Bush's war record thirty years ago. It's his current war record that scares the s**t out of me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Sep 04 - 05:40 PM

Nobody gives a "toss" about either candidates war record really. The sleaze behind it is what interests us!

So who is this "Lucy Ramirez" that gave Burkett the papers? Can you imagine if Karl Rove is attached to her?   This is going to get interesting....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 22 Sep 04 - 06:13 PM

For those of you who even care how this story developed, may I recommend USA Today article yesterday, if you can bring it up on their website. Apparently UT was the paper medium that Burkett was working with to get his forged documents out, and their story is an amazing one, with Burkett communicating with Joe Lockhart, the spokesman of the Kerry campaign after being connected with him through Mary Mapes, the CBS producer of the "60 Minutes" piece.

I suspect that the Kerry people had no knowledge that the documents were forged, but were looking for any fair wind to blow their way, only to watch the story explode in their faces, right after they made their statements, cued by Burkett, that this proved Bush's AWOL status.

It reminds me of the old saying "There was too much suger for the dime".

I think this one is over, no matter what the debates do, though I was suprised at Candy Crowley's comments that the Bush people agreed to three debates almost immediately. I hope that is not a sign of over-confindence, but hey, sally forth!

And if I'm right, you guys can look forward to a Hillary and ?, vs McCain and Gulianni in four    more    years...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 22 Sep 04 - 06:38 PM

You may be right, Claymore, but Kerry's folks will keep fightin'! As you say, I don't think they knew the documents were faked. If they did, they deserve to lose. But the country and the world still don't deserve four more years of Bush!