BS: Bush AWOL revisited

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!

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: 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: 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 - 05:31 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 14 Sep 04 - 12:06 PM

You sure have some strange tastes PDQ.

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: 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: 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: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 11:43 PM

drumroll please.

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:01 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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"?