"(2004-09-09) -- CBS reporter Dan Rather today released the text of a recently discovered email "from then-Lt. George W. Bush's Air National Guard commanding officer which casts more doubt upon the military service of the man who would become the 43rd President of the United States.The revelation of the email comes just hours after questions were raised about the authenticity of typewritten memos from the same officer, shown yesterday by Mr. Rather on 60 Minutes. According to the previously unseen email message sent in May 1972 by squadron commander Jerry Killian, Lt. Bush phoned Col. Killian because "his internet connection was on the fritz and he couldn't IM me." Lt. Bush apparently wanted to talk about "how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November." According to Col. Killian's email, the young Bush wanted to go to Alabama to work as webmaster for a Republican candidate's website. Mr. Rather.

--In case you don't know, e-mail did not exist in 1972.

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4596&R=9FCD2F192

http://dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

"(2004-09-09) -- CBS reporter Dan Rather today released the text of a recently discovered email "from then-Lt. George W. Bush's Air National Guard commanding officer which casts more doubt upon the military service of the man who would become the 43rd President of the United States.The revelation of the email comes just hours after questions were raised about the authenticity of typewritten memos from the same officer, shown yesterday by Mr. Rather on 60 Minutes. According to the previously unseen email message sent in May 1972 by squadron commander Jerry Killian, Lt. Bush phoned Col. Killian because "his internet connection was on the fritz and he couldn't IM me." Lt. Bush apparently wanted to talk about "how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November." According to Col. Killian's email, the young Bush wanted to go to Alabama to work as webmaster for a Republican candidate's website. Mr. Rather.

--In case you don't know, e-mail did not exist in 1972.


This is a joke, right?  We all know that e-mail didn't exist in 1972, and so does Dan Rather.  In fact, PC's didn't exist, only main frames.  Rather may be losing it, and is getting old, but this is sheer idiocy.  You can't be serious!

This is a joke, right?  We all know that e-mail didn't exist in 1972, and so does Dan Rather.  In fact, PC's didn't exist, only main frames.  Rather may be losing it, and is getting old, but this is sheer idiocy.  You can't be serious!


it's supposed to be a joke... at the expense of the memos Dan Rather aired last night that were from Bush's superior berating him for not showing up.  The claim is that a th character wasn't present on typewriters (it most definitely was available) and that proportional fonts weren't used on typewriters in the 1970s (some did, most didn't). 

The debunkers are quick to invent new excuses for the documents.  It's clearly possible that someone could forge them, but to think someone would be stupid enough to use Microsoft Word instead of buying a $5 typewriter at a garage sale to do it, is reaching for these people.  They shrink and stretch the heck out of the documents to make them fit over a Microsoft Word document, and then claim "aha! even though several of the letters and numbers don't match, it sort of looks like Times New Roman which Microsoft invented (despite it's existence for 50 years prior to the PC)"

This is a joke, right?  We all know that e-mail didn't exist in 1972, and so does Dan Rather.  In fact, PC's didn't exist, only main frames.  Rather may be losing it, and is getting old, but this is sheer idiocy.  You can't be serious!

That's what I'm saying about the $400 million dollar a year right-wing propaganda machine.  They will go to any length necessary to make their guy look innocent no matter how guilty he is, and the opposition look like thugs and idiots.  Even if it backfires and they themselvels end up looking like idiots, it doesn't matter.  By that time, they're on to the next attack.
This document makes no difference anyway.  Everyone knows Dubya was a rich kid who used family connections to pull ahead of the others trying to get into the National Guard.  
Thanks to Chucky for the link.  I only gave it a cursory read myself, but I'm including it in a file for my staff document analyst, Hugh K. Ayers.
;D

it's supposed to be a joke... at the expense of the memos Dan Rather aired last night that were from Bush's superior berating him for not showing up.  The claim is that a th character wasn't present on typewriters (it most definitely was available) and that proportional fonts weren't used on typewriters in the 1970s (some did, most didn't). 

The debunkers are quick to invent new excuses for the documents.  It's clearly possible that someone could forge them, but to think someone would be stupid enough to use Microsoft Word instead of buying a $5 typewriter at a garage sale to do it, is reaching for these people.  They shrink and stretch the heck out of the documents to make them fit over a Microsoft Word document, and then claim "aha! even though several of the letters and numbers don't match, it sort of looks like Times New Roman which Microsoft invented (despite it's existence for 50 years prior to the PC)"




Just another example of how the neocons distort reality to suite their political agenda - disgusting.

Just in case a real e-mail with an early date ever surfaces and folks are hot to dismiss it out of hand as a forgery, on date alone, I thought it might be worth pointing out that e-mail existed well prior to 1972. 


Yeah, but unless you could use it to order a keg or an eight-ball, or get out of the army, Dubya wouldn't be interested!
;D

Why don't they just ask Killian?



Because he died-I'm not too sure when.




Cat

Can't imagine why he'd have wanted to go to all the trouble of getting out, when he didn't have to bother showing up, at all.  I do have a question about the period of time Bush didn't bother showing up, that I haven't yet seen addressed, specifically -- did he continue to receive and cash military paychecks during that time?


I think it's been proven you only get paid when you showed up, and that part of the reason they can't prove he showed up, is the paymaster records for that time conviently disappeared.

Can you imagine what the national debate over Bush's service would sound like if Bush was a Democrat and Kerry was a Republican?  Wooo-hooo, you'd never hear the end of it.
::)

Can you imagine what the national debate over Bush's service would sound like if Bush was a Democrat and Kerry was a Republican?  Wooo-hooo, you'd never hear the end of it.
::)


well, we haven't heard the end of it as it is, so I think this is one of those cases where stupidity knows no party lines

"Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them"......

Boy, this sure adds new meaning to that title.

"Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them"......

Boy, this sure adds new meaning to that title.


Al Franken is an angry little p****.  He is mad that Michael Moore became the Rush Limbaugh of the left and not him.  His radio show is a bomb-out with him cheering about getting close to 30 stations (Limbaugh has 600, Hannity 470, O'Reilly 420, and NPR over 800.)  His radio show is like wrestling, its fun to watch/listen to every now and then and can be fun, but anyone who believes its real is a moron.

Try ''Al Franken is a buck-tooth moron.''

Al Franken is an angry little p****.  He is mad that Michael Moore became the Rush Limbaugh of the left and not him.  His radio show is a bomb-out with him cheering about getting close to 30 stations (Limbaugh has 600, Hannity 470, O'Reilly 420, and NPR over 800.)  His radio show is like wrestling, its fun to watch/listen to every now and then and can be fun, but anyone who believes its real is a moron.

Try ''Al Franken is a buck-tooth moron.''

I like him. What of it?  He exposes the lies of the right-wing blowhard media (Limbaugh, Hannity,  O'Reilly, etc.), and those guys on the Right lie all the time.  It just takes a few hardy souls to stand up and say, "hey, the emporer has no clothes..."  Franken invites other media freedom fighters on his program, such as Joe Conason, David Brock, Paul Krugman, and Eric Alterman as guests.  Of course the right-wing spinmeisters hate all these guys because nobody likes to be shown up as a liar.

On the other hand, I don't know why you seem so perturbed by Mr. Franken.  Hardly anybody hears the guy!

So it seems every reason for the papers being forged have been basically wiped out.  Now it's is down
to "I know he was the type of guy who wouldn't write a memo like that"  But the documentary evidence
shows that the document could have been written on an IBM Selectric, and anyone who worked in
an office in the 70's knows that that was the typewriter of choice.  The typeface matches typeface from
other records in the Texas National Guard at the same period in time.  Now can we get on with the
dismal economic picture, the further entrenchment in a no-win war, and since today is September 11
remember who it was who engineered this horrid incident, Osama(now you see me, now you don't)
Bin Laden.

http://dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603


Hang on, it turns out the Daily Kos article might not be telling the whole story, either. There's other proof that the documents might be forgeries, like Killian's widow and son saying that he couldn't have written them:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200409100809.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

The documents are forged, the democrats will never accept it though.  And lets pretend they are real, just a few weeks ago they were saying ''yeah so what, that was a very long time ago'' when it came to Kerry and his Vietnam service.  Dam* hypocrites.

The documents are forged, the democrats will never accept it though.  And lets pretend they are real, just a few weeks ago they were saying ''yeah so what, that was a very long time ago'' when it came to Kerry and his Vietnam service.  Dam* hypocrites.


Take a nap GW, you're getting cranky. The documents don't tell us anything we didn't know anyway.

Al Franken is an angry little p****.  He is mad that Michael Moore became the Rush Limbaugh of the left and not him.  His radio show is a bomb-out with him cheering about getting close to 30 stations (Limbaugh has 600, Hannity 470, O'Reilly 420, and NPR over 800.)  His radio show is like wrestling, its fun to watch/listen to every now and then and can be fun, but anyone who believes its real is a moron.

Try ''Al Franken is a buck-tooth moron.''


Michael Moore is not the Rush Limbaugh of the left.  The left has no such person.  Even Rush Limbaugh is not the "Rush Limbaugh" of the right, anymore... he's become just one parrot in a tree of plenty.  Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host.  Michael Moore is a documentary film/television maker.  Al Franken is a comedian, author venturing into talk radio as so many other comedians and authors have done.  He's not motivated by anger at Michael Moore any more than Bill O'Reilly is motivated by anger at Rush Limbaugh.  If Franken is motivated by anger at anything, it is probably anger at the things he rails against. 

Michael Moore is a documentary film/television maker. 


What!?  ''Fahrenheit 9/11'' is a left-wing propaganda paranoid conspiracy film disguised as a ''documentary.''  Its nothing more then heavily edited video clips and sound bites woven together by Michael Moron, with his demagogic narration, omitting all those incovenient details (in other words, the facts.)

What!?  ''Fahrenheit 9/11'' is a left-wing propaganda paranoid conspiracy film disguised as a ''documentary.''  Its nothing more then heavily edited video clips and sound bites woven together by Michael Moron, with his demagogic narration, omitting all those incovenient details (in other words, the facts.)

Brit Hume does the same thing every evening.

The documents are forged, the democrats will never accept it though.  And lets pretend they are real, just a few weeks ago they were saying ''yeah so what, that was a very long time ago'' when it came to Kerry and his Vietnam service.  Dam* hypocrites.


The documents are real, the right wing will never accept it though.  And let's pretend they are fake,
just a few weeks ago the were saying"yeah, so what, that was a very long time ago"  when it came
to Bush and his National Guard Service and failed business ventures. Dam* hypocrites.

Screw the national guard crap, if the democrats want to play on that field, they'll lose.  This is what, I think the fifth time they brought it up now.  If you want to destroy Bush's character it won't work, the American people had 4 years to know who Bush is, so any character assassination attempts will fail on Bush but work for Kerry, someone the American people don't know.

Screw the national guard crap, if the democrats want to play on that field, they'll lose.  This is what, I think the fifth time they brought it up now.  If you want to destroy Bush's character it won't work, the American people had 4 years to know who Bush is, so any character assassination attempts will fail on Bush but work for Kerry, someone the American people don't know.



But Kerry's Vietnam record is ok to bring up?


You are right that the American people has had 4 years to know who Bush is-that is why many of us want him out of office. As for character assassination, it seems that it is ok when it is done to Kerry but not ok when it is done to Bush. And I don't think that character assassination attempts on Bush are necessary-his record does that all by itself.



Cat

Screw the national guard crap, if the democrats want to play on that field, they'll lose.  This is what, I think the fifth time they brought it up now.  If you want to destroy Bush's character it won't work, the American people had 4 years to know who Bush is, so any character assassination attempts will fail on Bush but work for Kerry, someone the American people don't know.

Oh, they WILL lose, no question about that.  Dems are outspent on propaganda by hundreds of times.  It's nothing but distraction from a presidency with nothing to show but lies and incompetence.
Every dumb redneck gets media access to trash John Kerry.

They say Kerry brought it on himself.  Perhaps.  Undeniably Bush brought it on himself too.  The Republicans just would not shut up about how hot-to-trot they were for the military and how much they loved all things martial.  It's only a matter of course the opposition would say, "Hey, wait a minute, you guys didn't even go to war when you had the chance.  In fact, you did your d*mndest to stay out!"

And the idea that Kerry calculated his service to sparkle for a political career.  Yeah, I want a great future in politics, so I'll skipper a tiny tin boat into enemy territory I'll likely be killed.  Makes a lot of sense!

The problem with the whole right-wing movement in this country is that it is designed to tell guys like GWBush2004 exactly what they want to hear.  Beware of any man who always tells you what you want to hear.

The progressives/liberals are starting to build their own message machine to counter the right-wing, but unfortunately, it will take 30 years to succeed.  We ain't got 30 years!

The documents are forged, the democrats will never accept it though.  And lets pretend they are real, just a few weeks ago they were saying ''yeah so what, that was a very long time ago'' when it came to Kerry and his Vietnam service.  Dam* hypocrites.


Anyone who has been paying attention knows that whether or not these documents were forged (and by the way, how can you be so certain?) or not, Lil' Georgie DID fail to take his required pilots' physical, and did  get out early to attend Harvard.  My guess is that he refused the physical because it would have revealed cocane use, to which some of his Texas buddies attested.  Evan conservative Tucker Carlson (?) admitts that Georgie got a boost getting into the guard and did so because he didn't want to go to Vietnam.

And I can't think of anyone who has said of Kerry "so what, that was a long time ago", or has proven that he didn't deserve the medals he recieved.  In that light I notice that the swifties have shifed their attacks to his post service anti-war activities.  Those, at least, are accurate.

Let me add that even Georgie has said that he accomplkished nothing before he was 41 (except banging every bimbo in Texas - which, I'm told, has lots of them).

That O'Neil creep is still hawking his book about Kerry's record in the war.  It's disappointing to see Book TV courting him, but c'est la vie.  You'll notice, however, most of the right-wing goons are exchanging the rant about Kerry's record during the war for a rant about Kerry's activities after the war.
The sing-song goes, "It's not what John Kerry did during the war, but what John Kerry did after the war that betrayed veterans and blah blah blah blah...." (retch retch retch)
:P

That O'Neil creep is still hawking his book about Kerry's record in the war.  It's disappointing to see Book TV courting him, but c'est la vie.  You'll notice, however, most of the right-wing goons are exchanging the rant about Kerry's record during the war for a rant about Kerry's activities after the war.
The sing-song goes, "It's not what John Kerry did during the war, but what John Kerry did after the war that betrayed veterans and blah blah blah blah...." (retch retch retch)
:P


Saaaay!! you may be on to something here.  Maybe, just maybe, this isn't about John Kerry during the
Viet War, maybe it's dirty politics.  Character assassination of a person who signed up and put his life
on the line, and now 30 years later there are big questions about his motive behind turning his boat
around and saving the life of a brother, and whether or not he bled enough, as if being there wasn't
enough. Hmmmm opinions of what he did while at war 30 years ago by guys who weren't there when
he was, or politics.... one wonders. ;)

Saaaay!! you may be on to something here.  Maybe, just maybe, this isn't about John Kerry during the
Viet War, maybe it's dirty politics.  Character assassination of a person who signed up and put his life
on the line, and now 30 years later there are big questions about his motive behind turning his boat
around and saving the life of a brother, and whether or not he bled enough, as if being there wasn't
enough. Hmmmm opinions of what he did while at war 30 years ago by guys who weren't there when
he was, or politics.... one wonders. ;)




You think?  ???




Cat

Hang on, it turns out the Daily Kos article might not be telling the whole story, either. There's other proof that the documents might be forgeries, like Killian's widow and son saying that he couldn't have written them:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200409100809.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp


national review? sorry, that's not a source, it's an opinion piece. 

The widow and son clearly watched everything the father did when he was at work right?  I know I would come home at the end of the day and tell my wife every little minute detail of my job, especially if I held a post that required confidentality. 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/12/new_doubt_cast_on_guard_documents

The letter matches up to one typed on an IBM Selectric.  That's fact, it's been tested.  It may still be questionable if it's a forgery, but so far most of the arguments for a forgery have turned out to be fairly ridiculous. 

A couple things...

First, GWBush04:

Quote from: GWBush2004 on September 11, 2004, 01:44:23 AM



Al Franken is an angry little p****.  He is mad that Michael Moore became the Rush Limbaugh of the left and not him.  His radio show is a bomb-out with him cheering about getting close to 30 stations (Limbaugh has 600, Hannity 470, O'Reilly 420, and NPR over 800.)  His radio show is like wrestling, its fun to watch/listen to every now and then and can be fun, but anyone who believes its real is a moron.

Try ''Al Franken is a buck-tooth moron.''



Where does NPR fit into your scheme of conservative news sources? National Public radio is irrelevant here. I listen to it everyday and as far as I can tell it is the least biased of any American news service. It has its faults, sure, but I wouldn't count it as part of the Right-wing propaganda machine.

Secondly...

Is everyone too busy reading too much into these two war records that they can no longer see the vital surfaces? Kerry, an anti-war activist, was called to duty and even though he was of a prominent family, he went anyway. Regardless of what he did there or what he did afterwards, HE WENT.

In contrast, Bush, the no bullsh*t, gun-slingin' cowboy from Texas (and by Texas, I mean Connecticut), was called to duty and he took the coward's way out and had daddy get him in the national guard (a cakewalk compared to being in the sh*t somewhere in Danang). Hey, it was either that or go to Canada, and daddy had blossoming political career plans, so national guard it would have to have been.

Hmm... One man answers his country's call even though he didn't agree, and the other took the easy way out.... Let us all think on this for a moment.

A couple things...

First, GWBush04:



Where does NPR fit into your scheme of conservative news sources? National Public radio is irrelevant here. I listen to it everyday and as far as I can tell it is the least biased of any American news service. It has its faults, sure, but I wouldn't count it as part of the Right-wing propaganda machine.
In their news reporting, I find NPR to be very obedient to the military-industrial complex on political matters.  They don't cheerlead for the military-corporate P.O.V. like Fox News and the Washington Times, but they don't do much to challenge it in their news.
Socially, I find NPR cautiously liberal.  And I don't know where Bill O'Reilly hears NPR endorsing Fidel Castro, except in the paranoid closed-circuit broadcasts between his own neruons.

Secondly...

Is everyone too busy reading too much into these two war records that they can no longer see the vital surfaces? Kerry, an anti-war activist, was called to duty and even though he was of a prominent family, he went anyway. Regardless of what he did there or what he did afterwards, HE WENT.

In contrast, Bush, the no bullsh*t, gun-slingin' cowboy from Texas (and by Texas, I mean Connecticut), was called to duty and he took the coward's way out and had daddy get him in the national guard (a cakewalk compared to being in the sh*t somewhere in Danang). Hey, it was either that or go to Canada, and daddy had blossoming political career plans, so national guard it would have to have been.

Hmm... One man answers his country's call even though he didn't agree, and the other took the easy way out.... Let us all think on this for a moment.

Like I say, Kerry deliberately sought out dangerous duty.  It was no accident he wound up skippering a SWIFT boat in the Mekong delta.  Would you do that?  I wouldn't do that!  Heck of a way to "calculate" heroism!  SWIFT boating on the Mekong wasn't quite as dangerous as trolling those tunnels, but you were floating up the river on a little piece of tin with Charlie on all sides.  Goofing off in the Alabama National Guard it was not!
Oh, and if Kerry "accidentally" fired a grenade launcher in the boat, we wouldn't be having this debate!  You'd KNOW Kerry was lying then...lying in Arlington National Cemetery!  At least, the parts of him they could scrape off the shrapnel-riddled boat!

IMnot soHO, while Bush's war record is an issue, as is Kerry's, the real issues have to do with Bush's failure in Iraq, failure on jobs, failure on the deficit (a don't tax and spend Republican), the environment (Clean Skies, but more pollution) etc.  The war stuff has to do with character, which matters, as does lying.  This is mostly a distraction.

To me, the authenticity of these documents is seriously in question.

I am nost sure how many of you have typed, but in the military, it was still common until the mide 1980's.  And while I typed a great many things for Officers I worked for, I can't ever remember seeing an officer type his/her own memos.

On 60 Minutes tonight, Dan interviewed the secretary of the supposed author of the documents.  She admitted that she did not type them, and had never seen them before their release by CBS news.  In fact, she herself declaired them to be forgeries!

Add to that the question about the type used.  While several document experts have stated that they would be anachronistic to equipment available at the time, others say that they were possible.  In fact, some of the minute details were first done with Microsoft Word 97.  To me, the telling thing is people who have shown how it was not possible without modern computers.

We have had at least 2 cases of people who have duplicated the creation with modern computers.  However, we have yet to have anybody recreate them on vintage equipment.  Until somebody can show a typewriter in use by the Texas National Guard (or any other branch of the US Military) can recreate them, they should be treated as forgeries.

To me, the authenticity of these documents is seriously in question.

I am nost sure how many of you have typed, but in the military, it was still common until the mide 1980's.  And while I typed a great many things for Officers I worked for, I can't ever remember seeing an officer type his/her own memos.

On 60 Minutes tonight, Dan interviewed the secretary of the supposed author of the documents.  She admitted that she did not type them, and had never seen them before their release by CBS news.  In fact, she herself declaired them to be forgeries!

Add to that the question about the type used.  While several document experts have stated that they would be anachronistic to equipment available at the time, others say that they were possible.  In fact, some of the minute details were first done with Microsoft Word 97.  To me, the telling thing is people who have shown how it was not possible without modern computers.

We have had at least 2 cases of people who have duplicated the creation with modern computers.  However, we have yet to have anybody recreate them on vintage equipment.  Until somebody can show a typewriter in use by the Texas National Guard (or any other branch of the US Military) can recreate them, they should be treated as forgeries.

These documents don't make a dime's worth of political difference.  There is a conspiracy theory that the Bush campaign is behind the whole thing.  There's not a shred of evidence to support this theory, but when you've got a $400 million dollar a year propaganda machine behind you, you can make a lot of trouble silently and seamlessly.  I wouldn't put it past them.

Dan Rather is a liberal.  John Kerry is a liberal.  If liberals seem ineffectual and weak, there's a good reason.  Liberals are out of power in the U.S.A., and they have that great Republican Noise Machine conspiring against them around the clock!

Premonitions tell me Bush is going to win big in November, and win outright, no funny business.  This is not a good thing.  It's the worst thing possible for our republic.  Maybe we don't deserve democracy anymore.  Within two years of a second GW Bush administration, America will be in an unprecedented Constitutional crisis.

These documents don't make a dime's worth of political difference.  There is a conspiracy theory that the Bush campaign is behind the whole thing.


OK, let me see if I understand this...

These questionable documents appear, saying that Bush is a fraud and a phony.  They claim that he used political influence to get in the Guard.  They also claim that he refused to obey orders.

And you believe Bush is behind them?

That makes about as much sense as saying Kerry is secretly behind the Swiftboats group.

VISA should've featured his sorry @ss on one of thier commercials...."Look On Dan Rathers Face When Bush WON in 2000....PRICELESS!!)

OK, let me see if I understand this...

These questionable documents appear, saying that Bush is a fraud and a phony.  They claim that he used political influence to get in the Guard.  They also claim that he refused to obey orders.

And you believe Bush is behind them?

That makes about as much sense as saying Kerry is secretly behind the Swiftboats group.

I don't necessarily believe it's a right-wing double bluff.  I just said said I wouldn't put it past them.  Like I said, you have a $400 million a year industry dedicated to retaining and advancing the  interests of the capitalist elites.  Their most important goal right now is "reelecting" Dubya.  Secondary is, as always, making the media look:
a. Liberally biased.
b. Incompetent
Dan Rather, as a doddering old anchorman, and the personification of "liberal media" is a perfect mark. 
Like I say, there's no evidence at all.  But give me the power of groups such as the Heritage Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, Richard Mellon-Scaife, and so forth, and I can create a distracting conspiracy out of thin air. 
Do I really the right-wing propaganda machine is behind "file-gate"?  I can't say for sure, but I can say it's possible.
No, I don't think Bush himself is behind it.  He's way to too dumb.

BTW, if Kerry had confused Osama with Saddam repeatedly in the same speech as did Rumsfeld, it would receive top billing on Fox.  As it is, only Jon Stewart is playing it up.

LIBERAL MEDIA NOT EVEN GOOD AT BEING LIBERAL

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409150002

It's the Conservative News Network after all!
::)

To me, the authenticity of these documents is seriously in question.

I am nost sure how many of you have typed, but in the military, it was still common until the mide 1980's.  And while I typed a great many things for Officers I worked for, I can't ever remember seeing an officer type his/her own memos.

On 60 Minutes tonight, Dan interviewed the secretary of the supposed author of the documents.  She admitted that she did not type them, and had never seen them before their release by CBS news.  In fact, she herself declaired them to be forgeries!



But you left out the most important part.  She also said that WHAT THE MEMOS SAY is essentially true, which means the Bush did defy a direct order, and did have "higher ups" running protection for him.

I also wonder how this elderly woman can remember every document she typed 30 years ago - remarkable.  I'm not as old as she, and have a good memory, but I need to re-read what I typed on this board YESTERDAY.

OK, I think it's time everyone admitted that those documents are fake. Just about every prominent news organization and commentator has adopted that position, and Killian's secretary herself has come out and said that they're not genuine. Even CBS has conceded that the authenticity of the documents might be doubtful:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/politics/main643987.shtml

So it looks as if in the end, Dan Rather and CBS were wrong, and (as much as I hate to admit it) the conservative blogs like Powerline and freerepublic.com were right.

But you left out the most important part.  She also said that WHAT THE MEMOS SAY is essentially true, which means the Bush did defy a direct order, and did have "higher ups" running protection for him.

I also wonder how this elderly woman can remember every document she typed 30 years ago - remarkable.  I'm not as old as she, and have a good memory, but I need to re-read what I typed on this board YESTERDAY.


During my time in the Service, I typed many hundreds of memos, orders, and policy letters.  And while I can't remember all of them, there are things that I know which would tell me if one is real, even 20 years later.

The first memos I typed were in 1984.  These were on an IBM Selectric "Ball" typewriter.  They were all on a letterhead.

In 1988, I did a lot of typing.  These would be easy to spot, because of how they were written.  This was right BEFORE the Marines stopped useing a "typist code", which said who had typed them.  And this was right as the Marines were computerizing.  Short memos were done on a typewriter.  Documents from January to about March 1988 were mostly done on an "IBM Displaywriter", with a "Daisy wheel" type head.  Starting in March, documents were also done on a PC, with an Alps P2000 dot matrix printer.

In 1989, I moved to another position.  The documents I did then were done on another PC with an ALPS printer.  Then in 1990, we got an ANYUK computer, with a specialized Okidata 9 pin dot matrix printer.  And during those times, other things changed the way memos were written.

I have no doubt that if I was handed a memo I was supposed to have written, I could give a good idea if it is real or not.  Also remember, I was somewhat anachronistic.  As a Corporal, I spoke to Officers in the thrid person.  I was also taking night courses in English, and worked unusually hard to make sure that they were phrased correctly.  I even remember getting into a small arguement with my Lieutenant over the spelling of "theatre".  He insisted it was "Theater".  We were both right.  However, any document I typed had it spelled "theatre.  8)

So while exact documents may not be remembered, things like style are memorable.  Also things like the approximate time that things like "typist codes" stopped being used stand out.

But if the memos are fake, why should we believe them?  And here is a shock, there are politics in every military unit.  I even had a Captain once apologize to me for not running interferance when a Lieutenant placed unfavorable remarks against me in my service record.  He then went out of his way to make sure I got my promotion (which was delayed by these remarks), and to make sure that the Lieutenant did not give me unfair duties and orders in the future.  This Lieutenant was great at making me work 18 hour days, then when things were late blaiming me for them.  Or when his reports that I typed did not give the Commanding Officer of the Battalion the information he needed, I was blamed.  Never mind that I pointed this out the the Lieutenant beforehand, he wanted the reports to make him look good, not be accurate.  This is when I started to hand a coppy of them to HIS superior officer (the Captain we both worked for).

There are "Politics" everywhere.  But I do not take credit in documents that are forgeries.  To me, if the evidence is questionable, so are the charges.  And no, this is not me being partaisan.  False evidence is false evidence.

There are "Politics" everywhere.  But I do not take credit in documents that are forgeries.  To me, if the evidence is questionable, so are the charges.  And no, this is not me being partaisan.  False evidence is false evidence.

All OTHER evidence points to the veracity of the information stated in the documents.

If I carve out a hieroglyphic tablet stating "The Sky Is Blue" and claim it's from ancient Egypt, will the sky turn green?
:D

Well, it seems that CBS is finally comming out and admitting that the documents are frauds.  In fact, CBS is even going as far as giving up their source, something that news agencies almost never do.

It seems that the source is Bill Burkett.  This has been suspected for over a week from sources like NewsMax, but I did not post them here because according to some people, they are not "real news".

Bill Burkett is one of the nutcases that blames Bush for everything.  And he is hardly a "neutral source", who is not involved in politics.

Bill Burkett has a long history of creating documents to fulfill his own agenda.  He is the source of Michael Moore's claims that George Bush is AWOL.  Those have been proven false over and over again.  He even brags about creating the documents that claim Bush is a deserter:

"I know from your files that we have now reassembled, the fact that you did not fulfill your oath, taken when you were commissioned to "obey the orders of the officers appointed over you,"

Notice the use of the word "reassembled".  He did not say "collected", or "acquired", they were reassembled.  In other words, manufactured.  He even accused Bush of destroying his own records and claimed that he was sent to Panama without medical care by order of then Governor Bush in retribution for his refusal to change records.  After making these allegations for years, they were finally revealed to be false, and Bill Burkett himself has since recanted these claims.

What I find most amazing is how some people continue to believe them.  The more information comes out, the more it just plain stinks.

FYI: I no more believe these reports then I do the most outrageous claims of the "Swiftboat" veterans.  But I find it amazing that I am told I should believe NONE of their claims, but ALL of these claims.  In other words, I am being told to turn off my brain and believe whatever I am told.  This is not 2004, it is 1984.

Here are a few links about Bill Burkett.  The top 2 links are for editorials that he himself wrote and posted.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/what_do_you_say_032203.htm
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/082504Burkett/082504burkett.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/Archive/200409/POL20040914a.html

Well, it seems that CBS is finally comming out and admitting that the documents are frauds.  In fact, CBS is even going as far as giving up their source, something that news agencies almost never do.

It seems that the source is Bill Burkett.  This has been suspected for over a week from sources like NewsMax, but I did not post them here because according to some people, they are not "real news".

Bill Burkett is one of the nutcases that blames Bush for everything.  And he is hardly a "neutral source", who is not involved in politics.

Bill Burkett has a long history of creating documents to fulfill his own agenda.  He is the source of Michael Moore's claims that George Bush is AWOL.  Those have been proven false over and over again.  He even brags about creating the documents that claim Bush is a deserter:

"I know from your files that we have now reassembled, the fact that you did not fulfill your oath, taken when you were commissioned to "obey the orders of the officers appointed over you,"

Notice the use of the word "reassembled".  He did not say "collected", or "acquired", they were reassembled.  In other words, manufactured.  He even accused Bush of destroying his own records and claimed that he was sent to Panama without medical care by order of then Governor Bush in retribution for his refusal to change records.  After making these allegations for years, they were finally revealed to be false, and Bill Burkett himself has since recanted these claims.

What I find most amazing is how some people continue to believe them.  The more information comes out, the more it just plain stinks.

FYI: I no more believe these reports then I do the most outrageous claims of the "Swiftboat" veterans.  But I find it amazing that I am told I should believe NONE of their claims, but ALL of these claims.  In other words, I am being told to turn off my brain and believe whatever I am told.  This is not 2004, it is 1984.

Here are a few links about Bill Burkett.  The top 2 links are for editorials that he himself wrote and posted.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/what_do_you_say_032203.htm
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/082504Burkett/082504burkett.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/Archive/200409/POL20040914a.html


Yep.  Its a bad day for cBS and the Kerry campaign.

Yep.  Its a bad day for cBS and the Kerry campaign.


Well, I do not think this has any affect on Kerry.  After all, this does nothing to make Bush look good.  It only reveals the fact that the attacks on him were false, made by a nutcase with a mental axe to grind.

It does nothing to make Kerry look bad, so it should have no impact on him at all.  I can't see people going "Oh, those memos about Bush are false, I am going to vote for him now".

Yep.  Its a bad day for cBS and the Kerry campaign.


First, CBS did not admit the documents are forged, only that they can't prove their authenticity.  Small point, but we should try to be accurate. 

Second, the Kerry campaign had nothing to do with the CBS report.

Third, while Killian's secretary didn't remember typing the docs, she did say that they accurately reflected Killian's thinking.  I posted that before, but you ignored it.  So these probable forgeries aside, Bush did get in through special influence, did refuse to take his flight qualifying physical, and was delinquent in filling his responsibility, honorable discharge or not.

So these probable forgeries aside, Bush did get in through special influence


So did Gore.  So did JFK, before he was caught in bed with a German spy by the FBI.  So did Lincoln's son.  This is the way things are.  I may not like it, but if I could I would probably have done the same thing myself.

So did Gore.  So did JFK, before he was caught in bed with a German spy by the FBI.  So did Lincoln's son.  This is the way things are.  I may not like it, but if I could I would probably have done the same thing myself.


So its ok for the priviledged to shirk their duty while the rest of us pay the price for their folly?  "The way things are" isn't the way they have to be.

So its ok for the priviledged to shirk their duty while the rest of us pay the price for their folly?  "The way things are" isn't the way they have to be.


Okay how can the democrats attack Bush's guard service after eight years of defending draft-dodging Clinton.

So its ok for the priviledged to shirk their duty while the rest of us pay the price for their folly?  "The way things are" isn't the way they have to be.


The difference is, I accept both the world and human nature for how they are.

I volunteered for the military, and served proudly for 10 years.  Yes, I saw people who shirked their duties.  I see the same thing in private enterprise since I left also.  So what?

FYI: I do not recall you saying you were a Vietnam Vet.  Nothing personal, but how have you had to pay for people like Clinton, Gore, and Bush recieving special privlidges?

I find it strange that people scream about Bush, who *did* volunteer, and who *did* serve.  Yet they are quiet on the stunt Clinton did with the ROTC.  I do not like double standards.  If you ask me, Joining ROTC to be ineligable for the draft, then walking away without ever having attended a single drill session is much worse.  But what would I know?

I think all this Vietnam and who-served-when-where-how stuff is distracting from the important issues at hand...and I don't give a frog's fat @ss who brought it up!
>:(

The difference is, I accept both the world and human nature for how they are.

I volunteered for the military, and served proudly for 10 years.  Yes, I saw people who shirked their duties.  I see the same thing in private enterprise since I left also.  So what?

FYI: I do not recall you saying you were a Vietnam Vet.  Nothing personal, but how have you had to pay for people like Clinton, Gore, and Bush recieving special privlidges?

I find it strange that people scream about Bush, who *did* volunteer, and who *did* serve.  Yet they are quiet on the stunt Clinton did with the ROTC.  I do not like double standards.  If you ask me, Joining ROTC to be ineligable for the draft, then walking away without ever having attended a single drill session is much worse.  But what would I know?


Actually, I was called up for a physical in 1968, but was rejected because I was measured at 6'3'' and weighed in at 120lbs. and so flunked the physical.  I was actually 6" +/- and weighed 130 but the scales and ruler were off to get all those short fat dudes in.  So the army didn't want me.  Being it was 1968, I wasn't about to complain.

I'm not sure how Clinton's behaviour was "much worse" than actually joining the guard  and disobying direct orders from a superior officer, but I have no interest in defending Bubba, who isn't even running for dog catcher. 

But I agree with Cheer, why are we wasting all this time on history?  Its the last 4 years that matter, and what has lil" Georgie accomplished that is positive, either domestically or in world affairs?