|
Democrats accuse Bush of lying about his Air National Guard service (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| smokeape |
Even if Kerry was a genuine war hero and Bush wasn't, I don't really care. That war was over 30 years ago and their service has no relevance for either candidate's ability to lead the nation today. Both were warts on a frog's ass in world events back then. Their actions since then has particular relevance. Bush is leading the modern war on terror and Kerry has voted against every major military weapons system as well. Good thing Kerry was the minority, else we wouldn't have the weapons at hand to fight Gulf War I and the GWOT.
:p
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| imokruok |
| Fakes. It's funny that the Democrats have to make something up to get a hit on Bush, whereas the Republicans have been hanging John Kerry with his own words for months. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Fakes. It's funny that the Democrats have to make something up to get a hit on Bush, whereas the Republicans have been hanging John Kerry with his own words for months. |
YEA...it is funny how they accuse the republicans of playing dirty/ridiculing/hassling John Kerry when all they simply do is quote him on his past remarks |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Fakes. It's funny that the Democrats have to make something up to get a hit on Bush, whereas the Republicans have been hanging John Kerry with his own words for months. |
It wasnt made up .. Unlike the Veterans for truth.. lol |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
It wasnt made up .. Unlike the Veterans for truth.. lol |
Watch Nightline on ABC tonight. I just read that ABC is getting ready to rip CBS a new one over this.
And the Washington Post is questioning them on Page A1 tomorrow morning.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2004Sep9_2.html |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
I've read a number of blogs on both sides, and it seems that it's becoming more likely ATM that they might be forgeries. It is known that typewriters were able to type superscript at that time, and the spacing is also easily performed, though it's somewhat difficult to state that all questionable factors within the documents are ALL likely.
With that said, CBS sticks firmly by their story, and the White House is completely mum. I would think that the White House would have something to say about this by now. It is interesting who originally posted the "fake" claim for Drudge:
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=291
though that states nothing about the content. What needs to be known now is the exact whereabouts of the origin from which CBS obtained these documents.
Regardless, even if these documents ARE fake, it is a side issue to the crux of Bush failing to provide the following:
-Records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot
-Any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot
-Any photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972
-Anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it
-Any copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance
-Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet)
-The contents of his UIF (Unfavorable Information File w/results from grounding)
-Anything proving service (not just receipt of pay) by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
I don't care if he went AWOL,This really won't be a big deciding factor among the public. This story has no BIG BUZZ..other than the NY TIMES and BOSTON GLOBE hyping it up. Fact of the matter is he could have been laying on a beach on South Padre Island smoking hash. |
So you base your issues solely upon the popularity of those issues with the public?
To be honest, I've always stated that either candidate's military service is a side issue, however 3 weeks of Kerry's balls being dragged over the coals vs. scant coverage of Bush's truly questionable military record is hardly fair coverage by that darn "liberal" media to me.
If there's any issue to be taken out of this it is about character or a lack thereof. On the whole, however, if we took apart every single politician we would find just as much, if not worse questions of character for them all. So again, it truly is a side issue to me, but I do feel strongly about the time of coverage for each opponent.
| quote: | | I could care less, he has a track record as President and Kerry has a track record that he can't run on because it has no consistency except to note that it is a very liberal voting record when he was there to vote (about 1/4 of the time). |
You expect him to NOT vote liberal? He is running on the Democratic ticket, right? Now I could go over some of his issues that were certainly not necessarily liberal - working with McCain to normalize Vietnam relations, uncovering the BCCE bank affair, busting Iran/Contra, voting almost all pro-military support and Defense spending since 1997 (prior to that he was sizing down the military post-cold war era for fiscal responsibility, from which Bush I and Cheney also agreed to quite often), just to name a few.
But your statement about Bush having a presidential track record vs. Kerry's track record is a little fallacious to me. That would entail that Bush Sr. should have won, as should Jimmy Carter, or any other 1-term only president.
I also find the argument of Kerry being inconsistent pretty weak at best. We've gone over this before in the "Kerry the Dolphin" thread, and Occ pointed out the myriad of issues that Bush has flip-flopped over. Perhaps we should just accept the concept that times change, and the policies that a politician adheres to are also subject to change and taken in full context at that time. Oh sure, Kerry's doesn't necessarily smell like roses, but we could easily compare flip-flop records of both candidates and conclude that they're both "hypocritical".
| quote: | | Bush also didn't come back from the ANG to testify in front of congress falsely accusing his fellow soldiers of war crimes and atrocities and meeting with NV officials while he was still in the Uniform of the United States Navy. |
Well neither did Kerry:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244
You know better than that, Speed. We've been over this before. His speech regarding the atrocities were quite true, whether or not you or any other conservative wants to acknowledge events like the My Lai and Tiger Force massacres. And he wasn't accusing his soldiers of anything, rather, he WAS accusing his government of passing down orders that were against the Geneva Conventions.
| quote: | | There is a reason why John Kerry is enshrined in the Vietnamese Museum of War Heroes, John Kerry helped them to win a war against the US. |
I see nothing wrong with the Vietnamese thanking anyone for ending the war. They had millions of people die as well. Though I think their thougths to anti-war activists like Kerry are misplaced, they wanted to end the war just as badly.
You really want an enemy of that ridiculous war, blame Johnson and Nixon (to a smaller extent) for their atrocious war policies. If anything, people like Kerry helped prevent more soldiers lives being lost (which BTW is what a number of CONSERVATIVE politicians believed at that time too).
| quote: | | I agree but I still think the damage on Kerry would of been less if he didnt make it the center of his campaign and about 80% of his acceptance speech |
Well once again if you've actually read over his acceptance speech you'd realize he barely even mentions his Vietnam War record (aside of his cheesy salute at the beginning and maybe 2 references to his leadership as a navy officer). But yeah, I do agree he overplayed his hand afterwards on this whole bit.
| quote: | | Well for some reason he wants to dwell on the past and the GOP will enjoy playing this game. I see more 527s attacking Kerry because he wants to attack the past of Bush. It goes hand and hand if the Kerry campaign wants to continue attacking Bush's service. |
Well now if you've listened to any of Kerry's stump speeches lately, you'd realize that he's stear cleared of any Vietnam record instances on both himself and Bush. He has clearly shifted his rhetoric to present day issues, which is what he needed to do like 2 wks. ago.
The 527's, though are a different story. I won't pretend that they have a heavy connection with the candidates on either side. But they are "independent" of either campaign. Kerry himself hasn't mentioned anything about Bush's service lately, just the same as Bush shying away from Kerry's service when all that Smear Boat crap was going on.
| quote: | Remember this is the actual campaign and lawsuits against Bush here.
here is a quote that is being used to attack BUSH:
"On this date I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination ... as ordered," says an Aug. 1, 1972 memo by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who is now dead.
And this 30 year old information has what to do with today and the issues we face? |
These are 527's, Speed. Unless you hear the words, "I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message", then it's entirely independent of Kerry's campaign.
Just like the Smear Boaters were entirely independent of Bush's.
| quote: | You know what? I could care less who went to Vietnam and who didn't now...Im tired of it and im sure the public is as well. Kerry has even flipped flopped on campaigning...HE SAID he wanted to run a nice nonnegative campaign at his acceptance speech and/or other speechs...now he is derailing from that. Bush HAS NEVER made any issue over his service (or lack there of) and HAS NEVER questioned Kerry's service record.
Kerry made it the central thrust of his convention speech and has kept it as a main theme for his campaign. Kerry opened that can of worms on his own. |
You're confusing who's attacking who here, Speed. True, Kerry did state he wanted a positive campaign, and he WAS actually running just that. Less than a week after the DNC, the Smear Boaters came after his record, and it persisted for over 3 weeks. Keep in mind that Kerry completely ignored the Smear Boaters for the first 10 days or so. It was only after he saw that they were effecting his numbers did he and the Dem 527's start DEFENDING against these attacks. Now in his defense, Kerry utilized the fact that there were some heavy connections from the Smear Boaters to Bush's campaign. Now if this wasn't true, why did 2 individuals quit Bush's campaign who were tied to the Smear Boaters? Why was an individuals in Bush's campaign passing out fliers on the Smear Boaters down in Florida?
These were clearly no no's, and IMO Kerry had a legitimate gripe. Regardless, he is now clearly on both the positive and negative side of things, once he realized just how much negativity was going to be spewed from the Bush campaign. Christ, Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney seemingly gets a ing hard on everytime he gives a speech, because it's filled with nothing but attacks on Kerry and Edwards.
Unfortunately, negativity works in the final stretch. The conservatives knew this long ago, and unfortunately the Dems. have been playing catch-up on this fact. It happens every campaign as far as I can remember. Things always get ugly in the homestretch, and it was a statement in vain that Kerry made to keep things positive.
| quote: | | I can also gurantee that if I were a parent during Vietnam, I would have done everything possible to prevent my child from going over there as well. |
Well this was certainly NOT the rhetoric of individuals like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Sr. and Jr., Ashcroft, and the rest of the neo-cons at the time. They FULLY believed in fighting and winning the war against those bastard Vietnamese commies.
They just didn't want to go there and fight it.
That's called pure chicken, BTW.
True, Kerry asked for a deferrment of his own and was turned down. But he did volunteer to go to war afterwards, even though he had reservations about going, he was willing to fight for his country.
The rhetoric and the actions alone are what separates the two individuals here way back then. But again, in the long run this SHOULD be a side issue. Unfortunately this damn war keeps coming back up.
| quote: | IF a draft is started for the War on Terror and it continues in the same pattern it is currently being waged, I will derail all of my plans to send my son to study in another country for 10 to 15 years on his 17th birthday.
Now, if he makes the chocie on his own to go fight when he is 18, I will honor that request, but I will not have the government tell me or my son that he has to go fight in something we do not agree with. |
That's commendable, and I would probably share that view as well.
| quote: | | Bush NEVER has questioned Kerrys bravery.. in fact he said Kerrys service was more courageous than his.. |
Quite true. So you must accept the reverse situation with Kerry being mum about Bush's questionable record. It's all 527's that slinging the mud at this time with each candidate's past.
| quote: | Its not Bush's fault that the military is inept at finding records.. these records are not filed at the white house
He signed the form 180 that authorizes the release of ALL records.. its up the military to find them.. |
Bush signed form 180? Do you have a link that directly states this?
True, it's not directly the White House that has these records. But the Pentagon did move many of his records from the Missouri storage archives to DC a coupla years ago. And the recent instances where it's reported that certain files are missing, only to be "found" after a scrutiny by the AP press is suspicious at best.
Bush also holds the power to release COPIES of his service records archived in Austin, TX. that would answer the following nicely:
-Records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot
-Any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot
-Any photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972
-Anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it
-Any copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance
-Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet)
-The contents of his UIF (Unfavorable Information File w/results from grounding)
-Anything proving service (not just receipt of pay) by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973?
He has yet to do so. To me it strongly looks like the Pentagon is merely trying to protect its Commander in Chief, which it does quite well regardless of who's in power. We also have to keep in mind that Rummy has the primary power with the Pentagon. You think he's gonna play ball with the Press anytime soon?
| quote: | | Meanwhile Kerry has REFUSED to sign form 180..But I say lets just get over the past 30yrs.... :) |
True, Kerry hasn't signed it. But if we're going to attack each other's past, we should be fair and have FULL disclosure. What are the odds that Bush would want that?
Because on appearance, the inescapable difference is one man served his country in a war, the other received preferences to avoid a war and didn't even finish his pampered duty.
| quote: | | As far as the GOP PARTY is concerned this will add fuel to the fire....the games of attacking the past have only begun. |
So true. The GOP are incredible character assassins. I truly wonder if they want to talk about present day issues..... |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
So you base your issues solely upon the popularity of those issues with the public?
To be honest, I've always stated that either candidate's military service is a side issue, however 3 weeks of Kerry's balls being dragged over the coals vs. scant coverage of Bush's truly questionable military record is hardly fair coverage by that darn "liberal" media to me.
If there's any issue to be taken out of this it is about character or a lack thereof. On the whole, however, if we took apart every single politician we would find just as much, if not worse questions of character for them all. So again, it truly is a side issue to me, but I do feel strongly about the time of coverage for each opponent.
You expect him to NOT vote liberal? He is running on the Democratic ticket, right? Now I could go over some of his issues that were certainly not necessarily liberal - working with McCain to normalize Vietnam relations, uncovering the BCCE bank affair, busting Iran/Contra, voting almost all pro-military support and Defense spending since 1997 (prior to that he was sizing down the military post-cold war era for fiscal responsibility, from which Bush I and Cheney also agreed to quite often), just to name a few.
But your statement about Bush having a presidential track record vs. Kerry's track record is a little fallacious to me. That would entail that Bush Sr. should have won, as should Jimmy Carter, or any other 1-term only president.
I also find the argument of Kerry being inconsistent pretty weak at best. We've gone over this before in the "Kerry the Dolphin" thread, and Occ pointed out the myriad of issues that Bush has flip-flopped over. Perhaps we should just accept the concept that times change, and the policies that a politician adheres to are also subject to change and taken in full context at that time. Oh sure, Kerry's doesn't necessarily smell like roses, but we could easily compare flip-flop records of both candidates and conclude that they're both "hypocritical".
Well neither did Kerry:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244
You know better than that, Speed. We've been over this before. His speech regarding the atrocities were quite true, whether or not you or any other conservative wants to acknowledge events like the My Lai and Tiger Force massacres. And he wasn't accusing his soldiers of anything, rather, he WAS accusing his government of passing down orders that were against the Geneva Conventions.
I see nothing wrong with the Vietnamese thanking anyone for ending the war. They had millions of people die as well. Though I think their thougths to anti-war activists like Kerry are misplaced, they wanted to end the war just as badly.
You really want an enemy of that ridiculous war, blame Johnson and Nixon (to a smaller extent) for their atrocious war policies. If anything, people like Kerry helped prevent more soldiers lives being lost (which BTW is what a number of CONSERVATIVE politicians believed at that time too).
Well once again if you've actually read over his acceptance speech you'd realize he barely even mentions his Vietnam War record (aside of his cheesy salute at the beginning and maybe 2 references to his leadership as a navy officer). But yeah, I do agree he overplayed his hand afterwards on this whole bit.
Well now if you've listened to any of Kerry's stump speeches lately, you'd realize that he's stear cleared of any Vietnam record instances on both himself and Bush. He has clearly shifted his rhetoric to present day issues, which is what he needed to do like 2 wks. ago.
The 527's, though are a different story. I won't pretend that they have a heavy connection with the candidates on either side. But they are "independent" of either campaign. Kerry himself hasn't mentioned anything about Bush's service lately, just the same as Bush shying away from Kerry's service when all that Smear Boat crap was going on.
These are 527's, Speed. Unless you hear the words, "I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message", then it's entirely independent of Kerry's campaign.
Just like the Smear Boaters were entirely independent of Bush's.
You're confusing who's attacking who here, Speed. True, Kerry did state he wanted a positive campaign, and he WAS actually running just that. Less than a week after the DNC, the Smear Boaters came after his record, and it persisted for over 3 weeks. Keep in mind that Kerry completely ignored the Smear Boaters for the first 10 days or so. It was only after he saw that they were effecting his numbers did he and the Dem 527's start DEFENDING against these attacks. Now in his defense, Kerry utilized the fact that there were some heavy connections from the Smear Boaters to Bush's campaign. Now if this wasn't true, why did 2 individuals quit Bush's campaign who were tied to the Smear Boaters? Why was an individuals in Bush's campaign passing out fliers on the Smear Boaters down in Florida?
These were clearly no no's, and IMO Kerry had a legitimate gripe. Regardless, he is now clearly on both the positive and negative side of things, once he realized just how much negativity was going to be spewed from the Bush campaign. Christ, Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney seemingly gets a ing hard on everytime he gives a speech, because it's filled with nothing but attacks on Kerry and Edwards.
Unfortunately, negativity works in the final stretch. The conservatives knew this long ago, and unfortunately the Dems. have been playing catch-up on this fact. It happens every campaign as far as I can remember. Things always get ugly in the homestretch, and it was a statement in vain that Kerry made to keep things positive.
Well this was certainly NOT the rhetoric of individuals like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Sr. and Jr., Ashcroft, and the rest of the neo-cons at the time. They FULLY believed in fighting and winning the war against those bastard Vietnamese commies.
They just didn't want to go there and fight it.
That's called pure chicken, BTW.
True, Kerry asked for a deferrment of his own and was turned down. But he did volunteer to go to war afterwards, even though he had reservations about going, he was willing to fight for his country.
The rhetoric and the actions alone are what separates the two individuals here way back then. But again, in the long run this SHOULD be a side issue. Unfortunately this damn war keeps coming back up.
That's commendable, and I would probably share that view as well.
Quite true. So you must accept the reverse situation with Kerry being mum about Bush's questionable record. It's all 527's that slinging the mud at this time with each candidate's past.
Bush signed form 180? Do you have a link that directly states this?
True, it's not directly the White House that has these records. But the Pentagon did move many of his records from the Missouri storage archives to DC a coupla years ago. And the recent instances where it's reported that certain files are missing, only to be "found" after a scrutiny by the AP press is suspicious at best.
Bush also holds the power to release COPIES of his service records archived in Austin, TX. that would answer the following nicely:
-Records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot
-Any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot
-Any photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972
-Anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it
-Any copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance
-Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet)
-The contents of his UIF (Unfavorable Information File w/results from grounding)
-Anything proving service (not just receipt of pay) by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973?
He has yet to do so. To me it strongly looks like the Pentagon is merely trying to protect its Commander in Chief, which it does quite well regardless of who's in power. We also have to keep in mind that Rummy has the primary power with the Pentagon. You think he's gonna play ball with the Press anytime soon?
True, Kerry hasn't signed it. But if we're going to attack each other's past, we should be fair and have FULL disclosure. What are the odds that Bush would want that?
Because on appearance, the inescapable difference is one man served his country in a war, the other received preferences to avoid a war and didn't even finish his pampered duty.
So true. The GOP are incredible character assassins. I truly wonder if they want to talk about present day issues..... |
Let the discussion spill over to the other thread i made.
I will respond to several highlights you made though:
| quote: | | So you base your issues solely upon the popularity of those issues with the public? |
This week has a been a terrible week for the Kerry campaign with just about every issue backfiring on them in the public's eye
Latest poll numbers and buzz surrounding the fake documents.
besides that I respect your thought out response and do agree with you for the most part on some key issues on the war and such as Bush releasing more documents....But as far as the public is concerned...They want to hear simple terms such as: FAKE DOCUMENTS BY DEMOCRATS?
Not meaty details going into missing documents by Bush during specific dates.
The story doesnt generate BUZZ among the public who will not go research this material. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
More on those darn "fake" documents:
| quote: | Further scrutiny lessens doubts on Bush memos
Some skeptics now say IBM typewriter could have been used
- Francie Latour, Michael Rezendes, Boston Globe
Saturday, September 11, 2004
After CBS News trumpeted newly discovered documents Wednesday 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 memos 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 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, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe Friday that after further study, he now believed 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 that varies with the width of the letters. In older typewriters, each letter was allotted 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 the White House made public this year.
Meanwhile, "CBS Evening News" Friday night explained how it had sought to authenticate the documents, focusing primarily on its examiner's conclusion that two of the records were signed by Bush's guard commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. CBS also said other sources -- among Killian's friends and colleagues -- 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 Friday, said he had not changed his mind because he did 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 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.
The controversy over the authenticity of the documents has all but blocked out discussion of their content. They say Killian was under pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's record, and Bush refused a direct order to take a required medical examination and discussed how he could skip drills.
Bouffard, the Ohio document specialist, said that he had first dismissed the Bush documents because the letters and formatting of the memos did not match any of the 4,000 samples in his database. But Friday, Bouffard said that he had not considered the IBM Selectric Composer. Once he compared the memos to Selectric Composer samples, 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 Friday he provided a document indicating that as early as April 1969 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, Bouffard said that custom characters on the Composer's metal typehead ball were available in the 1970s.
"You can't just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer," Bouffard said.
Page A - 4
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...MNGO68NEKR1.DTL |
And one blogger nailed the history of this whole fiasco down tight:
| quote: | Within hours of the airing of the 60 Minutes segment, a user named "Buckhead" posted to the FreeRepublic.com web site asserting that proportionally-spaced fonts were not common in 1972, and that the 60 Minutes story was a forgery.
This post was picked up on the blog LittleGreenFootballs.com, and went from there to the CyberSpace News Service where it spread via the drudgereport from whence it was sucked into the right wing press outlets such as Fox news and the Weekly Standard as gospel before finally making it's finally into the mainstream media including the AP, LA Times, and Washington Post.
Holding aside the journalistic credibility of the original sources for this story, "littegreenfootballs.com" and "Buckhead", a cursory glance at the facts of the matter show that the entire right wing line is built on a foundation of decepton. The general line of the right wing attack machine is as follows:
Don't deny the story outright. Just raise the possibility that the documents *might* be faked. This gives partisans something to latch onto and a talking point to start regurgitating in the right wing press. Repeat the lie often enough and some people will regard it as the truth.
Of course, that only works if people don't take the time to debunk the lies. So with that in mind, let's deconstruct the four major planks of the right wing's attack on the 60 Minutes Story:
1. Times New Roman Fonts did not exist in 1972
The Times New Roman font was developed in 1931 by Stanley Morison, Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation who adapted the font to the IBM selectric Typewriter in 1947.
2. Documents back then didn't have superscripted 'th' characters
Superscripted fonts appear on other documents in Bush's flight school record, and had been available on IBM electric typewriters since 1947.
3. The document used proportional spacing which was not available in 1972
Proportional spacing had been available on typewriters since 1941. Press advertisements dating back to 1952 and 1953 suggest that the feature was widely available, and was even used on Richard Nixon's resignation letter in 1974.
4. The document used curlycue apostrophes which did not exist on typewriters in 1972.
Print advertisements for the IBM Exectuive typewriter show that curlycue apostrophes were used as early as 1953.
Proof that the air force was using typewriters capable of producing documents as early as 1966 can be found here:
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:PZnx1vdH-6oJ:https://web1.ssg.gunter.af.mil/ho/documents/chronologies/Air%2520Force%2520Data%2520Systems%2520Design%2520Center%25201969.doc+selectric+military&hl=en
The story is a cautionary tale about the effectiveness of the right wing smear machine at obfuscating facts and using outright lies to manipulate the public and to punish those who attempt to hold President Bush accountable for his actions.
http://www.progressivetrail.org/articles/040911Peralta.shtml
|
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
I think another coupla good questions are worth asking:
Is it common practice for the White House to hand out documents that they get from third parties? Does anybody know if the White House commonly hands out for example press releases by private companies?
It strikes me odd that the White House handed these supposed forgeries out. If they are this easily duped, then this administration is NOT up to the job of protecting us from terrorism. If they are NOT that easily duped, then they are being morally dishonest by not giving government approval to these documents.
A typical question about the White House, are they malicious or just stupid? Curious which answer most people will pick. Stupid doesn't really stand out as a recommendation for re-election to me.
Perhaps the White House believes these documents to be true after all?
Well here's some interestin' stuff from US News, a right of center magazine (just a little to the right, not near as bad as Weekly Standard and it's ill). Apparently they uncovered some interesting info. that indicts Bush even further. He's got a real problem here:
| quote: | Nation & World
The service question
A review of President Bush's Guard years raises issues about the time he served
By Kit R. Roane
Last February, White House spokesman Scott McClellan held aloft sections of President Bush's military record, declaring to the waiting press that the files "clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National Guard." Case closed, he said.
But last week the controversy reared up once again, as several news outlets, including U.S. News, disclosed new information casting doubt on White House claims.
A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.
Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.
The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."
Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."
Bush signed his commitment to the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, shortly after becoming eligible for the draft. In his "statement of understanding," he acknowledged that "satisfactory participation" included attending "48 scheduled inactive-duty training periods" each year. He also acknowledged that he could be ordered to active duty if he failed to meet these requirements.
Slump. Bush's records show that he did his duty for much of the first four years of his commitment. But as the Vietnam War wound down, his performance slumped, and his attendance at required drills fell off markedly. He did no drills for one five-month period in 1972. He also missed his flight physical. By May 2, 1973, his superiors said they could not evaluate his performance because he "has not been observed."
Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a retired Air Force colonel who originally certified the White House position that Bush had completed his military obligation, stood by his analysis. After a reporter cited pertinent Air Force regulations from the period, he complained that if the entire unit were judged by such standards, "90 percent of the people in the Guard would not have made satisfactory participation."
Some other experts disagree. "There is no 'sometimes we have compliance and sometimes we don't,' " says Scott Silliman, a retired Air Force colonel and Duke University law professor. "That is a nonsensical statement and an insult to the Guard to suggest it."
The regulations must be followed, adds James Currie, a retired colonel and author of an official history of the Army Reserve. "Clearly, if you were the average poor boy who got drafted and sent into the active force," he says, "they weren't going to let you out before you had completed your obligation."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/...ews/20guard.htm |
|
|
|
| torontotrance |
| I've come this conclusion, Kerry's war record is not 100% exact but the guy did serve in Vietnam and he should have been given a medal for that, anyone who did that should have. Kerry's war record is better than Bush's, no matter how much arguing. Bush's war record is pathetic because he obviously ditched the national guard. So both should stfu about the war records and debate the real issues that Americans believe in. |
|
|
|
|
