|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/09/2004 04:59:03 PM · #1 |
Can someone tell me what military issue typewriter Jerry Killian used to type these memos? I'm curious how one can superscript the "th" in 111th and 187th on a standard typewriter back in May 1972. I also don̢۪t remember having proportional spaced fonts on my Smith-Corona. All the typewriters I remember used a fixed spaced courier style font. Can you say fabricated story? Sure you can. It's easy F-A-B-R-I-C-A-T-E-D.
Memo 1
Memo 2
Message edited by author 2004-09-09 17:30:13. |
|
|
|
09/09/2004 05:01:08 PM · #2 |
Expensive typewriter with a single superscript "tm" key? (Do these exist??)
|
|
|
|
09/09/2004 05:37:35 PM · #3 |
The thing about shows like 60 minutes is they are only as good as the source of information. What I dislike about shows like this is that they take no responsibility when stories come up frodulent. They play it off like it was the source that was wrong when it's up to them to fact check before running people names in the dirt.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2004 12:44:26 PM · #4 |
And now we know that the person responsible for the shrill claims of document fakery is none other than Brent Bozell, infamous republican operative, and part of the Swift Boat backers.
Mr Bozell is one ultrapartisan, very angry man I have read. |
|
|
|
09/11/2004 05:56:08 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Can someone tell me what military issue typewriter Jerry Killian used to type these memos? I'm curious how one can superscript the "th" in 111th and 187th on a standard typewriter back in May 1972. I also don̢۪t remember having proportional spaced fonts on my Smith-Corona. All the typewriters I remember used a fixed spaced courier style font. Can you say fabricated story? Sure you can. It's easy F-A-B-R-I-C-A-T-E-D.
Memo 1
Memo 2 |
The typewriter used was Microsoft Word. An expert (named Line) has recreated the same memos and debunked these. |
|
|
|
09/11/2004 06:04:04 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The typewriter used was Microsoft Word. An expert (named Line) has recreated the same memos and debunked these. |
Recreating doesn't prove anything. Technology is so far advanced it's insanely easy to recreate things made 30 years ago. Not condoning anything just saying, it's a ton easier to recreate as technology advances.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2004 06:09:20 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Originally posted by Flash:
The typewriter used was Microsoft Word. An expert (named Line) has recreated the same memos and debunked these. |
Recreating doesn't prove anything. Technology is so far advanced it's insanely easy to recreate things made 30 years ago. Not condoning anything just saying, it's a ton easier to recreate as technology advances. |
Exactly the point on why these "newly found" memos were not originals. The first question should have been raised by 60 minutes when the core document claiming pressure to "sugarcoat" was unsigned. Very unlikely. CYA 101 says that you sign and date your notes.....just in case. |
|
|
|
09/12/2004 12:49:48 AM · #8 |
The Republican Noise Machine is well at work here! You've clearly read the Matt Drudge Report, which has a link to a story running on CNSNews.com (I like the play on the CBSNews.com URL, by the way), which makes the same allegation you're presenting here as your own.
The Weekly Standard, a well known Republican tool of misinformation runs a similar story. In fact, it seems that this where you lifted your post from:
"[T]he apostrophes are curlicues of the sort produced by word processors on personal computers, not the straight vertical hashmarks typical of typewriters. Finally, in some references to Bush's unit--the 111thFighter Interceptor Squadron--the "th" is a superscript in a smaller size than the other type. Again, this is typical (and often done automatically) in modern word processing programs. Although several experts allow that such a rendering might have been theoretically possible in the early 1970s, it would have been highly unlikely. Superscripts produced on typewriters--the numbers preceding footnotes in term papers, for example--were almost always in the same size as the regular type." [ link to Weekly Standard story ]
As the author of the Republican Noise Machine notes in his book, and I paraphrase, it's not important that Republicans get the facts right, it's only important that they throw up enough mud to cloud the truth.
.......................................
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
And now, getting back to the topic of the forum thread at hand...Bush's military records, or lack of them:
From democracynow.org:
"...new documents from Bush's squadron commander say Bush discussed with him how to avoid drills during 1972. The report on "60 Minutes" said the files were from the personal records of Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984. The files show that Killian grounded Bush from flying when he missed a medical examination and failed to meet performance standards. In one memo, dated Aug. 18, 1972, Killian wrote that he was being pressured from higher-ups in the Guard to gloss over Bush's poor performance and to "sugarcoat" his evaluation." |
Can someone tell me what military issue typewriter Jerry Killian used to type these memos? I'm curious how one can superscript the "th" in 111th and 187th on a standard typewriter back in May 1972. I also don̢۪t remember having proportional spaced fonts on my Smith-Corona. All the typewriters I remember used a fixed spaced courier style font. Can you say fabricated story? Sure you can. It's easy F-A-B-R-I-C-A-T-E-D.
Memo 1
Memo 2 |
|
|
|
|
09/12/2004 12:50:30 AM · #9 |
Oh man, this is just too easy -- now let's just see if the so-called liberal media exposes the blatant bias of the originating source behind the story.
First, a little background on the Republican Noise Machine, here's how it works:
1. Talk radio is dominated by conservatives, which is where many of these stories originate. Accordingly, they give some buzz to whatever story they want to play up that day.
2. A network of quasi-news organizations (including right-wing blogs) provide some ink, to put some meat on the story and get things boiling.
3. Cable Network talking heads (i.e., Hardball, O'Rielly Factor, Sean Hannity, Scarborough, Miller, et al.) then pick up the story, once there's enough buzz behind the story.
4. At this point the mainstream media is forced to run the story, since by now the item is "newsworthy."
Of course, the so-called liberal media are just a bunch of f**king wimps that are just scared sh*tless about being labeled "liberal," so they never expose the factual (tactical) conservative dominance of our media industry. Anyhow, I seriously doubt that I can convince any of you of this (as you know what you know, and are not about to change your mind); however, I just wanted to offer this backgrounder before getting into some suspicious facts behind the source of this story.
1. CNSNews.com runs story [ link ]:
2. Matt Drudge posts a link to the story on his site (note that the DrudgeReport.com website is one of the most widely visited websites on the web):
3. I presume that this story has been getting a lot of airtime in the talking heads circuit (I've not tuned in to cable news today, but the model is pretty solid, so I assume that the talking heads have had a field day with this story).
4. As LoudDog has proven, mainstream media (a.k.a., the so-called liberal media) has now picked up the story.
Now, here's some suspicious info on the source of behind this story:
1. CNSNews.com is run and operated by the Media Research Center:
[ Who Is? link may not work as its session specific. ]
2. The mission statement of the Media Research Center (MRC) reads:
"On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC)."
And:
"That moved MRC founder and president, L. Brent Bozell III, to take the necessary steps to develop the MRC's News Tracking System (NTS), a custom-designed computer database and archiving system that today provides the conservative movement's now-thriving media personalities and the public alike, with the evidence necessary to confront the liberal media. This one-of-a-kind research operation combines analytical savvy with state-of-the-art computer technology, providing the means to scientifically track the short and long-range trends of any issue in the media. From a $339,000 initial annual budget, the MRC has grown to be the nation's largest and most sophisticated television and monitoring operation, now employing 60 professional staff with a $6 million annual budget." [ link ]
3. Moreover, the MRC offers the Drudge Report as one of their trusted sources for information [link]:
Now, many on this board, and the list is long, will simply say, Yeah, we gotta stick it to the liberal media, and that's just what MRC is doing. Well, that rationalization may be sufficient for you guys, but to me it simply proves the validity of the Republican Noise Machine model and how, in fact, the media is dominated by a strong conservative tactical bias.
As David Brock, author of the Republican Noise Machine noted (and I paraphrase), It's not important that Republicans get the facts right, it's only important that they throw up enough mud to cloud the truth.
Now, let's just see if the so-called liberal media covers this part of the story.
Message edited by author 2004-09-12 01:46:15.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2004 12:51:12 AM · #10 |
Looks like a couple of points need clarification:
1. I have not said that the mainstream media is conservative. Here's what I wrote:
Originally posted by bdobe:
Of course, the so-called liberal media are just a bunch of f**king wimps that are just scared sh*tless about being labeled "liberal," so they never expose the factual conservative dominance of our media industry. Anyhow, I seriously doubt that I can convince any of you of this (as you know what you know, and are not about to change your mind); however, I just wanted to offer this backgrounder before getting into the bias of the source behind this story. |
2. Lemme explain what I mean by "factual (tactical) conservative dominance of our media industry."
Basically, the conservative movement (through its various think-tanks, foundations, wealthy donors, etc.) learned to game the system/media some 30 years ago, when the conservative movement began its re-ascendance in our country (culminating in Mr. Reagan's election and continuing to the present). (As reference, look up: The American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute -- there are others, but these are the principle ones, specially the American Enterprise Institute.
Furthermore, conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s knew the following: A) They no longer belonged in the (Southern) Democratic party, as the party advocated Civil Rights and the enfranchisement of African Americans; B) They needed to jump ship, so they essentially hijacked the Republican party (note the lack of so-called Northern Rockefeller Republicans in today's GOP); C) Conservatives of the period devised a strategy to flame the embers of White-male resentment against the politics of the late 1950s and 1960s, accordingly the Southern Strategy was born.
And this, essentially, is the genesis of the modern Republican party. Note how today's Republican power base is contingent on these two factors: A) The South, and; B) Let' say, the subtle, encouragement of White-male resentment against a popular culture that many of them feel rejects the White-male iconography.
Of course the preceding brushes over the past 40/50 years in very broad strokes, but I had to provide it as background to support how the "factual conservative dominance of our media industry" has occurred.
i. The conservative movement has laid down a well disciplined, and well funded, infrastructure that's geared to challenge (and dismantle) the legitimacy of: academia, the news media and a certain brand of popular culture.
ii. To compete against academia, conservatives established think tanks and funded conservative intellectuals. Moreover, to challenge the news media conservative created what was, at the time, new media outlets: talk radio and direct mail (note that Republicans were the first to set up what still is the most extensive and sophisticated voter data-base in the country). Thirdly, popular culture is often used by conservatives to drive wedge issues among the electorate (i.e., homosexuality, feminism, guns, etc.).
iii. Its taken about three decades, but the combination of the factors I listed above have lead to what I referred to as Mr. Brock's Republican Noise Machine model:
a. Talk radio is dominated by conservatives, which is where many of these stories originate. Accordingly, they give some buzz to whatever story they want to play up that day.
b. A network of quasi-news organizations (including right-wing blogs) provide some ink, to put some meat on the story and get things boiling.
c. Cable Network talking heads (i.e., Hardball, O'Rielly Factor, Sean Hannity, Scarborough, Miller, et al.) then pick up the story, once there's enough of buzz behind it.
d. At this point the mainstream media is forced to run the story, since by now the item is "newsworthy."
Now, the key part about the preceding model is this: After 30 years of a concerted and well organized effort to convince the public that the so-called liberal media cannot be trusted, journalists and the public have complete internalized this notion, and don't even challenge the assumption. (LoudDog!) Furthermore, it is under these conditions that "Liberal" has become a "dirty word" and, conversely, "Conservative" has become the preferred ideological label for a significant segment of the public, specially White-males. (Ron and GraphicFunk, I'll grant you this point about the political labels.) So, finally, we have a system wherein American journalists are afraid to be perceived as having a liberal-bias, for fear of proving the myth true; and, the general public simply assumes that they know what they know, and simply assume that the so-called liberal media must have a liberal bias.
3. Because strong ideological conservatives in the media know that what I have described is true, they know that the wimpy mainstream media journalist will not mount a direct and frontal challenge on the conservative modus operandi. And, if such a challenge were to be raised, conservatives in the media (and the public) would simply charge such journalists as being liberals, thus proving the myth; and, unfortunately, a lot of members of the public would simply accept the charge without questioning it. (LoudDog!)
Now, here's what I wrote in another thread about the true media bias:
"[T]he media is driven by "commercial" and "sensationalistic" interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias. All of us -- all U.S. citizens -- have much to complain about regarding the media, and the terrible job they're doing of covering substantive issues."
I also offered the following as sources for further reading, and to provide an alternative view-point on what we think we already know:
* Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
* Media Matters for America
* The Republican Noise Machine
* Control Room (documentary on how the Iraq war was covered by U.S. vs. Middle Eastern media)
* Out Foxed (documentary on the inner workings of the Fox News operation)
* What Liberal Media?
* Manufacturing Consent (summery)
.......................................
I know that this a long post, so, first, thank you for reading it and, two, I tried to include as much as possible, while remaining digestible and general. If you're interested in more details on any of what I've written above, please do your own research... as many of you know, I'm sure, this is extremely time consuming.
.......................................
GraphicFunk,
From your syntax, I presume that English is not your first language... y me parece que estoy correcto. Eres Cubano? No, quizás de Sur América? Bueno, no importa, sinceramente no nos vemos ojo a ajo en como vemos al mundo. Tu vota por to candidato, y yo votare por el mio. If English is your first language you'll have to forgive me for presuming.
Message edited by author 2004-09-12 01:47:30.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2004 12:51:56 AM · #11 |
LoudDog and Thelsel,
This is not my original work, but I post it here as an FYI:
"THIS TYPEFACE -- TIMES NEW ROMAN -- DIDN'T EXIST IN THE EARLY 1970S."
There are several problems with this theory. First, Times New Roman, as a typeface, was invented in 1931. Second, typewriters were indeed available with Times New Roman typefaces.
And third, this isn't Times New Roman, at least not the Microsoft version. It's close. But it's not a match.
For example, the '8' characters are decidedly different. The '4's, as viewable on other memos, are completely different; one has an open top, the other is closed.
So yes, we have proven that two typefaces that look similar to each other are indeed, um, similar. At least when each document is shrunk to 400-500 pixels wide... and you ignore some of the characters.
"DOCUMENTS BACK THEN DIDN'T HAVE SUPERSCRIPTED 'TH' CHARACTERS"
That one was easy. Yes, many typewriter models had shift-combinations to create 'th', 'nd', and 'rd'. This is most easily proven by looking at known-good documents in the Bush records, which indeed have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout.
"THIS DOCUMENT USES PROPORTIONAL SPACING, WHICH DIDN'T EXIST IN THE EARLY 1970S."
Turns out, it did. The IBM Executive electric typewriter was manufactured in four models, A, B, C, and D, starting in 1947, and featured proportional spacing. An example of its output is here. It was an extremely popular model, and was marketed to government agencies.
"OK, FINE, BUT NO SINGLE MACHINE HAD PROPORTIONAL SPACING, 'TH' CHARACTERS, AND A FONT LIKE THAT ONE."
No, again. The IBM Executive is probably the most likely candidate for this particular memo. There is some confusion about this, so to clear up: the IBM Selectric, while very popular, did not have proportional spacing. The Selectric Composer, introduced in 1966, did, and in fact could easily have produced these memos, but it was a very expensive machine, and not likely to be used for light typing duties. The proportional-spacing Executive, on the other hand, had been produced in various configurations since the 1940's, and was quite popular.
(Note: However, it is not immediately clear that the Selectrics and Selectric IIs could not in fact emulate "proportional" spacing. There is skepticism in some circles that these memos really show "proportional" spacing. Looking at the blowups, it appears pretty obvious to me that there is, but still researching.)
Did they have a font that looked like Times New Roman? Unclear; they apparently were manufactured in a range of configurations, and with different available typefaces. Note that these were not "typeball" machines, like the Selectrics; they had a normal row of keys. But it is worth noting that IBM had what we will call a "close" relationship with Times New Roman:
Courier was originally designed in 1956 by Howard Kettler for the revolutionary "golfball" typing head technology IBM was then developing for its electric typewriters. (The first typewriter to use the technology was the IBM Selectric Typewriter that debuted in 1961.) Adrian Frutiger had nothing to do with the design, though IBM hired him in the late 1960s to design a version of his Univers typeface for the Selectric. In the 1960s and 1970s Courier became a mainstay in offices. Consequently, when Apple introduced its first Macintosh computer in 1984 it anachronistically included Courier among its core fonts. In the early 1990s Microsoft, locked in a font format battle with Adobe, hired Monotype Typography to design a series of core fonts for Windows 3.1, many of which were intended to mirror those in the Apple core font group. Thus, New Courier--lighter and crisper than Courier--was born. (In alphabetized screen menus font names are often rearranged for easier access so now we have Courier New MT in which the MT stands for Monotype Typography.)
Courier's vanquisher was Times New Roman, designed in 1931 by Stanley Morison, Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation, with the assistance of draughtsman Victor Lardent. The Times of London first used it the following year. Linotype and Intertype quickly licensed the design, changing its name for their marketing purposes to Times Roman. Times Roman became an original core font for Apple in the 1980s and Times New Roman MT became one for Windows in the 1990s. (Ironically, at the same time IBM invited Frutiger to adapt Univers for the Selectric Typewriter, they asked Morison to do the same with Times New Roman.)
So, as you can see, both IBM and Microsoft specifically obtained the typeface "Times New Roman" from the designers of that font; neither was the creator of it. And, as we said before, typeface includes not just the "shape" of the letters, but the size and spacing between those letters.
One of the differences between the Times New Roman as implemented on the IBM machines, as opposed to Microsoft Word? The IBM machines apparently had the alternative '4' character that matched these memos, while Microsoft Word's TNR does not.
Oops.
Now, would the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron have extravagantly purchased typewriters that contained the th superscript key? Would the military want or require typewriters with the 'th', 'nd', and 'rd' characters? Hmm. Ponder, Ponder. What would the 111th need with a th character... I'll leave that to the enterprising among you to deduce.
This is not the final word on this, and it is certainly possible that any documents are forgeries. But the principle argument of the freepers -- that it would be impossible for a TANG office in 1972 to produce documents that look like these -- is simply false. Within a few days, however, we should know for sure either way; these typewriters still have a following, and type samples should be forthcoming.
.......................................
For the original, including references, click here.
.......................................
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by bdobe:
"[T]he apostrophes are curlicues of the sort produced by word processors on personal computers, not the straight vertical hashmarks typical of typewriters. Finally, in some references to Bush's unit--the 111thFighter Interceptor Squadron--the "th" is a superscript in a smaller size than the other type. Again, this is typical (and often done automatically) in modern word processing programs. Although several experts allow that such a rendering might have been theoretically possible in the early 1970s, it would have been highly unlikely. Superscripts produced on typewriters--the numbers preceding footnotes in term papers, for example--were almost always in the same size as the regular type." [ link to Weekly Standard story ] |
Another interesting coincidence is if you retype the memo in Microsoft Word using all the default settings (i.e. Times New Roman, 12 point font, etc.) you get an exact duplicate of the CBS memo. All the line breaks happen at the exact same spots. Every letter lines up exactly the same as the CBS memo. Coincidence? |
|
|
|
|
09/12/2004 12:53:08 AM · #12 |
All the previous had been originally posted in another thread, but they obviously needed to be included here, too.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 08:22:34 PM · #13 |
| I think the facts are pretty clear that these memos are forgeries. It is a sad event for CBS, however the evidence continues to mount that enough diligence was not used prior to airing this story. |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 08:45:05 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I think the facts are pretty clear that these memos are forgeries. It is a sad event for CBS, however the evidence continues to mount that enough diligence was not used prior to airing this story. |
Just two quick points, before people are left with a single impression:
1. Let's not forget about the substance of the memos, no one is disputing that -- not even the White House. The substance of the memos is essentially this: Mr. Bush did not fulfill his commitment to the National Guard. Remember, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian's "comments" were corroborated by his supervising officer (though, I'll grant this, the "physical authenticity" of the memos is being disputed). Also, don't forget about Mr. Barnes comments regarding his pulling strings to get the young Mr. Bush into the Air National Guard, thus guaranteeing that Mr. Bush would not serve in Vietnam.
2. No, the case is not closed on whether the "physical memos" are forgeries. Anybody that's following this story closely can tell you that the technology that produced the memos did in fact exist at the time. What's in question is whether Lt. Col. Jerry Killian have access to a typewriter capable of producing the memos at the time.
You know, this whole "TH" story, as it's being referred, is just a sad example of the failure of our news media; and, too, a sad example of how we -- the public -- are skirting our duty as citizens of this nation and as consumers of information.
Message edited by author 2004-09-14 20:54:51.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 08:50:43 PM · #15 |
don't forget to post all the replies to all the posts you copied over... Unless you just want to show one side of the story.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 09:23:30 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
The substance of the memos is essentially this: Mr. Bush did not fulfill his commitment to the National Guard. |
Which is just not true. See this article, which states:
Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
Also of interest is this article and this article about the likely-forged documents, as well as these additional comments about anomalies in the documents, including the effort necessary to center a line on a 1967 IBM Executive typewriter with proportional spacing (in the very unlikely event that that typewriter was actually used to write the memos and not Microsoft Word).
Also, be sure to read Oliver North's Open Letter to John Kerry.
Finally, please comment on why Kerry did not receive his "honorable discharge" until 1978 -- six years after he left the service. Was he "Other Than Honorably" discharged, and appealed it (which is the right of somebody who is not discharged honorably)? See this article for some interesting insight into why Kerry hasn't released an estimated 100 military records document. Especially the quote:
"The multiple citations and variations in the official record are reason for suspicion in itself, even disregarding the current swift boat veterans' controversy."
Perhaps he was "Less Than Honorably" discharged because of some of the crimes Kerry committed while still a reservist, acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War...
Message edited by author 2004-09-14 21:33:43. |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 09:40:02 PM · #17 |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 09:43:27 PM · #18 |
EddyG,
You forgot to include these among your scurrilous questions:
1. When did Kerry stop beating his wife?
2. When did Kerry stop eating babies?
Man, EddyG, you have a way of sullying the sullied.
.......................................
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by bdobe:
The substance of the memos is essentially this: Mr. Bush did not fulfill his commitment to the National Guard. |
Which is just not true. See this article, which states:
Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
Also of interest is this article and this article about the likely-forged documents, as well as these additional comments about anomalies in the documents, including the effort necessary to center a line on a 1967 IBM Executive typewriter with proportional spacing (in the very unlikely event that that typewriter was actually used to write the memos and not Microsoft Word).
Also, be sure to read Oliver North's Open Letter to John Kerry.
Finally, please comment on why Kerry did not receive his "honorable discharge" until 1978 -- six years after he left the service. Was he "Other Than Honorably" discharged, and appealed it (which is the right of somebody who is not discharged honorably)? See this article for some interesting insight into why Kerry hasn't released an estimated 100 military records document. Especially the quote:
"The multiple citations and variations in the official record are reason for suspicion in itself, even disregarding the current swift boat veterans' controversy."
Perhaps he was "Less Than Honorably" discharged because of some of the crimes Kerry committed while still a reservist, acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War... |
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 10:54:25 PM · #19 |
But what about the substance of his post? You haven't responded to that. Nobody's disputed it - not even you.
Originally posted by bdobe:
EddyG,
You forgot to include these among your scurrilous questions:
1. When did Kerry stop beating his wife?
2. When did Kerry stop eating babies?
Man, EddyG, you have a way of sullying the sullied.
.......................................
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by bdobe:
The substance of the memos is essentially this: Mr. Bush did not fulfill his commitment to the National Guard. |
Which is just not true. See this article, which states:
Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
Also of interest is this article and this article about the likely-forged documents, as well as these additional comments about anomalies in the documents, including the effort necessary to center a line on a 1967 IBM Executive typewriter with proportional spacing (in the very unlikely event that that typewriter was actually used to write the memos and not Microsoft Word).
Also, be sure to read Oliver North's Open Letter to John Kerry.
Finally, please comment on why Kerry did not receive his "honorable discharge" until 1978 -- six years after he left the service. Was he "Other Than Honorably" discharged, and appealed it (which is the right of somebody who is not discharged honorably)? See this article for some interesting insight into why Kerry hasn't released an estimated 100 military records document. Especially the quote:
"The multiple citations and variations in the official record are reason for suspicion in itself, even disregarding the current swift boat veterans' controversy."
Perhaps he was "Less Than Honorably" discharged because of some of the crimes Kerry committed while still a reservist, acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War... |
|
Message edited by author 2004-09-14 22:55:40. |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 11:17:04 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
...Also, don't forget about Mr. Barnes comments regarding his pulling strings to get the young Mr. Bush into the Air National Guard, thus guaranteeing that Mr. Bush would not serve in Vietnam... |
Also, don't forget that Mr. Barnes claimed to have gotten GW into the TANG when he was Lt. Governor of Texas. But wait, GW entered the TANG in 1968, but Mr. Barnes wasn't Lt. Governor until 1969. But I'm sure he was just confused by the Republican Noise Machine.
Originally posted by bdobe:
...You know, this whole "TH" story, as it's being referred, is just a sad example of the failure of our news media... |
You are absolutely right. The failure of the liberal media to set aside their biases, to do proper fact checking, and conduct a fair, non-partisan investigation is utterly appalling. Dan Rather should be fired immediately.
Oh, and anyone heard the latest? According to ABC news: "Two of the document experts hired by CBS News say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast of a report citing documents that questioned George W. Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War." A very shameful state of affairs for CBS. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 09:57:48 AM · #21 |
I find it interesting that the Kerry team was almost quoting these documents just months prior to these fake documents being claimed as the real McCoy by certain news outlets.
I also find it interesting that the Kerry campaign was also one of the groups to have possession of these papers in recent times before these "documents" were handed over to the ever so loyal liberal attack machine CBS's 60 minutes. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 10:17:38 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by bdobe:
...Also, don't forget about Mr. Barnes comments regarding his pulling strings to get the young Mr. Bush into the Air National Guard, thus guaranteeing that Mr. Bush would not serve in Vietnam... |
Also, don't forget that Mr. Barnes claimed to have gotten GW into the TANG when he was Lt. Governor of Texas. But wait, GW entered the TANG in 1968, but Mr. Barnes wasn't Lt. Governor until 1969. But I'm sure he was just confused by the Republican Noise Machine.
Originally posted by bdobe:
...You know, this whole "TH" story, as it's being referred, is just a sad example of the failure of our news media... |
You are absolutely right. The failure of the liberal media to set aside their biases, to do proper fact checking, and conduct a fair, non-partisan investigation is utterly appalling. Dan Rather should be fired immediately.
Oh, and anyone heard the latest? According to ABC news: "Two of the document experts hired by CBS News say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast of a report citing documents that questioned George W. Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War." A very shameful state of affairs for CBS. |
Are you actually disputing that Barnes pulled strings and got Bush into the Champagne unit unfairly? Because nobody else is!
You have jumped to a conclusion here. barnes got him in alright. He just wasn't the Lt Gov at the time - he was holding a diff office. Sue him - he got the years wrong.
What he got right was the truth about how he helped the little coward. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 10:41:16 AM · #23 |
I am afraid Karl Rove is not paying you right-wingers enough to carry his water for him. :D
These documents, whether Rove leaked them or not, whether they are credible or not - and it now looks like the ARE -
are completely inessential to the case against Bush.
That Bush is a documented AWOL, and worse - a defacto deserter, is abundantly clear from the records already released by the White House and those discovered by the Freedom of Information act. These military records alone paint an undeniable pictue of a silver-spooned f&%^k-up who walked away from direct orders and his commitments for so long the military had no choice but to classify him as a deserter - and his records show it!
Go here for proof ( the second time I have provided this, BTW):
//www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
Additionally, his file is devoid - meaning it was "cleaned" of the documents *which should have been there* which would have put all this info in one place. His file is also missing all the documents and awards he would have been awarded if he actually *had* completed his service.
Now, I suppose we could forgive the young man who used family connections to avoid getting hurt, even though he thought the war was fine for other people to go fight. But he disobeyed orders. And he walked away from his commitment to his country.
And he LIED about it. And he continues to LIE about it.
Wasn't this what all the Republicans were all upset about with Clinton? It wasn't about sex - it was about LYING?
Where are those principled Republican voices now? I thought American conservatism was about TAKING RESPONSIBILITY?
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 10:42:22. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 11:16:20 AM · #24 |
If the memo's turn out to be forged, CBS will lose a lot of credibility. If they are fake, it will be interesting to see where they came from and who made them?
As for what happened 30+ years ago, who cares. They both did some dishonorable things back them. I'm more concerned about issues affecting me today.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 11:19:52 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by louddog:
As for what happened 30+ years ago, who cares. They both did some dishonorable things back them. I'm more concerned about issues affecting me today. |
Agreed and, ultimately, none of this will change anybody's mind. I know whom I'm voting for; just like many on this board already know who they're voting for, and there's little that will happen between now and Nov. 2nd that will change our minds.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 02:01:57 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 02:01:57 PM EDT.
|
