Bush AWOL documents fake?

No, LW, the article merely points to an apparent discrepancy, not to a proven contradiction. FactCheck neither supports nor refutes Kerry's critics or supporters re the SBVT allegations. On the other hand, FactCheck unambiguously refutes, at least per their articles, the Bush/Awol crowd.

cbs introduces the sources who came forward with the ang and killian documents at the press conference. documents are proven to be legit.



i am not saying that this what will happen. but, i am curious what the the response of the republican members of our discussion here will be if it does happen.

i don't bring this up in a confrontational tone, btw.

Now as Timberland says "I don't have a dog in this fight" but I do remember on another forum, which I entertained but briefly, happened to be about the time some Egyptian med students were traveling through american on their way to med school and a waitress "over-heard" them plotting to "bring something down." Well, on this other forum which I exited about the same time, the vast majority of peeps were convinced that "those arabs were up to something and by gawd they should be arrested for something." Facts didn't pan out exactly as expected but I am reminded of the shoot first and ask questions later (or not ask at all) mentality and I am reading it again here on this forum. Are the documents forged? We don't know. Are the swifties simply disgruntled Vets still pissed about losing the war? We don't know. But please lets not execute anyone without a fair hearing on the merits. Some of us still believe it's the american way of doing things. Kinda a Justice for all sorta thing. Or, perhaps, we should just lock and load and blow that bastards away, 'cause that's kinda an american thing to do as well.

Lets just go do a little FactCheckin'
<snip>
Meanwhile, nowhere, despite a few mentions and discussions of apparent, if disputed, contradictions or inconsistencies, does FactCheck "debunk" any SBVT allegations.

A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.

Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by Elliott.

The Post quoted Thurlow as saying he had lost his citation years earlier and had been under the impression that he received the award for aiding the damaged boat and its crew, and that his own award would be "fraudulent" if based on his facing enemy fire. The Post reported that, after hearing the citation read to him, Thurlow said: "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case. . . My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting. . . . I am here to state that we weren't under fire."



Note: We have also updated the article with information from an Aug. 17 Los Angeles Times story quoting the doctor who says he treated the wound for which Kerry was awarded his first purple heart. The Times quotes Louis Letson as saying that what he heard about Kerry's wound being self-inflicted came third-hand.

<snip>

The CBS announcement is now over 5 hours past-due. The lawyers and the suits are apparently working over-time on damage control.

WASHINGTON - September 14 - In the past week, a handful of stories have cast doubt on whether George W. Bush fulfilled his National Guard obligations 30 years ago. Reports by the Associated Press (9/7/04), Boston Globe (9/8/04) and U.S. News & World Report (9/20/04) have all raised new questions about Bush's military service. Though each of these stories has been accompanied by significant official documentation, developments in the investigations by AP, U.S. News and the Boston Globe have been largely sidetracked by the fixation on questions about the authenticity of documents aired on CBS on September 8.

Weighing the credibility of evidence is an essential function of journalism. Experts have weighed in on both sides on the authenticity of CBS's so-called Killian memos (New York Times, 9/14/04; Washington Post, 9/14/04); efforts to establish the origin of those documents should continue. However, news outlets that focus on this tangent of the National Guard story to the exclusion of the unchallenged new evidence that has recently emerged are neglecting another essential journalistic task: holding powerful people and politicians accountable.

In the wake of the stories scrutinizing Bush's stateside service during the Vietnam era, it's hard to imagine a better situation for the White House than to have the press corps ignore a range of evidence raising questions about Bush's fulfillment of his obligations while obsessing singularly on one set of documents from one story.

A review of some of the information uncovered in recent news reports:

The September 7 Associated Press story, based on new records the White House had long maintained didn't exist, debunked a Bush assertion that he'd skipped his flight physical because the jet he was trained on was becoming obsolete. According to AP, Bush's unit continued to fly the same jets for two years after the missed physical.

The September 8 Boston Globe expose concluded that Bush failed in his military obligations by missing months of duty in Alabama and in Boston.

As the Globe revealed, Bush had signed contracts on two separate occasions swearing to meet minimum Guard requirements on penalty of being called up to active duty. According to the military experts consulted by the Globe, Bush's Guard attendance was so bad "his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973 or 1974."

U.S News & World Report (9/20/04) reviewed National Guard regulations and reported that the White House has been using "an inappropriate-- and less stringent-- Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty." The magazine noted that Bush committed to attend at least "44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year" when he signed up for the Guard, but that 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 magazine explains that even by using the White House's preferred methodology for measuring Bush's service, he still fell short of those minimum requirements.

An NBC Nightly News segment (9/9/04) played a clip of Bush being interviewed in 1988, acknowledging that favoritism sometimes played a part in getting into the National Guard. While he had said that he didn't think that happened in his case, he did voice his approval of the practice: "If you want to go in the National Guard, I guess sometimes people made calls. I don't see anything wrong with it." (He continued with a remark that could be taken as an insult to the men and women who did face combat during the war: "They probably should have called the National Guard up in those days. Maybe we'd have done better in Vietnam.")

Even CBS's September 8 broadcasts, the subject of so much scrutiny, included important information beyond what is contained in the disputed memos. On the CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes II that night, CBS featured Ben Barnes, the former speaker of the Texas legislature, describing how he used his political influence to help a young George W. Bush bypass a waiting list and secure a coveted position in the Guard. In addition, the CBS stories also featured an interview with Robert Strong, a former colleague of Bush's commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the purported author of the disputed documents. Strong described the pressure Bush's commander was working under: "He was trying to deal with a volatile political situation, dealing with the son of an ambassador and a former congressman.... And I just saw him in an impossible situation. I felt very, very sorry because he was between a rock and a hard place."

Instead of asking the White House tough questions about the well-documented information contained in these reports, media have focused almost exclusively on the claims and counter-claims made about the Killian memos-- as if the discrepancies over Bush's service record stand or fall based on this one set of disputed documents. It's the equivalent of covering the sideshow and ignoring the center ring.

CBSNEWS PLANS STATEMENT TO 'CLARIFY' BUSH GUARD DOCUMENTS STORY... NEW TIME: 5:00PM EDT...

I've FactChecked the SBVT, and Kerry's medals and other clainms ... don't see any debunking ... questions raised, contradictions pointed out, but no definitive debunking, unlike the debunking of the AWOL BS which is the proximate, and Democrat-instigated, cause of this whole sorry mess.

WASH POST: Documents allegedly written by deceased officer that raised questions about Bush's service with Texas National Guard bore markings showing they had been faxed to CBS News from a Kinko's copy shop in Abilene, Texas... Developing...