Bush AWOL documents fake?

A Lone Voice wrote:

The saga continues:And more here:
Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents

<another timber snip>

My guess:

These documents are part of the DNC's "Operation Fortunate Son" campaign, and were released now instead of the week before the election (like the Dems did with the DUI story about Bush in 2000) because the DNC panicked when Bush's lead swelled to double digits.

<one more timber snip>

You're a little late there, Lone, and Here, too, and finally, there's this: In which I said

Quote:

... My take is Kerry's handlers originally figured to hold this stuff for late-October release, a la the "DUI" scandal back in 2000, but, panicked by the recent poll trending, they tossed it out in a desperate attempt to blunt Bush the Younger's momentum ...

In conclusion, Lone wrote:

Why did the DNC launch "Operation Fortunate Son" instead of talking about the issues currently facing the US? Why are we not talking about both candidates and their record on terrorism, the economy, the military, and Homeland security? Why are we not comparing Bush and Kerry by examining bills that Bush has signed and vetoed and votes Kerry has made on these issues?

Oh. Maybe now I understand why the Democratic National Committee has launched "Operation Fortunate Son".......

Yup ... pretty much the way I figure it; having no substantive, legitimate issues with which to engage The Electorate, The Democrats have no choice but to prevaricate, hyperbolize, misconstrue, and focus attention anywhere but on themselves. The more The Electorate sees of the crew the Democrats have put forward, the less enchanted with the Footnotes-Soon-To-Be The Electorate becomes. This time around, the Democrats have beaten themselves ... much as they have been doing since '98, except they're gettin' better at it. Laughing

.

0 Replies

John Kerry...fighting in Vietnam

George Bush...smirking in Texas

0 Replies

September 11, 2004
HOT UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard Speaks About Boston Globe!
INDC EXCLUSIVE!! MUST CREDIT INDC!!

I just interviewed Dr. Bouffard again, and he's angry that the Globe has misrepresented him. He's been getting hate mail and nasty phone calls since last night's story was posted, and he wants me to correct the record. He did not change his mind, and he and his colleagues are becoming more certain that these documents are forgeries.

Instead of providing my analysis of our conversation, I'm largely going to transcribe his unaltered quotes (please note that he's a rather colorful, engaging older gentleman):

(I'm dynamically updating as I transcribe quotes, so keep refreshing)

"What the Boston Globe did now sort of pisses me off, because now I have people calling me and e-mailing me, and calling me names, saying that I changed my mind. I did not change my mind at all!"

"I would appreciate it if you could do whatever it takes to clear this up, through your internet site, or whatever."

"All I'd done is say, 'Hey I want to look into it.' Please correct that damn impression!"

"What I said to them was, I got new information about possible Selectric fonts and (Air Force) documents that indicated a Selectric machine could have been available, and I needed to do more analysis and consider it."

"But the more information we get and the more my colleagues look at this, we're more convinced that there are significant differences between the type of the (IBM) Composer that was available and the questionable document."

"The (new Selectric) typefaces sent to me invalidated the theory about the foot on the four (originally reported to INDC), but after looking at this more, there are still many more things that say this is bogus."

"... there are so many things that are not right; 's crossings,' 'downstrokes' ..."

"More things were looked into; more things about IBM options. Even if you bought special (superscripting) keys, it's not right. There are all kinds of things that say that this is not a typewriter."

"Any form of kerning may be critical (he hasn't rendered a definitive verdict if there is a form of kerning yet). If there is any type of kerning, it obviously isn't a typewriter or it's definitely a typeset document."

On the Globe and others:

"You talk to someone on the phone and it comes out different than you said!"

On the source of the 1969 Air Force Supply Memo:

Dr. Bouffard received an e-mail from the address of Roy Huber, a noted retired forensic analyst in Ottawa, but a response indicated that it was Lynn Huber.

"I presumed that it was a relative of Roy. The document said that there are fonts from the IBM that don't have the foot on the '4.'"

The e-mail also contained an attachment to possible Selectric fonts that indicated that the "4" had a foot, and the Air Force memo that indicated that the military purchase of such a machine was a possibility.

But since having had more time to analyze the fonts of the Selectric:

"We've looked into more and more IBM options and ... there are all kinds of things that say this isn't a typewriter."

Source

0 Replies

A reward was posted a couple days ago by a fairly well known, credible blogger. Anyone able to produce originally typed exact duplicates of any of the documents at question stands to collect something like 20 Grand. The funds are in escrow, and determination of winner, if any, is to be made by a court-accreditted forensic document examination firm. There have been entries ... some, apparently typed using an IBM Celectric Composer (the only machine of the time anywhere near remotely possessing the required attributes) claiming "Look! I Did it", but so far, the discrepencies are overwhelming even to the untrained eye.

All of which begs the question - Why would a National Guard Squadron use, let alone have, an expensive ($4-to-6K, plus accessories), highly sophisticated keyboard-and-console compositing machine intended to produce camera-ready pages for printing ... a machine calling for a highly trained operator and which required the desired text be typed twice in order to achieve proportional spacing, calculated line-to-line-perfectly coincident word wrap, centering, superscripting, and 13-pitch line spacing, to produce memos? Now, I'm familiar enough with the vagaries, insanities, foolishness, waste, and oxymorons of the military ... but that just doesn't enter the realm of possibility. It could perhaps have been possible (though doubt concerning even that appears to be growing). It absolutely is improbable beyond consideration.

Applying Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation accommodating the observed phenomena has the highest probability of being correct, no reasonable argument for the authenticity of the documents at question can be made.

Perhaps Hurricane Ivan will overshadow the coverage of the controversy for a bit over the next few days, but Ivan is gonna blow over long before Rathergate settles down.

0 Replies

Review of Bush's Guard years raises issues re time he served
US News and World Report
9/20/04
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.[/[/u]B]

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.

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."

0 Replies

Quote:

THE RACE TO THE WHITE HOUSE
No Disputing It: Blogs Are Major Players
Netizen's late-night post questioning CBS claims about Bush's service spreads at warp speed.

Source

And now some are questioning something like
I'll say it again....who's paying Drudge's bills??? No advertisers in three months...WHO4S PAYING THE BILLS???

0 Replies

BOOKMARK.

we can still register voters until oct 3 in Pa. i suppose thats a National Edict?

0 Replies

Quote:

"But at the time, I had every reason to believe that a major news organization had authentic documents."

White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said Friday.

The White House now says they had EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE the documents were authentic.

EVERY REASON. i.e., they had NO REASON to believe the documents were false.

For example, had the president simply told Bartlett that what the memos allege is wrong, Bartlett would have had ONE REASON to believe the documents might be phony. But Bartlett said Friday evening -- 3 days into this scandal -- that he had NO reason to believe the memos were fake.

This is a very important admission by the White House. They have been silent about the allegations for 5 days now. And the White House communications director admits that the content of the memos did not suggest to anyone in the White House that there was a problem with the veracity or authenticity of the memos.

It's high time the "real" media started asking the White House about the CONTENT of the memos rather than just whether a "th" can or can't be superscripted.

0 Replies

Like for instance this, from US News. I have highlighted the important points in red:

Quote:

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."

0 Replies

Quote:

The White House now says they had EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE the documents were authentic.

EVERY REASON. i.e., they had NO REASON to believe the documents were false.

sadly that is not enough to shut the likes of druge and fans up so they can keep the stink off their own guy.

0 Replies

timber and I are at least in agreement that this issue has a ways to run, still.

He probably won't agree that none of that is good for The Incumbent.

0 Replies

Kerry...goes off to war in VietNam

Bush...goes off to a kegger in Texas

0 Replies

BBB
Is there any way to find out who or what is financing Drudge's site? A very interesting question, Walter.

The following site might begin to give us a clue - Excerpts:

"Drudge was represented by Manny Klausner, whose legal services were financed by David Horowitz's Individual Rights Foundation, the legal wing of his Center for the Study of Popular Culture, a right-wing "think tank" heavily funded by Richard Mellon Scaife."

"Over the years, Drudge used near-limitless financing to drag out the case; meanwhile, rumor and speculation surrounding the "influential Republican" focused on the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal -- and specifically John Fund."

"The "Drudgegate" connection emerged in an accompanying article published that same day in American Politics Journal, in which it was revealed that Morgan Pillsbury had claimed to our publisher that Fund and Drudge were the prime movers behind that false Drudge Report story about Blumenthal. She also stated that Fund had told her not only that both Fund and Drudge had lied to Klausner, but that Drudge had lied to the court during the course of lawsuit."

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:XoPdav8dPqwJ:www.americanpolitics.com/20020503Drudge.html+how+is+The+Drudge+Report+site+financed&hl=en&start=4&ie=UTF-8

The John Fund, Editorial Page editor of Wall Street Journal link to the issue:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030602&s=alterman

BBB

0 Replies

From US News

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....

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/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

0 Replies

Just can't let it go...

Doesn't matter what's been proven or even that the DNC is now producing blatant forgeries to smear Bush...

0 Replies

That was a good summary of the issues -- from the indisputable records, not the disputed memos. Thanks, squinney.

0 Replies

John Kerry...arrived in Jerusalem not on the back of a donkey, but in a foreign built sedan.

George Bush...had, at the time of his run for the nomination, been out of the US but three times, though we're not sure if all three were to Tijuana.

0 Replies

John Kerry...drank from wussie wine glasses.

George Bush...sucked on a hose stuck into the Hoover dam.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Doesn't matter what's been proven or even that the DNC is now producing blatant forgeries to smear Bush...

smells like a "statement of fact" therein awarded the 1st salt pancake

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

John Kerry...drank from wussie wine glasses.

George Bush...sucked on a hose stuck into the Hoover dam.

November 3, 2004:

John Kerry: Jr. Senator from Taxachusetts.

George W. Bush: 44th President of the United States of America

0 Replies

Bush AWOL documents fake?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know