Bush AWOL documents fake?

A Lone Voice wrote:

The saga continues:

Saturday, September 11, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.

More challenges about whether Bush documents are authentic

By Pete Slover
The Dallas Morning News
AP

AUSTIN, Texas ?- The man named in a disputed memo ...
<snip - read the original post if ya wanna - timber>

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.
By Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writer

September 12, 2004

WASHINGTON ?- These days, CBS News anchor Dan Rather and his colleagues at the network's magazine program "60 Minutes II" are enduring an unusual wave of second-guessing by some of the public and fellow journalists.

For that, they can thank "Buckhead."

It was a late-night blog posting by this mystery Netizen that first questioned the validity of documents Rather cited Wednesday as proof that George W. Bush did not fulfill his National Guard duty more than 30 years ago.

Buckhead refuses to further identify himself, other than dropping hints that he is a male who lives on the East Coast ?- preferring to proclaim that the scramble to verify the contentions in his posting marks an extraordinary achievement for a medium that has operated more as an underground world of ideological venting than a source of legitimate news.

But Buckhead is vehement about one thing: He acted alone when he posted, to the conservative website FreeRepublic.com, what was widely believed to be the first allegation that the CBS report relied on documents that could have been forged.

"Absolutely, positively, on my own, sitting at my computer in my bedroom just before midnight ?- but not in my pajamas," he wrote in an e-mail exchange with The Times. "But once I posted the comment to Free Republic I was no longer working alone, and that is the real point of the story about the story about the story."

That story began Wednesday, 19 minutes after the "60 Minutes II" broadcast began, when another FreeRepublic poster, TankerKC, noted that the documents were "not in the style that we used when I came into the USAF. Can we get a copy of those memos?"

Less than four hours later, Buckhead pointed to "proportionally spaced fonts" in the memos, which CBS said had been written in the early 1970s by Bush's commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984. Buckhead concluded that the documents had been drafted on a modern-day word processor rather than a typewriter.

"I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old," Buckhead wrote. "This should be pursued aggressively."

And it was ?- with startling speed.

Early Thursday morning, Minneapolis lawyer Scott Johnson was in his basement home office, preparing to link some morning news reports to the site he co-authors, when a reader sent an e-mail about Buckhead.

Intrigued, Johnson, whose online ID is "The Big Trunk," put a link on his site, PowerLine Blog.com, to Buckhead's post.

Then the floodgates opened.

"Thanks to all the readers who have written regarding this post," Johnson wrote in an early update. "Several have pointed out that the Executive line of IBM typewriters did have proportionally spaced fonts, although no reader has found the font used in the memos to be a familiar one or thought that the IBM Executive was likely to have been used by the National Guard in the early 1970s.

"Reader Monty Walls has also cited the IBM Selectric Composer," he continued. "However, reader Eric Courtney adds this wrinkle: The 'Memo To File' of August 18, 1973, also used specialized typesetting characters not used on typewriters. These include the superscript 'th' in 187th, and consistent ' (right single quote) all parentheses in original used instead of a typewriter's generic {minute} (apostrophe). These are the sorts of things that typesetters did manually until the advent of smart correction in things like Microsoft Word."

Soon Charles Johnson, a Los Angeles musician-turned-conservative-blogger who hosts the site LittleGreenFootballs.com, posted the results of his own investigation. He wrote that he had opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Times New Roman and used the program's default settings to retype a purported Killian memo from August 1973.

"My Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as 'authentic,' " Johnson wrote, posting images of his creation and the CBS document. (The Times New Roman font itself predates computers; it was designed in 1932.)

Within 90 minutes of that post, the Power Line site was linked to perhaps the best-known conservative site of all ?- the Drudge Report, made famous when Matt Drudge took a lead role in the first reports on the relationship between then-President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

"That was a quantum jump in awareness," said Scott Johnson. "It was wildly circulating in the blogosphere until Drudge linked us. Then it was instantly known to a million people, and it was all of a sudden a legitimate story."

Suddenly, the story line shifted from the question Democrats had been trying to ask ?- whether Bush received special treatment in the Guard ?- to whether a network long detested by conservatives had been duped in its quest to air a report critical of the president in the midst of the reelection campaign.

Journalists at mainstream media outlets rushed to consult with experts to check the validity of the documents. The claims of seemingly legitimate analysts posting commentary online could not be ignored.

"If the blog enthusiasts wanted to write a better scenario, they'd have a hard time coming up with one more spectacular than this one," said Jim Geraghty, host of the Kerry Spot blog published by the conservative National Review, whose e-mail queue was filled by font experts from across the nation wanting to weigh in.

Democrats point to the timeline as evidence of a right-wing conspiracy; Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe suggested to reporters Friday that White House political advisor Karl Rove might have cooked up the memos, presumably with the idea that they would be discredited. A Bush spokesman called the charge "nonsense."

"It was amazing Thursday to watch the documents story go from FreeRepublic.com, a bastion of right-wing lunacy, to Drudge to the mainstream media in less than 12 hours," said Jim Jordan, a strategist for independent Democratic groups opposed to Bush.

"That's not to say the documents didn't deserve examination. But apparently the entire thing was cooked up by a couple of amateurs on Free Republic. The speed with which it moved was breathtaking."

By Friday, articles in The Times, the Washington Post and other news outlets were quoting some analysts raising questions about the CBS documents, and others saying it was impossible to judge the memos' authenticity without seeing the originals.

Rather opened his evening news broadcast Friday with a defense of his report, producing an analyst who vouched for the memos.

But at the same time, one man who Rather had said would corroborate CBS' report ?- retired Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, Killian's direct supervisor ?- told The Times that he did not think the memos were real.

Media experts said the role of the bloggers illustrated a significant development in the relationship between mainstream news and the still-nascent phenomenon of blogging.

This was the first time, some said, that the Web logs were engaging in their own form of investigative journalism ?- and readers, they warned, should be cautious.

"The mainstream press is having to follow them," said Jeffrey Seglin, a professor at Emerson College in Boston. "The fear I have is: How do you know who's doing the Web logs?

"And what happens when this stuff gets into the mainstream, and it eventually turns out that the '60 Minutes' documents were perfectly legitimate, but because there's been so much reporting about what's being reported, it has already taken on a life of its own?"

"All hail 'Buckhead,' " wrote one posting to Free Republic.

"Here, here," wrote another. "But how do we know Buckhead is really not Karl Rove. "

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