REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Authenticity of Bush Guard memos questioned

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 20:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6931
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, September 16, 2004 12:24 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Is Bush's guard service relevant to this election? To me, not really. What is, in my mind, relevant is that Bush has continued to make claims over the years, and continuing to this day, about that service that are brought into question by evidence from a number of different sources (eyewitness as well as documentation). This is an issue of character. It's one thing to make mistakes in the past, own up to those mistakes, and move on. It's another to deny that mistakes were ever made, make claims that appear to not be substantiated by any evidence, and stick to that story. So the actual service itself in my mind is not as important an issue as what has been claimed about that service in all the years following.

What do we know about Bush's National Guard service? Bush has repeatedly claimed that he received no preferential treatment in getting into the guard. There are witnesses who say that he did (I can't really say anything about the accuracy of accounts from Barnes or Bush's Harvard professor). The only thing we can say for sure based on documentation is there was a long waiting list and that Bush made the cut with test scores that appear to be average. Bush completed flight training and from the records things appear to be going well until around 1972. Then something happens. Bush does not renew his flight physical. Bush requests to go to Alabama to work on a political campaign. There are questions about whether or not Bush ever showed up for duty in Alabama. Bush's superiors don't fill out an evaluation form. Bush requests early release to go to graduate school at Harvard. Bush is placed on inactive status. Bush is taken off inactive status and given an honorable discharge. From the paper trail it appears that Bush was turned over to Denver when he went to Harvard. Denver placed him on inactive. Some documents from Texas got him taken off inactive and then the discharge.



Just a comment on this aspect from personal experience. When I came back from Vietnam in 1972, with 5 months left on my two year committment (Yep. Drafted.), the Army couldn't wait to tell me the related civilian occupation for Radio Teletype Operator was security guard, give me a final haircut and a steak dinner you could have resoled a boot with, and hand me an early discharge. Some of my friends who got into the National Guard and weren't too interested in continuing were also let go early. With the war winding down, the military was cutting folks loose as quick as they could. I have no evidence one way or the other on Bush, but it's a possibility that they cut him loose with less than the normally required active duty time.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 12:39 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


One more interesting thing. Based on his birthday (07/06/1946) and the draft lotteries from 1969 through 1973, Bush would never have been drafted. He was only eligible for the 1969 lottery, along with everyone else born between 1944 and 1950. The 1970 lottery was for men born in 1951, the '71 lottery for '52, etc. His number in '69 was 327 and the draft stopped at 195. BTW, I was 137 in the 1969 lottery. Fortunate Son indeed.

Link to Selective Service site relating to Vietnam era draft.
http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 2:31 PM

SOUPCATCHER


That is an interesting fact that you bring up. So does this mean that Bush enlisting in the National Guard as a way to avoid going to Vietnam was unneccessary?

From previous statements Bush has made it is clear that he thought this was an either/or situation. In an interview with the Houston Chronicle in 1984 he made the following statement, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

Your previous post about early discharge was also very good information. Does this apply in Bush's case? Well, we know that he was discharged before his full time was up to go to graduate school. And we know that he received an honorable discharge. The White House has always claimed that he wouldn't have been honorably discharged if he hadn't fulfilled all his obligations up to that point in time. But there is an eight month period during which there is no documentary evidence that he fulfilled his requirements. Bush has never made the statement that he was offered an early discharge. His claim has always been that he joined the National Guard, served honorably, and requested and was granted early discharge to go to graduate school. While there is no doubt that he joined the National Guard and that he was granted an early discharge to attend graduate school there is doubt, at least in my mind, that he served honorably.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 4:48 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
That is an interesting fact that you bring up. So does this mean that Bush enlisting in the National Guard as a way to avoid going to Vietnam was unneccessary?



After more research, I have to amend (guess I wouldn't make a good reporter, except maybe at 60 Minutes). The Selective Service site doesn't define clearly how the draft pre 1969 was conducted, except the statement buried in the Vietnam era section: "Reinstitution of the lottery was a change from the "draft the oldest man first" method, which had been the determining method for deciding order of call."

However, the Draft stats show 296,406 inducted in 1968 and 283,586 in 1969, presumably under the "oldest man first" method (however that worked).

Bush joined the Guard in May 1968, right out of college (he would have had a deferment in college), and the first Vietnam era draft was December 1, 1969. I guess he may have been vulnerable to the draft from May '68 to December '69 after all.

In any case, I'm still not surprised that the son of a well-connected family might get a little assistance in moving up on the Guard roster. If I'd had that kind of pull back then, I probably wouldn't have thought twice about turning a blind eye to daddy pulling a few strings.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:10 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Both my SO and his brother were eligible for the draft. One was born in '47 and the other on '49. My BIL ('49) got a VERY low number, and decided to go into the Navy b4 he was drafted (by then there were no National Guard openings). My SO fortunately got a high number.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:29 PM

SOUPCATCHER


There might be quite a few job openings at 60 minutes .

I'm not surprised either that men whose family had influence got moved up the roster. In fact, if I was in that situation and someone helped me out in that way I would serve and never look back. And if Bush had come out and said something to the effect of, "Look. I didn't want to go to Vietnam. People pulled strings to get me in the National Guard. I served my country proudly." then I wouldn't have any issue with that. But there are three problems that I have. First, Bush was for the war. Second, Bush has always claimed that there was no influence exerted on his behalf (although this may be a case of a lawyer answer, I believe the most definitive answer he gave was that no one named George asked for help getting that particular slot. When Barnes testified under oath a few years ago he stated that it was a friend of Bush Senior who made the request). Third, about two thirds of the way into his service his records get really sketchy (document wise).

You've stated earlier that this is ancient history. And in one respect you're right. There are a lot of problems in the here and now that deserve our attention a lot more than what a young man did or did not do thirty years ago. But this is a consistent pattern with George Bush throughout his career (military, business, and now politics). He talks a great line. But his follow through isn't that great. He slacks off. And it's up to others to bail him out. It's for these reasons that I don't think he's a good leader for this country, especially at this particular point in our history.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 17, 2004 2:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
There might be quite a few job openings at 60 minutes .

I'm not surprised either that men whose family had influence got moved up the roster. In fact, if I was in that situation and someone helped me out in that way I would serve and never look back. And if Bush had come out and said something to the effect of, "Look. I didn't want to go to Vietnam. People pulled strings to get me in the National Guard. I served my country proudly."



It's interesting that folks always assume Bush went into the ANG because he didn't want to go to Vietnam. I've made that assumption myself. At first look it seems reasonable, since so many were doing just that at the time. But avoiding a possible tour in Vietnam, where your chances of being in an actual combat unit were one in ten, by choosing to fly fighter aircraft seems like just going from one risk to another. I wonder of Bush the Younger didn't just aspire to be a pilot like his old man, and if the ANG route was more likely to get him there than any of the active duty Services.

Looks like time for me do do some more research (or find where some has already been done).

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 17, 2004 4:54 AM

ARAWAEN


I would think his connections could have got him an air force gig if he had wanted it.

That said, it has been an unfortunate trend throughout human history that power and wealth can influence military service. This is true for both those who seek not to serve and those who did serve. The draft during the civil war actually had a $300 buy out clause that many wealthy took advantage of.

I don't particularly like Bush but his method of getting out of Vietnam isn't any worse than Bill Clinton's. If Bush actually fulfilled his obligations (and this is currently unsettled in my mind) it might even be a step better in that he did serve.

What troubles me about our government, neither party excluded, is that so many (both elected and appointed figures) have chosen not to serve and neither have their families. I have begun to support the concept of a two-year mandatory service arrangment for both genders. In fact I think it would do more to protect people from terrorism than most of the Patriot Act.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:39 PM

SOUPCATCHER


I was actually thinking something along similar lines, Arawaen, in terms of military service. Of course, this might have been partly influenced by my recent re-reading of "Starship Troopers". I think Michael Moore provided a useful service in Fahrenheit 911 when he publicized how members of Congress are not immediately impacted by war (due to very few of them having children in the military).

You could be right, Geezer, that Bush wanted to fly because his father had been a pilot. I haven't read anything to support this, but I'll be curious about the results of your research.

So to kind of get back to the whole CBS fiasco. One of the most impressive aspects of the affair is how quickly these documents were proved to be forgeries. The major media were following in the wake of the on-line community on this one. The LA Times has been doing some good work on tracking the online questioning of the documents. Here is a link to an early report by Peter Wallsten titled, "No Disputing It: Blogs Are Major Players" from September 12 (probably requires registration - for all of these latimes links you can login with the following - username: latimes1 password: latimes2):
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-blog12sep12,1,104
3155.story

Quote:

Brief excerpt from above link
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.


Peter Wallsten continued to work on the story and was able to figure out who Buckhead is. He released an update in Saturday's edition of the LA Times entitled, "GOP Activist Made Allegations on CBS Memos". http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-buckhead18sep18,1
,1674359.story

Quote:

Excerpt from above link
WASHINGTON — It was the first public allegation that CBS News had used forged memos in its report questioning President Bush's Air National Guard service — a highly technical explanation posted on the Web within hours of airtime, citing proportional spacing and font styles.

But it did not come from an expert in typography or typewriter history, as some first thought. Instead, it was the work of Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to conservative Republican causes who had helped draft the petition urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar President Clinton after the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

...

Operating as Buckhead, which is also the name of an upscale Atlanta neighborhood, he wrote that the memos CBS' "60 Minutes" presented Sept. 8 as being written in the early 1970s by the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian were "in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman."

"The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word-processing software and personal computers," MacDougald wrote on the website. "They were not widespread until the mid- to late '90s. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid '80s used monospaced fonts.

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


So that answered my earlier question about who was the first person to call these forgeries on-line. I'm actually pretty surprised that Peter was able to find this out. Another thing that surprised me was how quickly experts were going on record that these were forged. An article, linked to on dailyKos, shed some additional light on this. "Two DC firms ramp up efforts over latest presidential controversies" http://www.prweek.com/news/news_story_free.cfm?ID=222586&site=3
Quote:

excerpted from above link
Creative Response Concepts (CRC), the VA-based agency promoting the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, used right-wing blogs and news sites to turn a CBS report casting doubt on President George W. Bush's National Guard service into a potential black eye for both the network and the Democrats.

A CRC client, the Cybercast News Service (CNS), was among the first to voice suspicion that documents suggesting Bush had received preferential treatment in the Guard were forgeries.

"After the CBS story aired, [CNS] called typographical experts, got them on the record that these papers were fishy, and posted a story by 3pm Thursday," said CRC SVP Keith Appell. "We were immediately in contact with [Matt] Drudge, who loved the story."


Another question is why CBS ran with these documents? I mean, the story has been sitting around since 1972, didn't really gain traction in 2000, and probably wasn't going to be as big as the Swift boat story this year.

A team at the LA Times has been working on the vetting of the documents. Here's an article from Saturday's paper, "In the Rush for a Scoop, CBS Found Trouble Fast" http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-cbs18sep18,1,6872257.st
ory

Quote:

excerpt from above article
NEW YORK — It was 11 a.m. on Sept. 8 — nine hours before "60 Minutes" was to air. But as news executives debated whether to broadcast a story on newly obtained paperwork offering fresh evidence about President Bush's National Guard service, a big question hung over CBS News' Westside headquarters: Were the photocopied documents real or fake?

Suddenly, the answer seemed to materialize, and from an unlikely source — the White House itself.

John Roberts, the network's White House correspondent, called to report he'd just completed an on-camera interview with Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director. Bartlett, it appeared, had no quarrel with the authenticity of the documents.

That was the turning point.


The above linked article goes into a lot more detail on the path that CBS took that led them to the broadcoast. It's a long read but I found it fascinating.

Just an update. We're still in the middle of this thing. I have no idea where all of this is going.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 19, 2004 4:25 AM

LOSTINTHEVERSE


The thing about this memo that has me questioning its authenticity is right at the top of the page...

"P.O. Box 34567"

While, personally, I have not served in any branch of the military, quite a few of my friends have. None of them, nor any military office address I've ever seen, takes mail at a P.O. Box.

Even if they did take the mail at a post office box, what are the odds that it would be box number 34567? The rarity of the behavior, and the sequence of the number make me question this.


Just my take, feel free to tear it apart.

~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 19, 2004 4:25 AM

LOSTINTHEVERSE


The thing about this memo that has me questioning its authenticity is right at the top of the page...

"P.O. Box 34567"

While, personally, I have not served in any branch of the military, quite a few of my friends have. None of them, nor any military office address I've ever seen, takes mail at a P.O. Box.

Even if they did take the mail at a post office box, what are the odds that it would be box number 34567? The rarity of the behavior, and the sequence of the number make me question this.


Just my take, feel free to tear it apart.

~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 19, 2004 8:02 AM

SOUPCATCHER


That's a great catch, LostInTheVerse. I'm kicking myself for not having noticed that. I did a quick search of documents released by the White House as part of Bush's files and could not find any that had a PO Box. The only address that I have found is:
111th Ftr Intcp Sq
Ellington AFB, Texas
TexANG (ADC)
For an example of the address you can check out one of the documents, "Bush’s May 2, 1973 Officer Effectiveness Training Report":
http://www.glcq.com/docs/oer_5-2-73.htm

These forgeries are looking sloppier and sloppier with every bit of new evidence. Rather and CBS are certainly looking unprofessional in this episode.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 19, 2004 8:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Sloppy indeed!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 20, 2004 1:59 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I was actually thinking something along similar lines, Arawaen, in terms of military service. Of course, this might have been partly influenced by my recent re-reading of "Starship Troopers". I think Michael Moore provided a useful service in Fahrenheit 911 when he publicized how members of Congress are not immediately impacted by war (due to very few of them having children in the military).



Somehow, seeing Robert Heinlein and Michael Moore referenced in the same paragraph gives me peculiar feeling.

But let's have some fun with numbers. Out of the 535 members of congress, there are only about 400 who might possibly have children of military age(after factoring out those single, under 40, or over 70. If I had a research staff, I'd find out exactly how many had children of military age). So we have one out of these roughly 400 possible congress persons and their spouses with a child in Iraq (per Moore). Sounds pretty bad. But wait, there's more.

Current US strength in Iraq is around 114,000. Last year there were around 51 million Married Filing Joint tax returns. Let's drop 10% for those too young or old to have military age children, leaving us with about 46 million. 46 million divided by 114,000 = 403 (more or less). So only one in 403 possible non-congressional couples has a child in Iraq. Makes our representatives look a bit less bad, doesn't it? Wish I had the time to find exact figures, but this rough approximation gives you the idea.



Quote:

You could be right, Geezer, that Bush wanted to fly because his father had been a pilot. I haven't read anything to support this, but I'll be curious about the results of your research.



I did find this, in GWB's biography on the US Embassy, Japan site. I'll try to find some more.

"George W. graduated from Yale in May of 1968 with a major in history. Two weeks before graduation, he went to the offices of the Texas Air National Guard at Ellington Air Force Base outside Houston to sign up for pilot training. One motivation, he said, was to learn to fly, as his father had done during World War II. George W. was commissioned as a second lieutenant and spent two years on active duty, flying F-102 fighter interceptors. For almost four years after that, he was on a part-time status, flying occasional missions to help the Air National Guard keep two of its F-102s on round-the-clock alert."

http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-2902.html





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 20, 2004 4:02 AM

CREVANREAVER

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 20, 2004 5:14 AM

ARAWAEN


I don't think the question is as much do our representatives have children or family in Iraq specifically, but rather do they have children or family in the armed services at all, now or in the past. It doesn't really matter if they are stationed in S. Korea, Germany or stateside. Only one member of congress has a child in the enlisted ranks anywhere in the military (if I recall correctly), not sure what the number of officers is.

I also don't think we need to limit it to Congressmen, we can easily include Cabinet positions and political advisors. Anybody involved in policy decisions and collecting a check from the Federal government.

I loved the fact that in Heinlein's Starship Troopers everybody started as enlisted. Those with officer material were pulled from the enlisted ranks and trained to be officers rather than beginning as officers.

The Heinlein novel was proposing military service as a prerequisite to voting, let alone holding public office. This is a far cry from what Michael Moore was saying, his only motivation was to score points against his opponents, but I doubt he would be saying the same thing if the political polarity was reversed.

I would be excluded under this system as I was rejected for health reasons when I tried to enlist, though technicaly in a true 'Heinlein' system they would have had to find me a job somewhere.

Personally I don't want Bush or Kerry to be president. To borrow the tag line from the recent AvP movie (the tag line being better than the movie), 'No matter who wins, we lose!'

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 20, 2004 6:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Arawaen:
I don't think the question is as much do our representatives have children or family in Iraq specifically, but rather do they have children or family in the armed services at all, now or in the past. It doesn't really matter if they are stationed in S. Korea, Germany or stateside. Only one member of congress has a child in the enlisted ranks anywhere in the military (if I recall correctly), not sure what the number of officers is.



Moore's site says 4 were in service and one in Iraq as of when the movie was made.

My point was more about how Moore used true figures out of context to insinuate that the Government would go to war because they were personally risking less than the average citizen. Based on my little math excercise above, I'm not so sure that's true.

I've not got the time to do the research on all 600 or so members of Congress and senior Administration figures, but I'd bet that the proportion of their children who have been or are in the military is about the same asthat of the portion of the general population that meets the same age and marriage demographic.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 20, 2004 6:24 AM

CREVANREAVER


HERE IS DAN RATHER'S STATEMENT!

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 20, 2004 7:13 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


And CBS's Statement.

(CBS) Below is the text of the CBS News statement on its use of documents purportedly written by President Bush's National Guard commander:

Bill Burkett, in a weekend interview with CBS News Anchor and Correspondent Dan Rather, has acknowledged that he provided the now-disputed documents used in the Sept. 8 "60 Minutes Wednesday" report on President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard.

Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, also admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents’ origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source.

Burkett originally said he obtained the documents from another former Guardsman. Now he says he got them from a different source whose connection to the documents and identity CBS News has been unable to verify to this point. Burkett’s interview will be featured in a full report on tonight’s CBS Evening News with Dan Rather (6:30-7:00 p.m., ET/PT).

In light of this and other developments reported by CBS News and other news organizations, CBS News President Andrew Heyward issued the following statement:

“'60 Minutes Wednesday' had full confidence in the original report or it would not have aired. However, in the wake of serious and disturbing questions that came up after the broadcast, CBS News has done extensive additional reporting in an effort to confirm the documents’ authenticity.

That included an interview featured on last week’s edition of "60 Minutes Wednesday" with Marian Carr Knox, secretary to the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the officer named as the author of the documents; the interview with Bill Burkett to be seen tonight; and a further review of the forensic evidence on both sides of the debate.

Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret. Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable, and independent reporting. We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust.”

CBS News and CBS management are commissioning an independent review of the process by which the report was prepared and broadcast to help determine what actions need to be taken. The names of the people conducting the review will be announced shortly, and their findings will be made public.

©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644539.shtml

Given Burkett's previous anti-Bush statements, does this let the Administration off the hook for providing the documents, or do we just move deeper into X-files territory?


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 20, 2004 7:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
What you'll find is that the memos will be authenticated as much as any multiply-copied document can be, and the story will sink out of sight with no apologies and no retractions... along with "Nuclear Weapons Found in Iraq!" and "John Kerry shoots self to get a medal!" and other right-wing idiocies.

It's too bad the people who keep spewing this crap don't ever get embarassed about being so wrong so often.



Well, I guess even a stopped "Not really right-wing, just skeptical" clock is right twice a day.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 20, 2004 8:12 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Thanks for posting this, CrevanReaver. I personally think this statement falls under a category I have called "weak sauce". The main point comes in the last paragraph and you've got to wade through a lot of, "well here's why it's not my fault" before you get there. Here's how I would have done it:

I presented documents in my report that are forgeries. I made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. For more details on the information I used to make the decision to present these documents, please read the attached article.
-SoupCatcher if he was Dan Rather


But that's just me. When you make a mistake, admit the mistake. Then determine how you made the mistake. And make sure that it doesn't happen again.

As far as Michael Moore goes... (sorry for the Heinlein juxtaposition, Geezer - In retrospect, I could've put a line break between the two sentences and still said what I wanted to say ) Whether or not I agree with his opinion on the information, I think he did a service simply by presenting it. Members of congress, on the average, do not have children in the military. Is this representative of the population as a whole? Like you, I wish I had a research staff. The factors that I would look at are income and children in the military. Here is the assumption that I was working under (with no statistics to back it up): the average income for families that have children in the military is less than the average income for families of members of congress. We have a professional military. If you look at the demographics of our military, it is different than the demographics of congress (in terms of ethnicity, gender, and income level). Of course, the demographics of congress are different than the demographics of the country as a whole. And the demographics of the military are different than the demographics of the country as a whole. What it boils down to is that we have a group who leads and a group who protects and there isn't much overlap between the two.

That's kind of where I was going with the Heinlein reference. He presented a world where those who lead were a subset of those who protect.

Another thing I would look at if I had a research staff would be degrees of separation. It would not surprise me if a huge majority of us fireflyfans either served or are serving in the military or have a family member who served or is serving in the military. Or, at the very least, a friend (I'm referring to voluntary service - post draft). Neither me or my brother joined the military - but cousins, neighbors, friends, in-laws, you name it. What I'm getting at is that I think most of us know and care about someone who is right now in harms way as a member of the military. I would be very surprised if that was the case with members of congress. (Okay, I'll put away the broad sweeping generalization brush for now ).

Thanks, Geezer, for posting that paragraph from Bush's biography. I'll look in more detail at that later today.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 20, 2004 9:42 PM

SOUPCATCHER


I'm going to combine a couple of posts on this one. I spent some time playing around with demographic information for the military, members of congress and the population as a whole. There are definite problems because of differences in the median ages of the three different populations so it's hard to be anything other than general based on the sources I found (I wish they would have broken the numbers out using different categories). I have not found any information about income – so I haven't been able to verify my assertion that members of congress come from a different income bracket than members of the military. In terms of gender, women are represented at a higher percentage in the military than in congress, but much lower than in the general population. In terms of minorities, African Americans are over-represented in the military and under-represented in congress, Hispanic/Latinos are under-represented in the military and under-represented in congress (but the military representation is three times congress representation), and Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders are slightly over-represented in the military and greatly under-represented in congress. The military numbers are all from 2001 ( http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep2001/index.htm ). The congress numbers are all from the current congress ( http://www.ethnicmajority.com/congress.htm – although I had to add in Ben Campbell – and http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cawp/Facts/Officeholders/cawpfs.html ). The general population numbers are from 2002 ( http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/d/de/demographics_
of_the_united_states.html
). So all I can really say is that both the population of congress and the military population do not reflect the general population, but the military population is closer.

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer
I did find this, in GWB's biography on the US Embassy, Japan site. I'll try to find some more.

"George W. graduated from Yale in May of 1968 with a major in history. Two weeks before graduation, he went to the offices of the Texas Air National Guard at Ellington Air Force Base outside Houston to sign up for pilot training. One motivation, he said, was to learn to fly, as his father had done during World War II. George W. was commissioned as a second lieutenant and spent two years on active duty, flying F-102 fighter interceptors. For almost four years after that, he was on a part-time status, flying occasional missions to help the Air National Guard keep two of its F-102s on round-the-clock alert."



I guess I really shouldn't have used the wording that I did. What I said was that I hadn't heard that Bush joined the National Guard to be a pilot like his dad. So now I have (thanks to the excerpt). What I should have said was that I hadn't heard Bush say the primary reason he joined the National Guard was to be a pilot like his dad. This excerpt says that this was one motivation. I find it interesting that they don't list any other motivations.

This paragraph is fascinating. What's the impression that you get from reading it? This is a good kid who volunteered to serve his country, right out of college, the same way his dad did and that he did his part to protect this country. I guess it doesn't surprise me that they would put the best spin on events in the biography. There's nothing in this paragraph about Vietnam and the draft as possible motivations for joining the Guard. There's nothing in this paragraph acknowledging that he can't prove he flew an F-102 after May of 1972 (when did two years equal "almost four years" and when did not flying equal "flying occasional missions"). There's nothing that says he was suspended from flying in August of 1972. In short, it's about what I would expect from an autobiography.

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer
Given Burkett's previous anti-Bush statements, does this let the Administration off the hook for providing the documents, or do we just move deeper into X-files territory?



Burkett is a problematic informant. If I remember correctly, he's the main source for the story that Bush's National Guard documents were tampered with back in 1997. He has been considered suspect because of his lawsuit against the National Guard. Back in February, Kevin Drum formerly of Calpundit now of Political Animal, conducted an interview with Burkett. Here's a link to the interview if you're interested (it's rather long): http://calpundit.com/archives/003249.html
One of the big questions for me is who is Burkett's source? Where did he get the documents?

As far as X-files territory… I'm still having fun with my conspiracy theory. I'm just thinking of James Hatfield back in 1999 and what happened right before he released his book, "Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President ". The publisher ended up recalling the book because of an appendix that was added on. Hatfield claimed that his source for the material in the appendix was Karl Rove.

Karl Rove has become a figure of almost mythic proportions, comparable to Bill Clinton. He's the new bogeyman, except this time it's for the left instead of the right. In all honesty, he would have to be a serious stud to be behind the forged documents and I just don't think he could've pulled it off, even though it would be completely consistent with his actions in the past (plant information and then discredit the person, thereby discrediting everything else they have said). But it's fun to tell scary stories around the campfire.





I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 1:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I guess I really shouldn't have used the wording that I did. What I said was that I hadn't heard that Bush joined the National Guard to be a pilot like his dad. So now I have (thanks to the excerpt). What I should have said was that I hadn't heard Bush say the primary reason he joined the National Guard was to be a pilot like his dad. This excerpt says that this was one motivation. I find it interesting that they don't list any other motivations.

This paragraph is fascinating. What's the impression that you get from reading it? This is a good kid who volunteered to serve his country, right out of college, the same way his dad did and that he did his part to protect this country. I guess it doesn't surprise me that they would put the best spin on events in the biography. There's nothing in this paragraph about Vietnam and the draft as possible motivations for joining the Guard. There's nothing in this paragraph acknowledging that he can't prove he flew an F-102 after May of 1972 (when did two years equal "almost four years" and when did not flying equal "flying occasional missions"). There's nothing that says he was suspended from flying in August of 1972. In short, it's about what I would expect from an autobiography.



I kind of hate to post this link, because the source is an almost sure poison pill, but it does confirm some of my thoughts about the state of the ANG at the end of the Vietnam war, and possibly explains some of the non-flying status after 1972. It's worth noting that the date on this letter is Feb. 11, 2004, quite a bit before the current flap.

If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.
The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.


http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 5:16 AM

BARNSTORMER


If interested, here's an op-ed I just read on Yahoo.



By William F. Buckley Jr.

The charge of scandalous behavior by Lt. George W. Bush in the National Guard evolves, on reflection, into scandalous behavior by CBS and Dan Rather. Mr. Rather is standing by his story, but hanging on by his fingernails. The focus had been on whether CBS had relied on forgeries. In his second "60 Minutes" broadcast, Rather had the courage to bring onstage the 86-year-old secretary, Mrs. Marian Carr Knox, who said flat-out that the document suggesting inattentive duty was a forgery -- this was not a document typed by her or in her office.


But even though the document was fake, Mrs. Knox went on, its sentiments weren't fake. Namely, that Lt. Bush was happy-go-lucky in the Texas National Guard, more interested in other things than Guard duty.


At that point Dan Rather looked sternly at his guest, and indeed at life itself, and said, Well, then, George Bush (news - web sites) defied direct orders!


Yes, said Mrs. Knox.


The concrete issue had to do with his failure to take a physical examination on the appointed day. These physicals, "60 Minutes" viewers were told, were routine annual requirements. An officer was supposed to undergo a physical on his birthday, a reasonable arrangement designed to allocate medical resources. But Bush didn't take the exam that day.


An awful, irreverent thought enters impious minds. Namely: So what?


So he missed the physical. What did the postponement of it have to do with anything of current interest? No one has charged that he missed the physical in order to conceal something. Conceal what? That he had syphilis, and didn't want to show up with the medics until his antibiotics had dispelled all traces of it? That he had taken to defying military authority to express his iconoclasm?


It was stressed that he had sought leave, and been given it, to move to the Air Guard unit in Alabama, which would permit him a role in the Senate campaign of Winton Blount.


Giving him leave didn't affect pressing military concerns. "In 1972," according to retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971, "there was an enormous glut of pilots. The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."


And then the theme is advanced that Bush got into the Guard because of influence. Service in the Guard was coveted, because homeland duty is clearly preferable to overseas duty in combat zones. But Guard units were hardly cloistered. Air Guard pilots flew 24,124 sorties and 38,614 combat hours in Southeast Asia during the months after Bush started his service. The scholar Charles Gross records that "85 percent of the personnel in the Vietnam-based 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron ... were Air Guardsmen."


Bush began his training in May 1968. He did six weeks of basic training, 53 weeks of flight training, and 21 weeks of fighter-interceptor training. Guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points annually to meet their yearly obligation. Bush accumulated 253 points his first year, and a total of 589 points in the succeeding three years, before his Alabama leg and his discharge.


Was there influence accountable for his getting into the National Guard?


Here is a subject best ignored, but when raised, requiring basic sophistication. Grown-up people know that influence is everywhere used. When Bush joined the Air Guard, his father was only a representative, having failed to be elected to the Senate. So George W. could get away with -- what? His father didn't exactly own the National Guard. So he got in because his father was in Congress and his grandfather had been in the Senate?


Anybody who believes that influence isn't a factor in life was never asked to write a letter to a member of Congress asking him to endorse the application of Joey from next door to enter West Point. That's how much of life works. Influence is not to be confused with corruption. Influence can get you to the head of the line to get your driver's license; corruption is when you fail the test but get the license anyway.


Lt. Bush flew successfully, adroitly, admirably. His inclination to move on after four years to help a Republican candidate is testimony to a lively disposition, in a 25-year-old, to move on, to undertake another challenge. He did this in Alabama and, after his discharge, went on to Harvard Business School (what influence got him through the rigorous exams given at Harvard?), getting his degree. Then back to Texas into business, then politics, then the governorship, then the White House. How did he get to the White House? Influence with the voters.



Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 12:53 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yeah, every now and again I go out on a limb and I faaaaaaaaaallllllllll!

Can I change my statement and not be called a flip-flopper??


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:24 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yeah, every now and again I go out on a limb and I faaaaaaaaaallllllllll!

Can I change my statement and not be called a flip-flopper??




I'm completely neutral about your choice of footwear.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:55 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hahahaha!!!!!




I would have been more involved in this thread but I've been very productively busy this weekend. It's been interesting reading!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 8:30 PM

SOUPCATCHER


The letter by William Campenni from February 2004 shares a lot in common with an earlier letter he wrote in May 2003.
http://archive.observernews.com/stories/archives/viewpoints/2003view/0
51603/16letr7.shtml

It looks like he dusted off his original letter, made a few minor changes, rearranged paragraphs slightly, and added a lot of material. The deletions aren't really that important (got rid of some partisan rhetoric, changed the name of one of his commanding officers from Don to William, and removed an inaccurate statement that 1970-1971 was the period of Bush's guard service that was in question – it was actually 1972-1974). The material that he added provides a lot of context. Unfortunately, I couldn't see how he tied it back to this particular case. One thing we know is that William Campenni was not with the Texas Air National Guard for most of the period in question. In November of 1972 he was with the Pennsylvania Air National Guard.
Quote:

excerpted from article, "9/11 scenario faced" by Peter Bacque, 01 December 2003

One of those on-guard outfits was the Pennsylvania Air National Guard's 146th Fighter Squadron, an air defense unit based at Pittsburgh International Airport.

Just out of graduate school, Campenni was a 32-year-old captain in the 146th, flying the F-102 Delta Dagger, the world's first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor, and "sitting alert" on Nov. 11, 1972.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Common%2FMGArt
icle%2FPrintVersion&c
=
MGArticle&cid=1031772380834&oasDN=timesdispatch.com&oasPN=%21newsℑ=timesdispatch80x60.gif

(note that the link has been split in two)


Now I haven't been able to determine where Campenni went to graduate school. It's possible that it was in Texas and so he might have been present when Bush missed his physical but his own letter puts the cut-off date at 1971. I'm pretty confident in saying that he was not present when the Alabama transfer story played out (and almost as confident that he wasn't present when Bush missed his physical). He mentions that he and Bush did not travel in the same social circles so I would be very surprised if they were corresponding during this period.

His statements that it was not a big deal to miss a physical and easy to make it up later may very well be accurate. But there's no evidence that Bush ever made up his missed physical. I would be surprised if you were allowed a two year cushion to make up a missed flight physical.

His statement that he would not be surprised if Bush's commanding officer in Alabama did not remember him, based on his own experience as a commander might be accurate as well. But there is only one person in Alabama who claims he saw Bush, and the dates he gave are from before Bush was even in Alabama. There are many people in Alabama who say they never saw Bush show up.

So he provides useful context into how things could have happened, based on his own experiences in the Guard. But he provides no evidence that this is indeed how things did happen. He wasn't an eyewitness. He wasn't even in either of the two states in question. He admits he wasn't really a friend of Bush. And the documentation in Bush's files do not support the scenario that he posits. I see his letters as a well meaning attempt to say, "Well this is how it could have happened." Unfortunately, it's just speculation from a distance.

***

There's a lot of good stuff being written about Bush's Guard service (stuff that does not use the CBS documents ). Here's an excerpt from an article from the upcoming issue of the Air Force Times (thanks to kos at dailyKos for the link).
Quote:

excerpted from "Bush’s Air Guard stint started well, then faded into mystery" by William H. McMichael from Issue Date: September 27, 2004

From most accounts, Bush appears to have received preferential treatment to get into the Air National Guard and avoid the draft after he graduated from Yale University in 1968. He was initially regarded as a good pilot, but his performance faded over his final two years in the Guard and he was suspended from flight status. He did not fly for the remaining 18 months he served in the Guard, though he was obligated to do so.

And for significant chunks of time, Bush did not report for duty at all. His superiors took no action, and he was honorably discharged in 1973, six months before he should have been.

In a 2002 interview with USA Today, Dean Roome, a former fighter pilot who lived with Bush in the early 1970s, said Bush was a model officer during the first part of his career. But overall, he said, Bush’s Air Guard career was erratic — the first three years solid, the last two troubled.

“You wonder if you know who George Bush is,” Roome said. “I think he digressed after a while. In the first half, he was gung-ho. Where George failed was to fulfill his obligation as a pilot. It was an irrational time in his life.”

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-AIRPAPER-357916.php



The New York Times ran a decent article that gives a summation of what is known about 1972, "Portrait of George Bush in '72: Unanchored in Turbulent Time". It's four pages.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20bama.html?pagewa
nted=1


The main point in all of this is that what Bush has claimed about what happened during his Guard service is not supported by eyewitness account or documentation. From the biography that you provided one would think that Bush proudly volunteered to serve his country and did his duty fulfilling a very important role. From all accounts he may have started out that way. But there's no evidence that he finished that way.

This is one of the reasons I don't think he is a good choice in the upcoming election. We need someone who can finish things. Not someone who starts things with the best of intentions, talks a good line, but then fails on the follow through. The National Guard episode is consistent with other episodes in Bush's life. He starts good and then slacks off and other people bail him out. This may be fine for business. When you're President, not so much.

***

So that was a bit roundabout. Now back to the CBS memos. Looks like Burkett is claiming that the source he was protecting is Lucy Ramirez. I haven't seen anything on who this person is. Both campaigns are claiming that the other campaign was involved with getting the forgeries to CBS. The Democrats are saying Roger Stone is involved. The Republicans are saying Max Cleland is involved. Still too early to tell either way, at least from what I've been reading.


I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
So, how ya feelin’ about World War 3?
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:32 - 48 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:28 - 22 posts
A History of Violence, what are people thinking?
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:16 - 19 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:16 - 4794 posts
Browncoats, we have a problem
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:41 - 15 posts
Sentencing Thread
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:39 - 382 posts
Ukraine Recommits To NATO
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:37 - 27 posts
Elon Musk
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:36 - 36 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Sat, November 30, 2024 17:58 - 1542 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sat, November 30, 2024 17:40 - 6932 posts
Hollywood LOVES them some Harvey Weinstein!!
Sat, November 30, 2024 14:33 - 16 posts
Manbij, Syria - 4 Americans Killed
Sat, November 30, 2024 14:06 - 6 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL