For the FSP Flat Earth Society/(aka Lefty nutjob meltdown)

[travis2]

Now I know you really are a liar...

You haven't proven squat except your complete ignorance of the situation.

There are not different rules for separation and retirement. Accrual of points is accrual of points. Period, end of story. You show your complete ignorance by trying to continue that lie.

The documents have been proven to be forgeries. Even the one "expert" CBS used has said he didn't see the documents. And why? Because CBS wouldn't let him look at them except online!

President Bush completed all his obligations. CBS completed none of theirs.

Those are the facts. Proven.

[xrayzebra]

DeSPURado, you are so full for crap, you just gotta have
brown eyes. What, just what, does it prove that all the
memo's are correct? I spent a considerable amount of time
in the Military and can I advise you of one thing: Every
damn one I served with pulled a few strings to get
something done. So What, it happens everyday, on every
job in the world. Jobs are had and lost because of who
you know. Grow up, dummie, there is a whole world out
there and you don't crap about it. Kerry on the other hand
tried to make himself look like superman and ended up looking
dumb and dumber. His only problem is he opens his mouth
inserts foot. There is an old saying: He should take his
right hand and place it on his left ear and his left hand and
place it on his right ear and pull his head out of his ass. He
is dumb as a door knob and he has proven he hates his
country with a passion. Listen to his testimony before the
Congress he now serves in, occasionally. Vote for him
but leave the rest of us alone with you dumb comments.

[DeSPURado]

Travis your own source is in disagreement with you.

Your source specifically says for retirement purposes only. Thats not the same as an early discharge. It also talks about a 1 year limitation on that requirement as well, and a maximum of four make ups per year. I think I am right about this, and both of which were not what Bush did.


Quote:6.6. Equivalent Training (EQT). A member may be allowed to make up a UTA that was missed even if the UTA was
missed without prior approval. EQTs can be performed in a pay status for excused absences and in a non pay status
(retirement points only) for unexcused absences.

6.6.1. Commanders may allow individuals to make up a maximum of four missed UTA periods in a paid EQT status per
fiscal year [U.S.C. Title 37, Section 206(e)]. An EQT in a pay status must be performed within 30 calendar days of the
missed scheduled UTA period and within the same fiscal year.

6.6.2. An EQT period without pay (for retirement points only) may be performed outside of 30 calendar days of the
missed scheduled UTA period but within the member's anniversary year. UTAs performed in a non-pay status will
be documented on NGB Form 105m/s or a locally substituted form, held separately from attendance records for UTAs
in a pay status, and forwarded directly to MPF.

6.6.3. The training received during an EQT must be of similar nature and quality to that which was missed. EQT will
be appropriate to and enhance ability of the individual to accomplish the duties of the position to which he or she is
assigned. In the case of staff or support personnel, this may include actions to enhance the training, management, or
readiness of the unit.

[travis2]

No, my source is in full agreement with me. If you will actually read, you will see that the "retirement purposes only" is in contrast with pay status.

There is nothing about any difference between retirement and separation. Period.

My source just kicked your ass. Again.

[DeSPURado]

Retirement is not the same as an early discharge you are showing yourself to be full of shit you are also ignoring the other crucial parts of the argument. You can only make up 4 absenses a year. Bush had one year with only 7 credits. He did no earn his discharge by your own standards.

[travis2]

Bush never had anything less than 56 credits. Liar.

[DeSPURado]

I am lying?


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."
USnews (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm)

[Tommy Duncan]

Bush fulfilled the points requirement for all 6 years and received an honorable discharge.

[travis2]

www.nationalreview.com/yo...180840.asp (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp)


The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968 ) .

Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.

[DeSPURado]

Travis did he earn that honorable discharge? Did he fucking earn it? By your own standards did he earn it?

[Tommy Duncan]

Did John Kerry "earn" his Purple Hearts?

WTF?

[travis2]

Yes he fucking earned it. By my own standards he fucking earned it.

[DeSPURado]

How the hell does attending only 36 meetings in one year and 12 in the next equal 56 points seriously cause thats what his pay roll records show he attended.

[travis2]

His records show 56 points. Period.

You can lie like your buddies all you want, but you only show off your completely pathetic life in doing so.

[Tommy Duncan]

If it's based on points then how did he not? This is the Guard not fulltime service.

[DeSPURado]

You need proof he only earned 12 credits here it is in 73

look at it for yourself. No forgery.
Link (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb73arfspe2.html)

[xrayzebra]

Mr. DeSPURado. Who gives a shit except you. Bush
is a man, Kerry is a zero, nada, zilch. Kerry loves the
UN and Socialism. Bush loves his country and proved it.
Kerry hates his country and has proven it. Count those
points, little man.:elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant

[Joe Chalupa]

weekend warriors.

I have nothing against the guard but when I was in...well, not many had much to say about the guard.

I think it is a mistake to worry about it.

[Nbadan]

Joe, the more people defend something the more legitimacy they give it in the public-eye. Look at what happened with the whole Swift fiasco. They're allegations were based on a bunch of lies, but since Kerry and the Demo's kept denying them, the cynical public started believing that they were true.

Just look at the size of this thread if you don't think people care about this issue.

[Tommy Duncan]

Joe, the more people defend something the more legitimacy they give it in the public-eye.

Hence the regurgitated Demo attacks on Bush's National Guard service. It's a manufactured controversy at this point. And again, a pretty stupid one to use against a sitting president.

It's the LBJ strategy. Get your opponent to deny that he beats his wife, sleeps around, etc...

[DeSPURado]

I find it funny that you would show your face here again Tommy after proving that Bush did not earn his discharge.

[Tommy Duncan]

This doc would seem to indicate more than 12 points.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb73arfspe2.jpg

[DeSPURado]

not if you are not double counting them for the periods of 72-73 and 73-74 Bush still had another year. Even then that adds up to less than 50.

[Tommy Duncan]

That's May through July.

[DeSPURado]

Read the bottom it says total for the year.

[Yonivore]

It's hard to read, but I come up with 58 points. He only claimed 56, so I'm sure the quality of the print is hindering me.

[DeSPURado]

That is supposed to account for the year of 72-73 and 73-74 which means 56 points for 2 years.

[Tommy Duncan]

I also find it funny that you are so fixated on Bush like this. Reminds me of a bunch of hardcore conservatives who hated Clinton and knew every detail of his early life. Man, they hated it when he was re-elected and it looks like you will enjoy that as well.

I find it funny that you continue to appear in here after you have been utterly humiliated for 14 straight pages.

Do yourself a favor and close the laptop already.

[DeSPURado]

Nice concession speech there Tommy. You know I am right so you say no one cares or you make fun of me. That just shows what kind of man you are.

[Yonivore]

You do know, of course, that your starting a whole new scandal on information that no one is disputing, right?

The claim is that he did not meet his obligation for the May '72 through May '73 Period. It's already been established that he accrued 56 hours from May '73 to May '74 and that it was at that time he requested an early discharge which he received honorably.

I still see 58 hours, adding the numbers at the top...for May '73 through July '73. You sure you know what your reading. And, if you go by the numbers at the bottom, it gets even more confusing...

Total for the year? Is it the first number or all the numbers to the right combined. And, what is that last number on the right, oh document expert?

[Yonivore]

One more thing, where do you get the idea this is supposed to cover '72 - '73 and '73 - '74? The first date at the top is May 28, 1973...the beginning of his sixth year of duty.

[DeSPURado]

The top column equals 35: 3 3 4 2 1 4 8 4 5 1

[DeSPURado]

Because he was getting out of his contract early. He was supposed to serve until 74 the credits still had to be made up for.

[Yonivore]

What is that number between the ending date and the points accrued, Mr. Expert?

[DeSPURado]

Not sure what you are asking.

[Yonivore]

The single digit number between the ending date and the accrued points in the upper part of the document. What is it for?

I know the answer...you obviously don't.

[DeSPURado]

Total days. how much of the weekend he spent there. 1 day or 2 days.

[Tommy Duncan]

You are delusional kiddo. Actually finish school, get a job, and stop mooching off of your parents. Then perhaps 50% tax rates won't seem like such a good idea.

Until then I am going to enjoy my evening while you continue to invite posters to humiliate yourself in this forum.

[Yonivore]

Well, those numbers don't precisely match the date spans at left, do you know why oh masterful document guru?

C'mon now, think, you're almost there.

[DeSPURado]

The numbers on the left are the days drills for this non drilling unit were drilling. The TD number is the number of days aWol showed up.

[Yonivore]

Wrong, care to try again -- or would you like to phone a friend?

Hint: If what you said were the case, there'd be date spans with 0 TD's beside it.

[DeSPURado]

Thats what they mean...dumbass.

[Yonivore]

No, it's not. If what you said were true, there'd be date spans (when his unit was on drill) that would have a 0 (for when he didn't report).

[DeSPURado]

And there would be zero points acquired during that time period. This clearly shows he acquired at least some points during those weekends. 35 to be exact.

[Yonivore]

So, those are all the weekends his unit drilled? Is that what you're saying?

[DeSPURado]

They only mark down the ones he show up for some time at.

[Yonivore]

Through talking yourself in a fucking corner?

[DeSPURado]

What are you talking about. You seem to be just rambling at this point. Are you trying to go anywhere with this line of reasoning?

[Yonivore]

Here, try this.

Multiply the unit credits (PTS) by the day credits (TD) and see what you come up with for the period of May 28 - July 31, 1973.

[DeSPURado]

Uh huh, and if you take the remainder and divide by two you get the magic number.

Different weekends are spent drilling on different things there are preparedness trainings, flight simulator training. You get points based upon the specific drills you accomplish.

[CrazyOne]

47! Oh, sorry, that's the answer to life, the universe and everything...

Never mind....

[Yonivore]

The magic number of what? 12?

No one disputes that he earned 56 hours credit in '73. Where do you get this shit, DeSPURate?

[DeSPURado]

I need to go back and read more Adams than spend more time talking with this joke of a human being. The image clearly shows he didn't get 56 credits care to prove otherwise?

[Yonivore]

I have.

Care to tell us which of the following interpretations of the document you want to stick with?

DeSPURate:

"You need proof he only earned 12 credits here it is in 73"

"The top column equals 35: 3 3 4 2 1 4 8 4 5 1"

"Uh huh, and if you take the remainder and divide by two you get the magic number."

[DeSPURado]

"Uh huh, and if you take the remainder and divide by two you get the magic number."

This is a joke.

"You need proof he only earned 12 credits here it is in 73"

the quote from USnew's expert of how the time should be alotted between the years of 72-73 and 73-74.

"The top column equals 35: 3 3 4 2 1 4 8 4 5 1"

Directly from the ARF.

[Yonivore]

But then you said dividing my answer by 2 to get the "magic number" which is it?

Are you depending on the news reports or can you actually read the document?

[DeSPURado]

You've never played a magic number game?

Example: they choose a Five, then a Three.
5 (doubled) = 10, plus 5 = 15, multiply by 5 = 75.
Three added to total = 78. You subtract 25 = 53.
They picked a Five and a Three!

[Yonivore]

If this is supposed to represent '72 - '74, why are there no May '72 - May '73 dates on it?

And, if you multiply the TD by the PTS and add you get 58 (although I'm still having trouble making out some of the numbers).

Ask a guardsman from the period, he'll set you straight.

[DeSPURado]

" If this is supposed to represent '72 - '74"

- its only supposed to represent those dates in terms of credits he had to earn.

"why are there no May '72 - May '73 dates on it?"

- it would be a different ARF, but guard members can not apply one years credit to the next.

And, if you multiply the TD by the PTS and add you get 58 (although I'm still having trouble making out some of the numbers).

- TD represents total days like I said. The points accrued in those days are represented to the right. which is why it says total points. You can't just add numbers haphazzardly until you get over fifty.

[Yonivore]

It wasn't haphazard.

This document has been used to prove he accrued the requisite hours for '73 - '74. You're just arguing for arguments sake.

[DeSPURado]

This must be hard for you realizing that Bush isn't telling the truth. Look I was really pissed when I left the republican party because of the lies I had bought into hook line and sinker. Bush didn't earn the points to get a discharge. He was about thirty short which was why he was ordered to join a unit in Mass, when he left texas, He never did.

[Yonivore]

Keep your Kerry flip-flopping to yourself. Who cares why you left what party. I don't.

You nor anyone else has shown anything, beyond wild-assed conspiracy theories, the President has been less than forthcoming about his Guard Service.

[DeSPURado]

WHy the orders to join a position in a Mass unit then? If he was truly done why did they order him to do that?


A Boston Globe investigation, published Wednesday, pointed out that Bush had twice signed documents, in 1968 and again in 1973, in which he acknowledged a "responsibility to locate and be assigned" to a new guard unit when he moved away from Texas -- or risk a possible punishment of facing 24 months of active duty.

The Globe concluded that on at least two occasions -- when he moved to Alabama to help on a Senate campaign in 1972 and later in 1973 when he left for Massachusetts to attend Harvard Business School -- he failed to sign up with the local units.


link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/09/MNGKE8LUFG1.DTL)

[Yonivore]

"The Globe concluded..."
So?




Bush's National Guard file released
Laudatory in early years, but no proof he served in Alabama (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/14/MNGHO515LB1.DTL)
[Of course, there's no proof that he didn't either. - Y.]

Excerpts:

"Washington -- Files released by the White House Friday night from President Bush's Vietnam-era service in the National Guard show that the future president was an exemplary pilot whose military record contains numerous gaps in the last two years of his six-year commitment."
But note they do not say he didn't fulfill his Guard committment.

"For Bush's fifth year of Guard service, May 1972 to May 1973, he earned 41 "points" for his Guard service and was granted another 15 "gratuitous" points by his superiors, bringing him above the 50-point minimum requirement for the year. There are no records confirming that he participated in any Guard activities from May 1972 through the end of October 1972."
Okay, DeSPURate, this is from a paper that is not exactly kind to the President. Read the entire article for a regurgitation of your insinuations that he was AWOL or Deserted but, notice, they never say he didn't fulfill his obligation.

[DeSPURado]

You didn't answer my question why did he sign a contract to join a unit in Mass?

[Yonivore]

I'm sorry, I wasn't there. Nor can I read his mind.

But, I do know the White House has shown appropriate documentation to prove he fulfilled his obligation to the Air National Guard and he was honorably discharged.

Starting rumors, making conspiracies out of whole cloth, and generally disparaging his service because you have a partisan bone to pick, means nothing to anyone beyond your own frothing base.

[DeSPURado]

:lol He really earned those gratuity points too didn't he?

[travis2]

www.nationalreview.com/yo...180840.asp (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp)


The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968 ).

[DeSPURado]

I like that you also posted an article only four days after the documents were released. They hadn't even seen them for more than a few minutes yet.

[DeSPURado]

For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968 ).

Like I said that wasn't his last obligated year. 56 points has to be spread over two years.

[travis2]

Keep trying. Someone might believe your lies.

But we won't.

[DeSPURado]

Six year commitment travis. You know I am right about this.

[travis2]

It's all there in the article. You really do need to learn to read.

6 year commitment was met. Period. End of story.

[SpursWoman]

For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968 ).


Where the hell do you see this has to be split over 2 years?

[DeSPURado]

Gee he signed up in what year Trav? May of 68? that would mean he was signed up to serve until 74. That he did not do.

[travis2]

Learn to read.

[DeSPURado]

Pray what do I need to read this time. To show me 56 credits was enough to get him out of the guard a year early?

[travis2]

Learn to read.

[DeSPURado]

He supposedly earned the 56 credits twice? look at the bottom row.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb73arfspe2.jpg

[Yonivore]

He actually did another 56 points worth of service between May and July of 73 for the '73-'74 year. DeSPURate just refuses to recognize that Bush earned the same number of credits for each of his last two years and that, after earning the 56 credits, in two months, Bush requested early discharge and it was granted.

[DeSPURado]

That is the ARF statement between that period Yoni. It doesn't equal 56.

[travis2]

I count 37 on that sheet. 37 + 15 given to all Guardsmen for being in the Guard = 52 > 50.

Case closed.

[DeSPURado]

It doesn't pray tell equal 56 twice does it?

[travis2]

The months on that sheet are his final year. There isn't another year after.

Give it up...you know you've lost. Start being rational.

[DeSPURado]

Heres the other one you would need. Go from may to may.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73arfspe1.jpg

[travis2]

There I see 41 + 15 = 56

You lose again.

[Yonivore]

Interesting.

[travis2]

What might that be?

[Yonivore]

Well, I was talking out my ass until someone who knew how to read those damn ARF's came along.

DeSPURate was talking out his ass too. We wasted 2 or three pages talking about something we had no knowledge of.

The 15 points. Who knew? I didn't.

[DeSPURado]

Now watch those days disapear in the payroll records.

Seriously though this is crap you can't get off on the grautity points? People can't just do that can they?

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73milpay-p1.jpg

[travis2]

I knew...plus it was in the article...

[DeSPURado]

Seriously though this is crap you can't get off on the grautity points? People can't just do that can they?

[Yonivore]

What are those numbers DeSPURate?

[travis2]

The points count. Everyone gets them. Deal with it.

[KoriEllis]

I apologize but I don't even get what Despurado is arguing.

He was supposed to get 50 credit per year. His years start in May because that's when he inlisted. So the one that shows May '73 through July '73 (which counts for his final year of 73-74) shows 37 credits. Add the 15 = 52.

So where's the discrepancy?

[Yonivore]

There isn't one.

Hey Kori, can it be Bush = Yoni instead of Bush > Yoni? Well, because they're the same. ;)

[DeSPURado]

The days he showed up for. never mind. **** I give up he skimped by on gratuity points. He made up for the extra year he missed, becuase hey he was entitled to it. I had no idea that gratuity points were assessed like that. And fifty credits is a strangely low number based upon the fact you aren't allowed to have four unexcused absenses in a year.

[travis2]

Your problem, Kori, is that you are a rational being. :wink

[Yonivore]

Yeah, but she's beautiful...es muy bonita.

[travis2]

yeah, but she's taken...*sigh*:depressed

[Yonivore]

We can dream.

[SpursWoman]

And fifty credits is a strangely low number based upon the fact you aren't allowed to have four unexcused absenses in a year.

If you're not scheduled then you're not unexcused. 50 is what he needed, 52 is what he got. That's all you need to know.

[DeSPURado]

Seriously Travis answer my question gratuity points can allow you to skimp by and get out a year early? Why the low number of 50 when you can't miss more than four days? And shouldn't he not have need eligible to count those credits for his "retirement" when he was payed for them?

[travis2]

And another rational woman makes her appearance...:wink

[travis2]

Look, Despurado...those are the rules. Everyone gets 15. You gotta come up with the other 35.

You never did post the rest of that public law so I could evaluate the context. So I don't know under what conditions those rules apply. Until I can, I don't put any faith in your interpretation.

[travis2]

Yonivore...I'm traveling...I don't have that much underwear...:o

[DeSPURado]

The four day make up thing was from you. It says you can only make up 4 days in an aniversary year.

Quote:6.6. Equivalent Training (EQT). A member may be allowed to make up a UTA that was missed even if the UTA was
missed without prior approval. EQTs can be performed in a pay status for excused absences and in a non pay status
(retirement points only) for unexcused absences.

6.6.1. Commanders may allow individuals to make up a maximum of four missed UTA periods in a paid EQT status per
fiscal year [U.S.C. Title 37, Section 206(e)]. An EQT in a pay status must be performed within 30 calendar days of the
missed scheduled UTA period and within the same fiscal year.

6.6.2. An EQT period without pay (for retirement points only) may be performed outside of 30 calendar days of the
missed scheduled UTA period but within the member's anniversary year. UTAs performed in a non-pay status will
be documented on NGB Form 105m/s or a locally substituted form, held separately from attendance records for UTAs
in a pay status, and forwarded directly to MPF.

6.6.3. The training received during an EQT must be of similar nature and quality to that which was missed. EQT will
be appropriate to and enhance ability of the individual to accomplish the duties of the position to which he or she is
assigned. In the case of staff or support personnel, this may include actions to enhance the training, management, or
readiness of the unit.

[travis2]

that's only in pay status...outside of that you get credit but no pay...

[DeSPURado]

But he got paid for the ones he was trying to credit towards his retirement. Those last 35 are all on the pay records.

[SpursWoman]

If you're not scheduled then you're not unexcused. 50 is what he needed, 52 is what he got. That's all you need to know.

For example:

I graduated from college in 3 1/2 years. My scholarship required I take at least 15 hours per semester. At the end of my Junior year my counselor informed me that if I took 2 classes per summer term, 18 hours my senior fall semester and a weekend college class that over-lapped the two I could graduate a semester early. I needed 129 for my degree, and I graduated with 128, with honors.

Since I didn't go the whole 4 years, is my diploma somehow negated? I mean, I missed an entire semester.

:wtf

[ClintSquint]

Bush is a disgrace to the uniform.

[DeSPURado]

They give out a free class credit each semester in college? Gee I wish all life were like that. I know what you are saying SW I am just trying to understand the last few issues.

[SpursWoman]

No, that means I got what I needed to get.....he got what he needed to get.

I'm assuming that EVERYONE got the 15 credits just for being in the guard.

If that weren't the case, I'm sure he'd have shown up the required time to earn them.

But he didn't NEED to.

[DeSPURado]

I'm just really pissed off at this though his first year he got what 300+ credits? That is an active person. Serving his counrty. Yet someone can apparently get by getting only about 10% 35 credits and be given an honourable discharge. Thats. messed up. And wouldn't he have been eligible to leave the guard after the first two years if he had that many credits racked up?

[Yonivore]

The first two years was about 80 weeks of non-stop flight training you bozo.

[DeSPURado]

Still he had enough credits in two years to retire apparently if you can apply a year to your future requirements. He had 253 his first year and 310 the next.

[SpursWoman]

Well, the fact that the the war was winding down and the need for an already over-abundance of fighter pilots diminished might have been very relavent as to why his *service* dropped off.

[DeSPURado]

I still want to know the answers to these two questions:

Can you really apply credits to the future? If so why wasn't anyone trying to say he acquired enough points in his first years of service to qualify for the discharge?

Can You be paid for those credits and still count them as EQT?

[ClintSquint]

Or the fact that was three sheets to the wind and would have failed his physical.
Or the fact that he was missing so much he never got an assignment?
Or the fact that he just plain wasn't around?

[SpursWoman]

Can You be paid for those credits and still count them as EQT?

Wasn't he on "G" (non-paid) status anyway? What difference would that make?

I don't think you can apply them to the future, but it really doesn't matter. He got the 50 he needed to fulfill his requirements in the time he needed ot fulfill them. I'm stumped at why you don't understand that.

[travis2]

As far as I know you can't "bank" points. But as SW said, it's irrelevant...

[Spurminator]

Does this remind anyone else of a Whottt Thread?

[travis2]

:rollin

[SpursWoman]

Actually, yes I did realize that, Spurm. However, it still beat out the disaster area I made of my kitchen for my attention.


:lol :o

[DeSPURado]

Ok I am back:

50 points is apparently for active duty training right travis?

You negelcted to mention there is another 44 credit requirement for inactive duty? Combining the two in the points credited apparently is what we have been doing so far...I've been racking my brain to see where the number 12 came from for the US news report.

What does this mean travis? Have we been evaluating bush on the right system? Does he get free 15 credits for both systems?


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.

[travis2]

www.nationalreview.com/yo...180840.asp (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp)


Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.

I think I'll accept the judgement of a Guard personnel officer in this matter...

[Tommy Duncan]

A newly released document clears up everything...

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/images/letter2.gif

19 pages and the nutjobs continue to prove my point. Keep up the excellent work!

L8rs.

-TD

[DeSPURado]

The guy doing the report for the USnews was a member of the national guard. Is he right in saying there are two point requirements to get out?

[Yonivore]

"However, it still beat out the disaster area I made of my kitchen for my attention."
I did the dishes AND posted. :)

How's that for a multi-tasker? ;)

[travis2]

I don't see where he's getting his numbers from.

As far as I know, the requirement for a satisfactory year is based on points. Nothing I've heard of from Reserve friends or seen in the regs says anything different to me.

[SpursWoman]

Very nice.......although mine's still a mess. It's amazing how easily I get distracted when I don't want to do something.


:angel

[Tommy Duncan]

Does this remind anyone else of a Whottt Thread?


Those Were The Days

by Archie And Edith Bunker

Boy the way that Glenn Miller Played
Songs that made the Hit Parade
Guys like us we had it made
Those were the days.

And you knew who you were THEN!
Girls were girl and men were men
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again

Didn't need no Welfare state
Everybody pulled his weight
gee that old LaSalle Ran great

THOSE WERE THE DAYS!

http://www.fdg.unimaas.nl/educ/Erik/ej/Archie%20Bunker%207.jpg

[DeSPURado]

Air Force Manual (“AFM”) 35-3, “Air Reserve Forces Personnel Administration,” dated June 25, 1969 (“AFM 35-3”), with its periodic amendments was the primary controlling authority available for this analysis.[2] “Satisfactory Participation” was defined as “the manner in which a member meets the training requirements of his reserve assignment.” Training consisted of Annual Active Duty for Training (“ANACDUTRA”) and Inactive Duty for Training (“INACDUTRA”).[3]

Bush was not eligable for the gratuitous points according to this :

The largest difference is attributable to the number of gratuitous points awarded to Bush, Lloyd’s “15” and the F526RCS “5” points, and a lesser two-point difference between total and retirement points earned: The latter are “38” instead of “40” points. Presumably, the difference between the F526’s “5” and Lloyd’s “15” gratuitous points is the result of calculating them on the duration of creditable service. The former is for four months, while the latter is for the full year. On October 2, 1973, Bush was transferred to the ARPC (ORS) and was not eligible to receive any gratuitous membership points.[66] Lloyd erroneously added the “10” remaining gratuitous points for the anniversary year through May 26, 1974. Lloyd’s conclusion that Bush “did in fact have a satisfactory year for retirement/retention” is, therefore, wrong even if the “10” gratuitous points were authorized because they still leave Bush at “48” points, two short for a satisfactory retention/retirement year.

Link (http://www.glechliter.glcq.com/critical_analysis.htm#_Toc69716423)

[Tommy Duncan]

Based upon my extensive research, observation, and perusal of various refereed academic journals I have reached the conclusion that none of the leftists who have participated in this thread are clinically sane.

link (http://www.getafuckinglifealreadynoonecaresaboutbushsnati onalguardserviceexceptyourdumbass.com)

[Yonivore]

Hey, DeSPURate, heed your own signature guy!


"If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news?"

[Tommy Duncan]

Well this proves that Bush missed a meeting 30 years ago. But they could be true. Well you haven't proven they are not true. Well even if they aren't true you know it's true.

www.latimes.com/news/opin...-headlines (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-cbs15sep15,1,7747016.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

A Black Eye for CBS News

CBS News has been had. It's hard to reach any other conclusion about newly discovered documents that CBS and anchor Dan Rather are defending as revealing the truth about George W. Bush's military service.

Despite Rather's statement Monday that the network "believes the documents are authentic," the evidence keeps mounting that they are not. As The Times reported, conservative bloggers detected glaring inconsistencies, such as a Microsoft Word type style. So many other discrepancies have since emerged that it would require a willful suspension of disbelief to take them as merely coincidental.

For example, the alleged memos from Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, who was Bush's squadron commander, contain stylistic problems, such as the fact that Killian signs his rank not in accordance with National Guard procedure. In addition, Killian's signature on a memo dated May 4, 1972, is different from one on file in the Pentagon. The part of a memo supposedly written by Killian that refers to pressure from an earlier Bush commander to help out the young fighter pilot is highly dubious. The 1973 memo is dated almost a year and a half after the commander had resigned from active duty. The best CBS can do is to declare that he remained a powerful behind-the-scenes figure. Well, maybe. But how does CBS know that? CBS could tell us more about where these documents came from without having to reveal the names of its sources.

As CBS flounders, conservatives are citing this episode as an egregious case of liberal media bias, while some liberals are indulging in the comforting notion that Karl Rove, who is responsible for everything bad that happens everywhere, must be behind the documents.

Whatever the truth, CBS' real error was trying to prove a point that didn't really need to be proved. It doesn't take documents for anyone to realize that . Bush pulled strings to get into the National Guard. And, during the Vietnam draft, nobody went into the National Guard out of passion to defend his country. It also doesn't take new documents to establish that Bush shirked even his National Guard duties when he moved to Alabama and then to Harvard Business School.

CBS may have managed to place Bush's Vietnam-era service off-limits as a campaign issue, after weeks when John F. Kerry's impressive record has been under savage attack. Bush gave a smirky speech Monday to the National Guard Assn., waxing on about the patriotic sacrifices of the Guard's men and women over the years.

http://www.impossibleescapes.com/images/graphics/straitjacket1.jpg

[DeSPURado]

You see Yoniovore apparently those TD credits presumably mean something after all. You are suppposed to acquire 44 (or is it 48?) of those in a given year in addition to the 50 active duty points acrued by Bush. (Also Bush had to serve the full year to be eligable for the full +15 gratuity credit.) The only reason I am dragging this thread out (And I apologize to all of your sensibilities everyone) is because there are very few of us who understand this shit. We are given a magic number (50 in this case) and we don't know what it means, least of all me. I am highly skeptical of a guard system where you can attend roughly 12 days of drills to accrue enough points for a whole year. In a rational world that makes no sense.


Members of the ANG were required to attend 48 INACDUTRA periods per year and complete not less than 15 days ANACDUTRA to achieve the “satisfactory participation” standard.[11] A member in Bush’s category could not have more than four absences from INACDUTRA in a fiscal year; attendance alone, however, was not sufficient, and a member had to assume “responsibilities commensurate with his grade” and had to perform “his assigned duties in a satisfactory manner as determined by the unit commander.”[12] Retention requirements were strict: “A member who, without approval of competent authority, fails to meet the fiscal year training prescribed for his assignment must be reassigned.”[13]

[Tommy Duncan]

I want proof that Kerry did not get into the Naval Reserves in order to avoid combat and that he did not receive any special treatment when he did so.

[DeSPURado]

He saw combat.

[SpursWoman]

By accident. :wink

[Tommy Duncan]

Try again.

[DeSPURado]

The second tour or the first tour SW?

[Tommy Duncan]

He didn't join the Naval Reserves for the "2nd tour."

[DeSPURado]

Create your own thread this is my Whott thread:wacko

[SpursWoman]

Awww man, don't make me go have to look for the link. I'm sleepy. :sleep


:lol

[Spurminator]

What do you think of Senator Byrd, Desperado?

[Tommy Duncan]

Look closely:

http://www.bodyinmind.com/samples170304/Charlotte_in_Jeans/OrigJeans016_large.jpg

Nip.

[DeSPURado]

Not enough info to form an opinion.

Are you admitting I am right by trying to distract from the content of what I just posted Tommyboy?

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh of course I want to set off another 20 page clusterfuck. Look, nip.

[DeSPURado]

Quick recap of my latest argument:

To find out what USnews was saying when they said Bush only had 12 days of inactive duty:

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.


I found this. It reports that there are two seperate requirements for a year. That spent in active duty training and that spent in inactive duty training:


Air Force Manual (“AFM”) 35-3, “Air Reserve Forces Personnel Administration,” dated June 25, 1969 (“AFM 35-3”), with its periodic amendments was the primary controlling authority available for this analysis.[2] “Satisfactory Participation” was defined as “the manner in which a member meets the training requirements of his reserve assignment.” Training consisted of Annual Active Duty for Training (“ANACDUTRA”) and Inactive Duty for Training (“INACDUTRA”).[3]

Members of the ANG were required to attend 48 INACDUTRA periods per year and complete not less than 15 days ANACDUTRA to achieve the “satisfactory participation” standard.[11] A member in Bush’s category could not have more than four absences from INACDUTRA in a fiscal year; attendance alone, however, was not sufficient, and a member had to assume “responsibilities commensurate with his grade” and had to perform “his assigned duties in a satisfactory manner as determined by the unit commander.”[12] Retention requirements were strict: “A member who, without approval of competent authority, fails to meet the fiscal year training prescribed for his assignment must be reassigned.”[13]

Link (http://www.glechliter.glcq.com/critical_analysis.htm#_Toc69716423)

If you go to Lloyd's analysis you can clearly see he tries to add the two to get above a magic number he sets as fifty:
Albert C Lloyd's analysis. (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73lloydmem.html)

[Nbadan]

Quit confusing the animals with facts DeSpurado. Some of these people act like it was W's call to make as to whether he wanted to return to the guard or not after he accumulated the bear minimum (if that!) amount of points necessary to make his 1972 agreement with his country. That's not the way it works, and especially not after your flight status has been revoked because you squealed out of a mandatory physical.

In other news, the former Secretary for Killian says that the CBS documents aren't anything she ever typed, but they were replicas of actual documents that once existed, and the information they contained was accurate.


HOUSTON – The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.
...
“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”

Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”

“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said.
...
She said she did not recall typing the memos reported by CBS News, though she said they accurately reflect the viewpoints of Lt. Col. Killian and documents that would have been in the personal file. Also, she could not say whether the CBS documents corresponded memo for memo with that file.

“The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones,” she said.

Dallas News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/091504dnpolnatguard.1185eb4ae.html)

[Samurai Jane]

http://images.mysanantonio.com/opinion/cartoons/091504nacho.jpg

[Tommy Duncan]

Damn. Maybe CBS should be required to seek 527 status.


abcnews.go.com/sections/W...914-1.html (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914-1.html)

Casting Further Doubt
Document Analysts: CBS News Ignored Concerns About Disputed Bush Military Records

By Brian Ross
http://a.abcnews.com/images/abcnewscom_83x20.gif

Sept. 14, 2004 — Two of the document experts hired by CBS News say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast of a report citing documents that questioned George W. Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War.

The authenticity of the documents in the report by CBS News' 60 Minutes II has been widely questioned. The documents were allegedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.

"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter," she said.

Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.

"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said.

But the documents became a key part of the 60 Minutes II broadcast questioning President Bush's National Guard service in 1972. CBS made no mention that any expert disputed the authenticity.

"I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply," Will told ABC News.

‘I Did Not Authenticate Anything’

A second document examiner hired by CBS News, Linda James of Plano, Texas, also told ABC News she had concerns about the documents and could not authenticate them. She said she expressed her concerns to CBS before the 60 Minutes II broadcast.

"I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it to be misunderstood that I did," James said. "And that's why I have come forth to talk about it because I don't want anybody to think I did authenticate these documents."

A third examiner hired by CBS for its story, Marcel Matley, appeared on CBS Evening News last Friday and was described as saying the document was real.

According to The Washington Post, Matley said he examined only the signature attributed to Killian and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

At the heart of the dispute is whether any typewriter existed in 1972 that could have produced the documents, with their distinct type style, even spacing, and the tiny raised "th" known as superscript.

Two experts told ABC News today there was no such machine, not even the IBM Selectric Composer, the most advanced typewriter available in 1972.

"This machine is not the culprit for these documents," said software engineer Gerry Kaplan.

Other new questions were raised today by National Guard officials who told ABC News that some of the language and abbreviations in the documents were not in use at the time.

CBS Stands by Its Report

CBS News says it still believes the documents are authentic.

"CBS News did not rely on either Emily Will or Linda James for a final assessment of the documents regarding George Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. Ms. Will and Ms. James were among a group of experts we consulted to assess one of the four documents used in the report and they did not render definitive judgment on that document. Ultimately, they played a peripheral role and deferred to another expert who examined all four of the documents used," the network said in a statement.

"Most importantly, the content of the documents was backed up by our reporting and our sources who knew the thoughts and behavior of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian at the time," the statement said.

Killian's former secretary, Marian Carr Knox, told ABC News she believes the documents are fake, but that they do reflect some of what her former boss thought of then-Lt. George W. Bush.

"He did have complaints about Bush. Bush missed his physical and went off to Alabama with none of the paperwork, I remember Killian talking about that," Knox said. "But it wasn't in memo file."

[Tommy Duncan]

But I thought that CBS was matching its critics 'expert for expert'? Like most things I read from the left wing nutters in this forum, that turned out not to be true.


www.washingtonpost.com/wp...Sep14.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21675-2004Sep14.html)

Document Experts Say CBS Ignored Memo 'Red Flags'

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 15, 2004; Page A10

Two document experts retained by CBS News for the disputed "60 Minutes" story on President Bush's National Guard record said yesterday they had warned the program that the memos involved had significant problems but that their concerns were not heeded.

"What I was finding was a lot of red flags," Emily Will told The Washington Post last night. She said she listed five concerns in an e-mail three days before last Wednesday's broadcast and that in a call to a producer the day before the program, "I repeated all my objections as strongly as I could." Will said she told the producer: "If you air the program on Wednesday, on Thursday you're going to have hundreds of document examiners raising the same questions."

In a separate telephone interview, Linda James said that she told CBS the documents "had problems" and that she had questioned "whether they were produced on a computer."

Asked whether CBS took her concerns seriously, James said: "Evidently not."

The concerns of both women were first reported by ABC News correspondent Brian Ross. A third document consultant, Marcel Matley, told The Post on Monday that although he vouched for the signature of Bush's former squadron commander, the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, there was "no way" he could authenticate Killian's purported memos because they were copies.

CBS continued to strongly defend the authenticity of the memos, which it used as evidence that Bush received favorable treatment while he was in the Texas Air National Guard.

CBS News Senior Vice President Betsy West said last night: "As far as I know, Linda James raised no objections. She said she'd have to see more documents to render a judgment."

As for Will's account, West said: "I'm not aware of any substantive objection she raised. Emily Will did not urge us to hold the story. She was not adamant in any way. At one point she raised a concern about a superscript 'th,' which we then discussed with the other experts we hired to examine all four of the documents we aired. We were assured the 'th' was consistent with technology at the time, an assessment that has since been backed up by other experts."

CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius added that both women "played a peripheral role and deferred to another expert," Matley. But James said she did not defer to Matley and merely recommended him to CBS. The network says it relied on two additional document experts, whose names have not been made public.

In another development last night, Killian's former secretary told the Dallas Morning News that she believes the documents are fake but that they reflect authentic memos that once existed.

"These are not real," Marian Carr Knox told the paper after examining copies of the disputed memos. "They're not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him."

Knox, 86, who acknowledged she was not a supporter of the president -- calling him "unfit for office" and "selected, not elected" -- said the typeface on the documents did not match either of the two typewriters that she used during her time at the guard, a mechanical Olympia and later an IBM Selectric. But she said the contents reflected the views of her boss, who, she said, kept a personal "cover his back" file in a locked desk drawer.

Knox's recollections suggest that CBS may have been duped about the documents even if the substance of its story was accurate.

The new accounts add to mounting questions about whether the 1972 and 1973 memos obtained by CBS were bogus. This is the first time that people involved in the process have said that they raised warning flags about the memos, whose authenticity has been doubted by the president's wife, Laura, and some outside document experts.

CBS News President Andrew Heyward and anchor Dan Rather have defended the story, saying the program relied not only on document analysis but also on interviews with people who worked with Killian at the time.

Will said she examined two disputed Killian memos, one of which was not used on the broadcast. She said she saw discrepancies in Killian's signature from an undisputed military document bearing his handwriting. Will said she also questioned whether an early 1970s typewriter could have produced the superscript, such as a raised "th," on the memos, and noted differences in the letterhead, the salutation and the way the date was rendered.

All these discrepancies "looked like trouble to me," Will said, adding that she told CBS this "in a resounding way."

James said she examined two disputed Killian memos and found "they were structurally different" from a Killian document released by the Pentagon. James said she questioned differences in the signing of the "J" of Killian's first name, to the point of wondering whether the lieutenant colonel had health issues that would have affected his writing. She said she also told CBS that she questioned whether the superscript could have been produced on a Vietnam War-era typewriter.

Given these concerns, James said, she was surprised that "60 Minutes" went ahead with the story. Both women disputed the contention by CBS that they had deferred to the judgment of other document experts, though both said they could not be 100 percent certain about their findings and had recommended other analysts.

Asked about Will's written concerns, CBS's West said: "The only e-mail we received raised some preliminary points about the handwriting, which [CBS's] other experts addressed and ruled out."

CBS began to doubt Will because she started expanding her role and doing Google searches about Bush's whereabouts at the time, said an executive who insisted on anonymity because the network did not want to go beyond the official statements. But Will said she was merely doing research into whether superscript existed in 1972.

[Yonivore]

I think it's quaint that the looney left and Dan Rather are reduced to relying on the memory of an 86 year old woman as their defense.

[Tommy Duncan]

So basically CBS hits the president with a story based on widely regarded faked documents and the words of a Kerry supporter who has changed his story. Great. CBS continues to insist they are true despite the fact that the very experts they consulted to look at the documents raised serious objections to their authenticity. They also engaged in what appears to have been expert shopping.

Lest we forget that Rather has a history of general hostility to the Republican party and geniality to the Democrats.

Originally the image of CBS/Rather was one of being hoaxed. Now it looks like something a bit more than that.

Again, the source of these docs is most likely Burkett. At this point, CBS will probably try to stonewall themselves out of this mess. But if you have Kurtz critiquing their reporting in such a manner as well as other major media outlets investigating this then at some point CBS is going to have to come clean in order to save whatever shreds of credibility they may have left.

But I know, CBS isn't 'Faux News'. It's "mainstream." It's "objective." Yeah fucking right you morons.

[Joe Chalupa]

CBS and Dan Rather appear to have screwed up royally and Rather's reputation is toast.

Mistakes happen in journalism, there probably isn't a network or paper in the country that hasn't had to correct a story.

But this was just a bad call, period.

But don't go blaming the "lefties" or calling people morons for what CBS did. I had NOTHING to do with their report at all.

[Hook Dem]

Joe...."I had NOTHING to do with their report at all." .......No, you didn't Joe but your party did!:wink

[Tommy Duncan]

I wouldn't be so sure this was a simple journalistic error. CBS/Rather knew in advance there were significant problems with the documents. You can look at the timing of the 60 Minutes II report, the fact that they interviewed Killian's son and wife who said they disagreed with the docs but did not air that. The fact that they based their claims of privilege for Bush in getting into the Guard on an interview with Ben Barnes, a significant Kerry fundraiser who had changed his story on the matter. That they didn't point out that there were some questions with the documents nor give at least some indication from where the documents came. The original report was very one-sided. CBS' subsequent attempts to defend its reporting were as well, with Rather using Jim Moore. And so on.

You can also notice the DNC's "fortunate son" campaign came out rather quickly (hell, the 'Texans for Truth' showed up last week right after that report, if I am not mistaken) and the fact that the Boston Globe as well as the NY Times were in on the original report.

This looks less and less like a simple journalistic error and like something much more devious.

Rather's history of animus to the GOP and to Bush's father as well as his general fawning over the Demos (as well as fundraising for them) is no secret.

And no, you can't hang this on Rove. CBS had plenty of warning about the docs and ample opportunity to engage in some critical investigation but apparently slamming the president was much more important.

Now it looks like CBS will pay, at least in a major dent to their reputation and Rather will be leaving the "profession" with a major black mark on his career.

[Yonivore]

Joe Chalupa:

"But don't go blaming the "lefties" or calling people morons for what CBS did. I had NOTHING to do with their report at a
Joe, that all depends on the origin of the Documents and why Dan Rather is so reticent to reveal a source that duped him.

Ask any journalist what he'd do if an anonymous source provided him with blatantly false information. Well, if that journalist isn't Dan Rather, they'd tell you the person's name would be in the lead paragraph of a retraction and apology.

[Tommy Duncan]

Also, if the source of these docs is Burkett well the motives of that individual are highly suspect.

This was more than a simple error. The sad thing for CBS is that all they would have had to do is admit that they made an error and most of this would have blown over. The more they stonewall at this point and insist the documents are authentic the greater harm that CBS is inviting upon itself.

This was not the first time that 60 Minutes aired a report based on fake docs though. Something for which CBS had to give an on-air apology, if not more.

[Hook Dem]

Dan Rather should go cover hurricane Ivan at ground zero. He would probably get that wrong also. At least he might be able to outblow Ivan.:lol

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh yeah, this guy is supposed to moderate one of the presidential debates. I think that should be reconsidered.


www.siouxcityjournal.com/...1702ba.txt (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2004/09/15/news/local/3b3859154e504db286256f10001702ba.txt)

Schieffer: CBS needs to prove memos on Bush were authentic

By Dave Dreeszen
Sioux City Journal

CBS News' Bob Schieffer said Tuesday he hopes the network does more reporting to definitively prove the authenticity of memos 60 Minutes II received about President Bush's service in the Air National Guard.

"I think we have to find some way to show our viewers they are not forgeries,'' Schieffer, CBS' chief Washington correspondent and host of the network's "Face the Nation,'' said at a news conference in Sioux City. "I don't know how we're going to do that without violating the confidentiality of sources.''

Schieffer was responding to a 60 Minutes II report last week that referenced memos allegedly written by Bush's former squadron commander, the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. The typed memos were part of anchor Dan Rather's investigation that asserted Bush benefited from political favoritism in getting into the Air National Guard.

But there has been growing evidence that the documents are forgeries, with national news organizations citing dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from different word-processing techniques to conflicting military terminology.

CBS has stood by its story, with Rather saying there is "no definitive evidence'' that has emeged to prove the documents are fake.

"He is very confident of his sources,'' said Schieffer, who has talked to Rather daily during the flap. "He says he is absolutely convinced these documents are real.''

CBS, which has declined to reveal the source of the memos, has pointed to its own experts who have verified that documents could have been produced on typewriters of the 1970s. But the Washington Post reported Tuesday that the lead expert CBS retained said he examined only Killian's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

Casting further doubt on the documents, the Dallas Morning News reported Saturday that the officer named in a memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat'' Bush's record had retired from the Texas Air National Guard 1.5 years before the memo was dated. Killian's widow and son also have told reporters that they doubt he wrote the memos, they did not come from his personal possessions and that he admired Bush while in served in the Air National Guard.

Though Schieffer discounted suggestions that Rather received fraudulent documents, he acknowledged the source could have been a Bush opponent.

"People ask me, 'Do I think somebody was trying to set up Dan Rather?' I say, "No that's completely out of the question,'' said Schieffer, who addressed the Siouxland Chamber of Commerce's annual dinner/meeting Tuesday night. "Would somebody do this in an effort to smear George Bush? That may be so. We're in the middle of a political campaign, and this would not be the first campaign where somebody on one side slipped something to a reporter because he feels it would hurt the guy on the other side.''


Dave Dreeszen can be reached at (712) 293-4211 or [email protected]

[Joe Chalupa]

Memo to Dan Rather from CBS:

"That's it you're gone!!"

[Yonivore]

"Kenneth! What's the frequency?"

[Tommy Duncan]

National Review: The First Rathergate (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200409150552.asp)

[Joe Chalupa]

Did someone say "early retirement"?

And that's the way the story goes.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

We're gonna find out how much Dan Rather loves the Democratic party.

Because he's either gonna have to admit the Kerry campaign passed him the memo, effectively ending Johnboy's campaign, or he's gonna have to fall on the sword and take the hit to his ego/rep.

[Tommy Duncan]

http://www.thestate.com/multimedia/thestate/KRT_packages/ariaillg.gif

[Nbadan]

:lol

Republican't keep disputing the legitimacy of the documents because they can't argue the content - its all true.

Man, that's classic!

[Tommy Duncan]

You're right. It's Rather hard to beat the "fake but accurate" nature of the documents.

[Nbadan]

Unlike the Swift Boat liars who were 'real but inaccurate'?

[Tommy Duncan]

So the documents are authentic?

You know danny, I couldn't have asked for a better representative of the title of this thread and trust me, you've had some Rather stiff competition.

[Tommy Duncan]

You're talking to the wrong man about the Swift Vets.

But you do raise an interesting observation: The Swift Vets had to organize themselves as a 527.

When can we expect CBS to do the same?

[Nbadan]

So the documents are authentic?

I've told you before, no one is ever gonna prove that legally. It's all speculation and the same old switch of hand that Repugs always do. It's also why we can't talk real issues in this campaign.

[Tommy Duncan]

I've told you before, no one is ever gonna prove that legally.

Sure, because the matter likely won't end up in court. But anyone with the ability to engage in critical thought knows they are fakes. ****, look for news coverage somewhere else besides democratsundercover.com or whatever.




It's all speculation and the same old switch of hand that Repugs always do.

Oh yes the Democrats never engage in negative personal campaigning. Never try to change the subject. Never use rumor and innuendo.

As for this matter if you think the authenticity of the documents remains a real debate you need your head examined.



It's also why we can't talk real issues in this campaign.

Oh you mean like what Bush was doing 30 years ago?

[Nbadan]

If the documents are faked, It's not the first time a major news network has been dubbed and it probably won't be the last. CBS thought it did its homework verifying the authenticity of these documents. Even the White House didn't dispute that these documents could be real when CBS released a copy to them.

There is no proof that anyone in the Kerry campaign had anything to do with these documents just as there was no proof that W was behind the Swift boat fiasco.

[Yonivore]

It's funny how Demoncrats get all caught up in legality when it comes to disproving a Demoncratic lie. But, rumors about President Bush should just be accepted at face value...well, because they say so.

[Tommy Duncan]

If the documents are faked, It's not the first time a major news network has been dubbed and it probably won't be the last.

You're right. 60 Minutes has used fake docs before.

Oh, so now they might be fakes?




CBS thought it did its homework verifying the authenticity of these documents. Even the White House didn't dispute that these documents could be real when CBS released a copy to them.

The White House simply re-released them with no comment as to their authenticity. Presumably CBS could be trusted to not pass along questionable documents. So much for that.




There is no proof that anyone in the Kerry campaign had anything to do with these documents just as there was no proof that W was behind the Swift boat fiasco.

You're right. This could lead back to the Kerry campaign. Which is all the more troubling because it meant a major presidential campaign was passing along faked documents and a major news organization was attempting to deceive the public for partisan political purposes.

[Nbadan]

This could lead back

:rolleyes

Yeah, and my aunt could have nuts and be my uncle.

[SpursWoman]

Have you ever really checked, though?

[Tommy Duncan]

Hey, perhaps I'm just being "fake but accurate."

Judging by what you have pawned off in here as real I think my assertion is quite valid.

[Yonivore]

I believe -- and the longer Dan Rather waits to clear the air, the country swings to my side -- the DNC or Kerry Campaign are behind the memos.

I notice that neither the DNC nor Kerry are demanding Dan Rather or CBS to clear up the provenance of the documents. But, they're not hesitating to demand a response to the forgeries from the White House.

I know that if I had nothing to do with the memos and there was a growing sense that I had...I'd be demanding that CBS tell the country where the fucking memos came from.

[Tommy Duncan]

Yes Yoni this is quite odd. I mean if it was some crank who hoaxed CBS why would CBS hesitate now to cut the line and flame that source? Sure, CBS would be concerned about not doing something that would dissuade future sources from speaking out but it would seem to be in the best interest of CBS to establish that you don't hoax CBS without getting the book thrown at you.

[Nbadan]

I think Bush43 had just as much to gain as the Kerry campaign as far as passing along fake documents to Dan Rather and CBS. Besides, W passes along faked Niger documents in the past and It has done little to hurt his campaign.

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh of course Bush was behind it all.

Why did Rather go forward with his report using those documents when they had not been properly authenticated and at least some of the experts who saw the documents had raised serious objections which they shared with CBS?

[Yonivore]

Then let's find out Nbadanallah...

I know the RNC and Bush campaign are dying to know who forged the documents. Aren't you even curious as to why the DNC and Kerry campaign isn't similarly interested?

[Nbadan]

I know the RNC and Bush campaign are dying to know who forged the documents. Aren't you even curious as to why the DNC and Kerry campaign isn't similarly interested?

CBS has every right to refuse to reveal confidential sources. Kerry has merely distanced himself from this whole thing. Doesn't mean that he's not interested in whether the documents are forged or not. Which has not even been proven, and probably never will.

[1369]

Dan

How's the view?

http://www.nzavs.org.nz/graphics/headSand.jpg

[Yonivore]

"CBS has every right to refuse to reveal confidential sources."
You're absolutely right. However, every other news organization that has ventured an opinion on this matter emphatically states that CBS is under no obligation to continue protecting a source that provided false information.

"Kerry has merely distanced himself from this whole thing."
Why would he? CBS's stonewalling is increasing pointing the finger of suspicion at Kerry and the DNC. His disinterest in alot of things is why his campaign is falling apart. If he can't at least get interested in a potential PR explosion, then, why should anyone vote for him?

"Doesn't mean that he's not interested in whether the documents are forged or not."
Sure it does...that, or he's trying to avoid drawing the obvious correlation between his disinterest and Rather's reticence to reveal.

"Which has not even been proven, and probably never will."
LOL -- I hear CBS is getting ready to admit the docs are forgeries...would you like to retract that last statement? Hell, even CBS's "experts" have come out against CBS.

[DeSPURado]

Anyone going to comment on this?

Quick recap of my latest argument:

To find out what USnews was saying when they said Bush only had 12 days of inactive duty:

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.


I found this. It reports that there are two seperate requirements for a year. That spent in active duty training and that spent in inactive duty training:


Air Force Manual (“AFM”) 35-3, “Air Reserve Forces Personnel Administration,” dated June 25, 1969 (“AFM 35-3”), with its periodic amendments was the primary controlling authority available for this analysis.[2] “Satisfactory Participation” was defined as “the manner in which a member meets the training requirements of his reserve assignment.” Training consisted of Annual Active Duty for Training (“ANACDUTRA”) and Inactive Duty for Training (“INACDUTRA”).[3]

Members of the ANG were required to attend 48 INACDUTRA periods per year and complete not less than 15 days ANACDUTRA to achieve the “satisfactory participation” standard.[11] A member in Bush’s category could not have more than four absences from INACDUTRA in a fiscal year; attendance alone, however, was not sufficient, and a member had to assume “responsibilities commensurate with his grade” and had to perform “his assigned duties in a satisfactory manner as determined by the unit commander.”[12] Retention requirements were strict: “A member who, without approval of competent authority, fails to meet the fiscal year training prescribed for his assignment must be reassigned.”[13]

Link (http://www.glechliter.glcq.com/critical_analysis.htm#_Toc69716423)

If you go to Lloyd's analysis you can clearly see he tries to add the two to get above a magic number he sets as fifty:
Albert C Lloyd's analysis. (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73lloydmem.html)

[Nbadan]

You're absolutely right. However, every other news organization that has ventured an opinion on this matter emphatically states that CBS is under no obligation to continue protecting a source that provided false information.

Turn off Fox and come back to reality for a moment. How many news organizations demanded that Novak reveal his treasonous sources? Did that make one iota of difference?

[DeSPURado]

Its also a very real possibility these documents were trascribed from the original mircofiche during the document destruction in 1997.

[SpursWoman]

They would have to have been designated as such. Nice reach, though. :)

[DeSPURado]

Hey its just a guess since apparently they are real/ but fake.

What do you think about Bush completing his service now?

[Tommy Duncan]

Then that would mean that Burkett is indeed the source of the docs if that is the current version. Not surprising since Moore was interviewed the first time Rather aired his defense of his report.

Also still does not explain away the discrepancies in the text.

[SpursWoman]

I must have missed something by the way you asked that...I'm not dodging, I'm just busy at work. I'll have to catch up later.


:wink

[DeSPURado]

True. I am just tring to figure out the story. And if you remember I was saying that originally about these documents. They should exist even if these are fakes (not necessarily the one caliming pressure.) So I am wondering if they might have some how been a result of what was destroyed during that incident in 1997?

SW post 2765- no worries SW. I was just asking. Get to it when you have time, just allow me to make my case to you.

[Yonivore]

"Turn off Fox and come back to reality for a moment. How many news organizations demanded that Novak reveal his treasonous sources? Did that make one iota of difference?"
Why can't you stick to the issue Nbadanallah. No one suggested that Novak's information was false.

[Tommy Duncan]

The thing that is most troubling is that CBS was in such a rush to get this story to air. What was the matter with waiting a week to get all the documents authenticated by reknown experts? After all, the ones who CBS had examine some of the documents raised some rather clear objections about their authenticity. CBS also seemed to discount the interviews of Killian's son and widow which they conducted. Perhaps my recollection of the original report is fading but I don't recall Rather indicating that the family disagreed with what the purported "new" memos said.

And of course Rather led off the report with the Barnes interview.

Perhaps it is just coincidence or rapid turnaround but the timing of the emergence of the 'Texans for Truth' 527 and the DNC's 'Fortunate Son' campaign seems odd.

Basically, with regards to the 60 Minutes II report, everything seemed to be about timing, about getting it aired on that Wednesday after the GOP convention and prior to the 9/11 anniversary.

Also odd that CBS hasn't identified the source and burned them by now. There's no reason to protect someone who's hoaxed you, I would think.

[Yonivore]

Even more so when you consider the claim that they had been working on this story for 5 years.

[DeSPURado]

Being a confidential source is technically a contract. I reveal this information to you, you keep my identity a secret. They can't reveal that source in order to keep faith with that system.

Novak on the other hand allegedly broke the law when he revealed the information his source gave to him. The confidentiality source protection has only one widely held exception to its rule. It can not be a shield law to protect criminal activity.

[Tommy Duncan]

Well apparently said confidential source provided Rather with fake docs so they didnt keep up their end of the deal.

[DeSPURado]

Yeah that happens from time to time. The system (and personally I don't like it) is really geared to fail in that way. But its pretty ancient in terms of how long those rules have been around in the US.

[Yonivore]

"Being a confidential source is technically a contract. I reveal this information to you, you keep my identity a secret. They can't reveal that source in order to keep faith with that system."
If the contract is verbal, it is implied that the source is providing you with factual information and maintaining confidentiality is contingent up on that. If the contract is written, no news organization worth it's salt wouldn't have that in the contract.

"Novak on the other hand allegedly broke the law when he revealed the information his source gave to him. The confidentiality source protection has only one widely held exception to its rule. It can not be a shield law to protect criminal activity."
"...allegedly..."

Contract intact.

[DeSPURado]

The contract is not verbal. Each company tends to have its own written policy on how it deals with confidential sources. Back in the days when news organizations actually tried to scoop each other with legitimate stories, sources would only go to those who could/would protect them.

[Yonivore]

"The contract is not verbal. Each company tends to have its own written policy on how it deals with confidential sources. Back in the days when news organisations actually tried to scoop eachother with legitimate stories, sources would only go to those who could/would protect them."
Then I would guarantee you there is language that calls off all bets if the source provides false information.

If there isn't, CBS has stupid lawyers...maybe you should consider applying there, when you graduate, counselor.

[DeSPURado]

This is tradition Yonivore. America sticks to this kind of heritage like fish in water. The problem here is with the free press amendment bestowing a privilege without responsibility. If you are really that worried about it call your congress people to bring back the fairness doctrine, something that might have prevented this fiasco.

The contract tends to get that sacredity (new word) from the freedom of the press amendment, which really should have been written to bestow some responsibility to go along with such a privilege. Such as being accurate, fair, and to serve the people. Because hey they can use the freedom of speech amendment to do everything else.

[Yonivore]

So, let me see if I have this straight, DeSPURate; CBS News is going to toss its journalistic credibility into the cesspool, allow public opinion to draw the conclusion that, somehow, the DNC/Kerry are involved in this fiasco, and continue to maintain the accuracy of already discredited information in adherance to some "traditional" principle that won't allow them to reveal a lying source?

Alrighty.

[Tommy Duncan]

If Rather and CBS cannot reveal who duped them they would seem able at least to indicate that they were duped and leave it up to other outlets to ferret out who the source was (Newsweek has already taken their shot).

[Yonivore]

By the way, DeSPURate, you are aware that forging government documents -- even for political reasons -- is a federal crime, right?

So, under the premise of your "alleged crime" scenario in the Novak kerfuffle, shouldn't Dan reveal his source?

[DeSPURado]

I don't agree with your assesment of what that means. i'm just saying the source will be kept confidential until the source comes forward.

You are also acting on the presumption that the documents are not accurate representations of what really happened. So far they are simply not what they were purported to be. CBS will assess if its a salvagable story, if 60 minutes is something that is worth saving. But bottom line the company is making a profit off of it whether it was a mistake or not.

Fairness doctrine history (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm)

[SpursWoman]

If they are forged, if doesn't matter if the content is real or not. Someone attached an officer of the US Military's signature to a memo that was not issued by him.

[Tommy Duncan]

As long as CBS continues to argue that the documents are genuine they will continue to lose credibility and other media outlets will have no problem in continuing to investigate them.

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh boy, now CBS is using the 'if fake, still accurate' defense. And of course they are painting the critics as simply partisan Republicans.

Man they are hoping this will blow over.

[DeSPURado]

'if fake, still accurate'- that means the implications of them are still real. What did you expect. They should figure out where they came from at this point, but the story doesn't disappear if they are still accurate representations of what happened. Why should the story just stop?

[Tommy Duncan]

Did I say it had to stop? No. What they are doing is trying like hell to cover up the one issue (the fake docs) with the other (Bush's guard service).

Not hard to see what they are doing.

[DeSPURado]

I mean it should not be the case that a scandal should ever out weigh the truth. If we did that every politician would be in jail.

They fucked up in how they portrayed the story. I don't know what to say about that, it was sheer stupidity to not have done it in a way that would have protected thier asses and gotten the rest of the press on their side. IE- say they found these documents. They can't verify them for sure. But preliminary meetings with their experts have shown some signs of them being authentic.

Thats what happens though when the message isn't directed by politics though. They were in it for the scandal and the sensationalism. And it didn't help the democrats any.

[Spurminator]

The whole thing's a scandal.

[Tommy Duncan]

Still, is not the "if fake, still accurate" standard the least bit troubling? What if a news channel ran a report with a memo written in MS Word and dated 1972 which purported to confirm that Kerry lied about some of his war exploits?

Then what if a network news anchor and investigative journalist continued to insist that even if the docs are fake, it is an accurate claim based on 'other evidence'?

Every sane person who reads this forum knows what the answer would be. If you want to defend CBS' effort to cover up a fraud then that's your prerogative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/herblock/5_7_54.gif

[DeSPURado]

That was a damn good piece of spin I laid out there though right?

Yeah its troubling. Like I said I will watch the story unfold. I want to see more evidence that they are fake but real, but you have to admit the secratary admitting to them being based upon real ones was pretty damning.

[Tommy Duncan]

She said "some" of the information was correct.

[DeSPURado]

lets do the actual quotes:


“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”

“The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones,” she said.

[Samurai Jane]

Didn't I read somewhere that she's an anti-Bush?

[DeSPURado]

So is half the country.

I really hate that too. It pisses me off. Its not an argument to say someone is antibush so they are obviously lying. The Swiftboats are anti kerry...do you believe them?

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh so it's fine when a Kerry fundraiser suddenly decides to change his mind and make a claim against Bush but when one of the 250 Swift Vets is found to be a Bush/Cheney volunteer well that's a major problem.

[Yonivore]

"So is half the country."
Actually, it's less than half...he has a 52-53% approval rating at the moment.

[DeSPURado]

Well withing the MOE. :lol j/k

[Yonivore]

Anybody know the record for thread length in here?

[DeSPURado]

I still have the kidd thread on my HD somewhere. This was definetely faster.

[Yonivore]

Well, c'mon, let's keep it going...say something asinine, DeSPURate.

[DeSPURado]

This girl is freaking ugly:
http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/haight/969/hottie1.jpg

[Yonivore]

I said asinine, not stupid.

[Tommy Duncan]

Look, if Kerry wants any hope of winning this election he will get the word to the DNC and the 527s to stop the National Guard bullshit. By harping on that crap you give the Swift Vets pretty of reason to still be in the fore, you confirm the perception that the Democrats are all about hating the president personally, and it confirms the perception that they don't have much else to talk about. Also, you crowd out the ability of Kerry to land any real criticism on the Bush administration in the national media cycles. As we can see not a lot of people think the National Guard issue matters. It's not because it hasn't been presented correctly. It's because people have already made up their mind about Bush. The criticism about how he got in the Guard has been levelled at him in 2000 and earlier this year. The same goes for the notion that he missed a physical or whatever. The vast majority of voters do not care.

This campaign is so fucked up as has been pointed out before in here.

[Yonivore]

Hey, but it's entertaining.

[Tommy Duncan]

Damn, did Karl Rove develop some kind of evil mind control technique which he is using on the Democrat party? He couldn't have asked for a better scenario in this election.

[Yonivore]

A Perfect Storm.

I really wouldn't be surprised if Bush took every Electoral Vote but D.C.'s

[Tommy Duncan]

www.nytimes.com/2004/09/1...&position= (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15guard.html?pagewanted=all&position=)


Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush’s military service, Mr. Van Os said: “If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done” - then, he continued, “what difference would it make?”

Indeed.

[Yonivore]

Wouldn't a "none" have been sufficient?

Unless, of course, that would have been disingenuous.

[Yonivore]

“what difference would it make?”
Uh, it's a crime to forge government documents.

[DeSPURado]

It doesn't make a difference to the argument at hand. You can't take a quote and construe it to mean he is reffering to an anticedant to which he clearly was not.

[Yonivore]

But, if his hypothetical is true, it does make a difference...it suggests a crime.

And, I don't know what the **** you said.

[timvp]

http://www.bigfootforums.com/html//emoticons/popcorn2.gif

Don't stop now.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

There's just something about the idea of Burkett sitting on his porch and thinking "ya know, I bet I can whip up one of them there Bush documents on my 'puter, take 'em down to Kinko's, send them over to Rather, and nail Bush's ass to the wall!" that makes me laugh.

[Hook Dem]

Pass the popcorn timvp. This shit is entertaining!:lol

[ClintSquint]

Yeah, and make it a Jumbo!

[Tommy Duncan]

A thing of note is that David Van Os, Burkett's attorney, is a Democrat candidate for the Supreme Court of Texas and that Burkett is the head of Van Os' campaign steering committee. It does make you wonder if there might be more of a connection to other parts of the Democrat party.

You know, some fake memos today, a federal judgeship tomorrow...

[Joe Chalupa]

I've faked it. You know, when it's enough already and I just want to get some sleep.

[Yonivore]

God, please push this to page 26, I'm gonna get busted if that scantily clad woman, at the top of page 25, comes up one more time...





































































































































Thanks!

Maybe that'll be enough lines...

[Samurai Jane]

It's not the length that matters, Yoni!! :p