Oh please...:rolleyes Cousin of a friend of the best man of a stepbrother of a...
Is that the best you can do?
Game, set, match.
Printable View
Oh please...:rolleyes Cousin of a friend of the best man of a stepbrother of a...
Is that the best you can do?
Game, set, match.
You don't refute it?
this is backed up in the USnews report by the way:
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
I already have with my original post. You're just making things up as you go along...I have legitimate sources.
As much as I enjoy knocking down your strawmen...I actually have a job to do. And I must go to it.
US news isn't legit?
Again you're source wasn't sited. No link. It only reffered to people retiring. I don't know how you consider that to be proof. I can site a friend just as legitimately as you can an unreferenced quote.
a) You didn't have your article posted when I replied. I don't have time to read it now, have to go...I'll read it later.
b) my source: www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/p...362001.pdf
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.
news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=...ure_deaths
Trial Begins for Farmer in Manure Deaths
Tue Sep 14,12:17 AM ET
By JULIANA BARBASSA, Associated Press Writer
MERCED, Calif. - The deaths of two dairy workers who were asphyxiated by gases rising from a fetid stew of cow manure could have been prevented if the farmer responsible for their safety had given them the proper training and equipment, prosecutors said Monday during opening statements in a case against the farmer.
Patrick Joseph Faria, from the small farming town of Gustine, has been charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the 2001 deaths of Enrique Araisa and Jose Alatorre.
Prosecutors said Faria failed his workers in a number of ways, including failing to warn the employees of the manure pit's danger and to train them on how to enter. They also said he gave them no equipment, no protection, and no way to test the air.
In a brief response to the prosecution, defense attorney Kirk McCallister said that the incident was clearly a tragedy, but the question jurors were being asked to answer was whether a crime was committed.
McCallister said that when the two men fell into the pit, "Mr. Faria was about 90 miles away, driving to San Francisco airport."
Alatorre, 24, was the first to squeeze through a narrow opening of the 40-foot pit to unclog a pipe. From the pitch-black bottom, he yelled up to two other worker, saying the air wasn't good. He tried to climb out, but was overcome by the toxic gases, fell into the liquid waste and drowned.
The wastewater "was inside his nose. He gulped it. It was inside his lungs," said prosecutor Gloria Mas.
Araisa, 29, scrambled down to help Alatorre, but as he neared the bottom, he lost consciousness and fell.
"They both died of asphyxiation," said Mas, quickly flashing the gruesome images of the men's bodies on a large screen before the jurors.
Mas argued that Faria, who as a volunteer firefighter had been trained in the particular dangers posed by confined areas, knew that hydrogen sulfide, a gas frequently found in underground spaces, could be deadly.
The farm's Injury and Illness Prevention Plan specifically mentioned the manure pit as an area of concern and Faria as the safety manager on site, Mas said.
"Mr. Faria was supposed to protect these individuals, and he didn't," said Mas.
CBS represented Matley as an expert who authenticated those documents originally. So my point still stands. And again, as the Kurtz article pointed out, the CBS memos did not come from the Pentagon. If they did CBS most certainly at this point would have stated that in order to cover their ass.
Quote:
You missed the point. Again.
The Kurtz article explains that the CBS documents were not the ones which were released by the Pentagon this week through the FOIA request. Instead it says that CBS had the docs for a month and obtained them from an "individual." Probably Moore or Burkett, though Kurtz doesn't name them. If CBS obtained them through a Pentagon release then they would have stated that. Doing so would have lent a greater credibility to the story. Instead CBS continues to refuse to name the source for the docs. If they were really obtained through a FOIA request then there is really nothing to hide. If you believe in fucked up conspiracy theories well then the Bush administration can find out who obtained them regardless if CBS actually says they "came from the Pentagon" or not. More than likely it is Burkett. He is the one with an axe to grind and he is certainly one who 'is familiar with TANG operations' or whatever.
So there you have it. You were wrong.
As for your quote thanks for providing no link. The problem you have is that virtually every other expert who has examined those docs believes they are fakes and now you even have the CBS expert changing their story and saying he can't authenticate them.
Mad? Nah. Just tired of your lame arguments. I'm sure I am not the only one with that sentiment in this forum.
www.splendoroftruth.com/c...005093.php
MS Forger
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtj...s/msforger.jpg
Introducing a new product in our Office line called Microsoft Forger. We have been copying other peoples software ideas for years, so who is better to provide you with a product that imitates other peoples style and signature. Microsoft Forger is the ultimate product for pundit-proof forgery.
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtj...cs/guardoc.jpg
Even if you are just getting into forgery or are an old hand, this product will deliver all the power that you need to turn out credible documents with little or no effort.
Just look at some of the incredible features included.
Output machine selection - Select from a variety of emulators for everything from manual typewriters, IBM Selectrics, early model word processors such as Wang and many others.
Font selection - Once you have selected the machine type, font selection is limited to only those fonts actually available for that machine. No longer will you make stupid mistakes like selecting Times New Roman for memorandum that were suppose to be typed on a IBM Selectric.
Proportional fonts and kerning - Again options are limited by machine type
Key emulation - Only those keys actually on the selected machine type are activated. Special features such as subscript and superscript will appear only as that machine would have outputted it. Some extremely amateur forgers have actually used features such as reduced font sized superscript "th" in documents that were suppose to have been from a normal typewriter. Our product will prevent such simple mistakes.
Copy machine emulation - Before you print out your document you can have it automatically appear to have been run through a copy or fax machine multiple times. Lettering will look aged and blurred with random specks according to our specialized algorithm.
Margins and document centering - Each document created is slightly different to account for the non-exact centering of manual machines and the variance of paper feeds. Nobody will be able to overlay your forgery with his own created forgery and have them exactly line up.
Correction emulation - If your output type is for a device such as a typewriter you also need proper correction emulation since these documents were rarely perfect. Special effects such as type over, white out smudges, or coffee stains can be selectively applied.
Signature scanning - Scan in a signature from a record in the pubic domain and MS Forger will automatically store it in a vector signature file for use in adding to your document. The signature scanner will remove artifacts such as lettering found underneath the signature scan.
Add-Ons - There are many specialized add-ons that can be used depending on your document forgery needs. For a limited time only when you buy Microsoft Forger we will include the Texas National Guard Memorandum (TNGM) add-on for free.
Here are just some of the features of the TNGM add-on.
Military style dates. Date headers are automatically formatted to day - capitalized three letter month - two digit year.
Subject lines. Automatically uppercased as this is the standard for military memorandums.
Rank selector. Select from the service and the rank for the individual who you are forging. This is especially helpful for those who the closes they have been to the military is when they protested outside the gate. Prevents mistakes in the abbreviations used in military rank.
Unit selector. Select from a list of guard units with the option to use their letterhead.
Command database. Our command database includes all officers and the times they served in the Texas National
Guard. The selections are limited to the date used at the top of the memorandum. This ensures you won't have the document addressed to someone that had retired a year and a half before your document date.
Accreditation - Our documents have been accredited as undetectable by the National Organization of Forensic Document Examiners. And we are just not talking CBS's hired experts, but ones that can actually detect forged documents.
So if you are a Kerry campaign operative or a CBS intern then this is the program for you.
Actually, DeSPURate, they've tried to reproduce the memos with the technology that "clearly" existed at the time. Guess what, nothing comes close to the reproduction quality of Microsoft Word 2002. Not even close.Quote:
"The technology clearly existed."
Not the IBM Selectric Composer. Not the IBM Executive.
What I want to know is this; when Dan Rather confesses to the ruse and resigns, will you still be maintaining these are authentic documents? That's the real question.
Indeed
Kurtz puts this to rest
Quote:
"I am personally 100 percent sure that they are fake," said Joseph M. Newcomer, author of several books on Windows programming, who worked on electronic typesetting techniques in the early 1970s. Newcomer said he had produced virtually exact replicas of the CBS documents using Microsoft Word formatting and the Times New Roman font.
Quote:
Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts for the Adobe company in Seattle, which helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font, disputed Glennon's statement to CBS. He said "fairly extensive testing" had convinced him that the fonts and formatting used in the CBS documents could not have been produced by the most sophisticated IBM typewriters in use in 1972, including the Selectric and the Executive. He said the two systems used fonts of different widths.
But...but...but...put together a thousand monkeys and a thousand Selectrics at Ellington AFB back in 1972 and you could potentially end up with those memos.
Game over. (For those of us in reality).
:sleep
What do typographic experts at Adobe, etc. know?
Some liberal flunky on an internet bulletin board sez it's legit, so it must be.
:shootme
match ya expert for expert...
n.y. timesQuote:
Richard Katz, a computer software expert in Los Angeles who was featured on the "Evening News" segment, said in an interview that he had called his local affiliate, KCBS, after looking at the memos on the CBS Web site after the initial broadcast, when some experts were saying that the memos looked as if they had been composed using the Times New Roman font in Microsoft Word.
Comparing the CBS memos with a replication produced on Microsoft Word, he noticed a slight variation in the boldness of the letters, as there is on many typewritten documents. "It doesn't look like you can do this very easily," he said. "If you use something like Photoshop you could come close to faking it, but why not just go out and buy a Selectric for $75?"
Bill Glennon, a technology consultant and I.B.M. typewriter specialist who had posted his thoughts on the memos on a blog and was quoted over the weekend in publications including The New York Times, said CBS called him Monday morning. The producer asked him to come in and look at the memorandums and say whether he thought that an I.B.M. typewriter could have produced the documents. He said he was initially leery of talking. "Because quite honestly there's some people out there, they're scary," he said. "You don't agree with them, you offer opinions that don't jibe with theirs and you get a target on your back."
Mr. Glennon was in charge of service for 1,000 contracts for I.B.M. typewriters for 15 years, starting in late 1972, around the time the memorandums were produced. He spent 15 minutes with the CBS documents, he said, and believes that they could have been created using the kind of typewriters he worked with at I.B.M.
Target on your back, gez, no wonder so many experts are coming out agreeing with the Bush Junta.
:lol
Oh good, the typewriter repairman. Glennon was addressed in Kurtz's article:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp...p13_2.html
Quote:
In its broadcast last night, CBS News produced a new expert, Bill Glennon, an information technology consultant. He said that IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could produce superscripts and proportional spacing similar to those used in the disputed documents.
Any argument to the contrary is "an out-and-out lie," Glennon said in a telephone interview. But Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online because CBS did not give him copies when asked to visit the network's offices.
Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts for the Adobe company in Seattle, which helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font, disputed Glennon's statement to CBS. He said "fairly extensive testing" had convinced him that the fonts and formatting used in the CBS documents could not have been produced by the most sophisticated IBM typewriters in use in 1972, including the Selectric and the Executive. He said the two systems used fonts of different widths.
The "experts" who are vouching for the authenticity of the documents are few and far between and have Rather dubious credentials. It takes a bit more than that to prove those documents are authentic. All CBS and Rather can claim that it is possible that such documents could have been created which of course is a very weak position to argue from.
Rather and CBS have not "matched" the experts who have stated that the documents are or are highly likely forgeries.
But go ahead and continue to argue. This thread is destined to be a classic...at your expense.
So a guy who looks at a document, and says he believes it could be legit trumps countless people who have actually physically tried to reproduce the document with the same technology?
He also trumps the fact that a MS Word document superimposed on the document matches up identically?
Ooooooooookay.
I would tend to question the objectivity of someone who claims that there could be goons out to get him if he vouches for the authenticity of the documents... But maybe that's just me.
It shouldn't be too hard for CBS to procure some old IBM typewriters and have Glennon prove it could be done.
Actually, it has already been attempted:
shapeofdays.typepad.com/t...lectr.html
It was from your own damn article Tommy. The quote with no link was your article you posted it. So much for you ever reading what you yourself post.Quote:
So there you have it. You were wrong.
As for your quote thanks for providing no link. The problem you have is that virtually every other expert who has examined those docs believes they are fakes and now you even have the CBS expert changing their story and saying he can't authenticate them.
Mad? Nah. Just tired of your lame arguments. I'm sure I am not the only one with that sentiment in this forum.
Oh good, the gift that keeps on giving.
So you acknowledge that you are wrong?
Okay, I've missed it if you answered.
DeSPURate, do you believe the CBS memos are forged or not? Yes or no?
I gotta know, it's gnawing at me.
I'm not wrong. When will you ever fucking admit that you were?
Never, no doubt.
Yoinvore- I don't know whether they are authentic or not. No one has shown me any evidence to think they couldn't have been written in the 70s. If the order to report for a medical exam didn't exist, Why not? He missed it?
Tommy you've been screaming at me for not reading the Kurtz article which specifically said exactly like the CBS original press release that they used Matley to verify only the signature. I am not saying you were wrong about everything. But you were wrong about the nature of how Matley was used. A guy named Strong who knew Killian was used to verify everything else.
It's a simple question.
Given what you know now, do you believe the CBS memos are authentic or, do you believe they are forged? Don't be so Kerryesque...surely you have a gut feeling, one way or the other.
CBS had Matley on as the man who authenticated the documents last Friday.
And this is CBS's original press release.
CBSnewsQuote:
Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. But he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.
Matley did this interview with us prior to Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.
"We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person."
Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence.
Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures."
Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the documents have come up.
"I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it."
Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real.
"They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discord
Read the first line of what you quoted:
Quote:
Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real.
I'm sorry, DeSPURate, was that a yes or a no? Authentic or Forged?
Yonivore I gave you my honest answer. I have said it multiple times. And I can honestly say, I don't know. Its pretty easy to say that they could make it today, but that should be obvious. Any technology is expected to get better. All I know is that it looks like it would only take one machine to produce this in the early 70s. If it took more than 1 I would believe you that this was a fake, but as long as it could have been done with 1 machine. It isn't hard for me to imagine them being real. Documents such as these should exist. They are supposed to exist, at least the order to report for a medical exam.
Then why are you defending CBS so vehemently. If you're truly undecided, you'd at least be mulling over the possibility they are faked.
Particularly in light of the overwhelming number of REAL experts that are lining up again Dan Rather, his handful of experts, and you.
Seriously, a person who didn't know one way or the other would probably keep their mouth shut and let the two opposing sides argue it out...but, no, you -- he who is uncertain -- has an opinion and, it's an opinion that consistently comes down on the side of demonstrating the memos to be authentic.
And, about this one machine theory of your's.
They've yet to reproduce a reasonable facsimile with either a IBM Selectric Composer or an IBM Executive typewriter. Microsoft Word 2002 has come closer than any other method to reproducing the memos CBS is showing.
Also, how do you explain that every KNOWN document authored by Killian appears to have been produced with a standard typewriter?
Please, you're as bad as Dan Rather and you don't have any skin in the game.
My argument is this shit that they have been disproven, which I am absolutely certain they have not.
Whoa. He's babbling now.
You call a one sentence reply babbling?
I certainly think a vast preponderance (<< legal term for ya, counselor) of the information we now know about the memos combined with the closed-handedness of CBS, (not identifying the source of the documents, trying to sequester their experts, pointing to possible capable devices while refusing to, themselves, test or attempt reproduction with the Composer or Executive, deflecting the blame), points to an almost certainty the documents are fake.Quote:
"My argument is this shit that they have been disproven, which I am absolutely certain they have not."
His handwriting expert has already stated it is impossible to determine the provenance of the document and, even though he is satisfied the signature is Killian's cannot be certain the signature wasn't imaged and reproduced for the CBS Documents.
Fact of the matter is, DeSPURate (and you know this, being a counselor-in-training and all) the memos should have never been aired. CBS failed to do due diligence in securing authenticity. Period, end of story...they never should have aired. And, that being the case, CBS is under the gun to prove they are real -- not the other way around.
Put the shoe on the other foot for a second. I could (now knowing where CBS fucked up) reproduce some pretty damning documents about John Kerry, feed them to a sympathetic news source and demand the rest of the world disprove them.
Funny wording.Quote:
do due diligence
They shouldn't have been aired with the confidence that they were aboslutely legitimate. They should have been aired saying that they were still working to ascertain whether they are legitimate or not. But the experts they have spoken to so far have given them the nod on them.
No journalist should ever have to give up a source-
Sincerely Robert Novak.
I disagree. No reputable news program would have aired the documents unless they were 100% certain they were authentic. Period.
If these turn out to be fake, and they apparently have, it will be the end of Rather's career. If these turn out to have been sourced by the DNC or Kerry campaign, it will be the end of the Kerry campaign for the presidency. It's that simple and they know it. That's why Dan Rather is so vehemently defending his story while refusing to source the material.
CBS isn't supposed to be the National Inquirer or Weekly World News, is it?
Rushing the memos to air reeks of partisan political bias.
The problem again is that these memos should be real. Some of them anyways should exist. Their absense from the Bush documents lends credibility to finding what they found.
This is no different that the Swift Boat fiasco, only these documents are based on the truth and the Swift boat allegations were based on a boat full of lies. The Republican't decrying the Democrats underhanded techinque is so full of Irony you can almost see them want to bust out laughing when they are doing live interviews.Quote:
could (now knowing where CBS fucked up) reproduce some pretty damning documents about John Kerry, feed them to a sympathetic news source and demand the rest of the world disprove them.
So, if you can't find what you think should be in the record, you just make it up or, worse, accept some flimsy forgeries to stand in their stead?Quote:
"The problem again is that these memos should be real. Some of them anyways should exist. Their absense from the Bush documents lends credibility to finding what they found."
And, speaking of "missing" documents, why did the online media have to FOIA request the after action report from the Navy on John Kerry shooting a fleeing VC in the back? I thought Kerry had made all his records available?
President Bush has authorized the release of all his military records. It's not his fault the military can't keep up with records from 30 years ago. I'd be surprised if any files from Guard units are complete from 30 years ago.
Well, without getting into the veracity of either story, there's a huge difference, Nbadanallah.Quote:
"This is no different that the Swift Boat fiasco, only these documents are based on the truth and the Swift boat allegations were based on a boat full of lies. The Republican't decrying the Democrats underhanded techinque is so full of Irony you can almost see them want to bust out laughing when they are doing live interviews."
The forged documents are being presented by a national news organization as being authentic.
The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth have paid for all the exposure they've gotten. Katie Couric booked Kitty Kelley for three straight mornings this week. Did you know there hasn't been one Swiftee interviewed by the CBS, NBC, or ABC? 60 Minutes has run stories on Richard Clarke (and his book) on Joe Wilson (and his book) and now the memos...without even a passing mention of the Swifties. I even think this is the 2nd 60 minutes report on Bush's Guard service.
Lets put it this way if Bush had been honest about his records. nobody would have questioned him. The truth was there was something to hide, as my discussion with Travis revealed, Bush did not fulfill his obligations. He never met his service contract. Bush had something to hide and is still hiding something. I mean what is Bush's track record on his millitary record. I have released them all. No now I have released them all. Each one he reveals ties him into more troubling consequences. Rumours are born that way Yonivore.
:spam :spam :spam :spam
Give it up, it didn't stick the first time, the second time and
how many times. Bush got an Honorable Discharge, on time,
his Dad was a Congressman, he got some perks, so what!
Old News, nothing new.....Rather screwed up and you know
it and he knows it and the whole world knows it.:next3
Ironic you think getting a dishonorable discharge is the same as earning one.
When was he dishonest about his records?Quote:
"Lets put it this way if Bush had been honest about his records."
Oh, and could you please scan and post your employment records from 30 years ago, please? I'm sure they're right there in front of you...
Why is it you think Republicans have to answer every allegation that's tossed out and Demoncrats are to be exempt?
Gee let me think of a few....Hmm maybe the trillion times saying he released them all already.
He's released all he knows about. He's authorized the military to release all they have. That's not dishonest.
And, since then, the only thing that's surfaced are forgeries...
"And, since then, the only thing that's surfaced are forgeries..."
You know thats not true. And Bush should know and acknowledge that things are missing from the release like his flight logs. Its dishonest to say otherwise.
Who would have his flight logs?
And, what documents have been released, by the White House, since he authorized full disclosure.
...and on and on it goes.
What are the odds that some allegedly 30 year old documents which specifically address what has yet to have been proven about Bush appear from out of nowhere and match up with the default settings of MS Word as well as contain various inconsistencies in content and are authentic?
If you want to claw your way back to reality, reflect on that question for a minute.
This doesn't pass the smell test, which is why these documents are regarded as extremely likely forgeries by most. Well, except CBS and of course they don't have an incentive to avoid admitting that they've used forged documents to attack a presidential candidate, now do they?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Bush never had anything less than 56 credits. Liar.
I am lying?
USnewsQuote:
A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.
Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.
The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."
Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."
Bush fulfilled the points requirement for all 6 years and received an honorable discharge.
www.nationalreview.com/yo...180840.asp
Quote:
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.
Travis did he earn that honorable discharge? Did he fucking earn it? By your own standards did he earn it?
Did John Kerry "earn" his Purple Hearts?
WTF?
Yes he fucking earned it. By my own standards he fucking earned it.
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.
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.
If it's based on points then how did he not? This is the Guard not fulltime service.
You need proof he only earned 12 credits here it is in 73
look at it for yourself. No forgery.
Link
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
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Joe, the more people defend something the more legitimacy they give it in the public-eye.
It's the LBJ strategy. Get your opponent to deny that he beats his wife, sleeps around, etc...
I find it funny that you would show your face here again Tommy after proving that Bush did not earn his discharge.
This doc would seem to indicate more than 12 points.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...b73arfspe2.jpg
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.
That's May through July.
Read the bottom it says total for the year.
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.
That is supposed to account for the year of 72-73 and 73-74 which means 56 points for 2 years.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The top column equals 35: 3 3 4 2 1 4 8 4 5 1
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.
What is that number between the ending date and the points accrued, Mr. Expert?
Not sure what you are asking.
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.
Total days. how much of the weekend he spent there. 1 day or 2 days.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thats what they mean...dumbass.
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).
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.
So, those are all the weekends his unit drilled? Is that what you're saying?
They only mark down the ones he show up for some time at.
Through talking yourself in a fucking corner?
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?
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.
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.