Slashdot Log In
New Bush Guard Records Released
Posted by
michael
on Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:23 AM
from the fighting-the-last-war dept.
from the fighting-the-last-war dept.
rwiedower writes "Over the past 24 hours, several new stories have emerged surrounding President Bush's service in the National Guard. Memos from his commanding officer seem to indicate he was unhappy with Bush's desire to leave Texas, and that he felt Bush was going 'over his head' to get out of service. In true slashdot/military/government fashion, Killian even titled one memo 'CYA'. (The memos, in pdf format, are available here.)"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
True Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Kerry LIED about some things related to his service some 30 years ago.
BOTH were honorably discharged from the military.
Bush has said Kerry's service was "honorable". Both "sides" have gone at one another with 527 ads. Persons from BOTH campaigns have been proven to have ties with 527s in some way or another. Texans for Truth [texansfortruth.com] is now doing the EXACT same thing Swiftboat Veterans for Truth [swiftvets.com] did. Neither side is better or worse here; sorry to anyone who thinks their "side" is.
What I want to know is:
How does someone's experience as a junior officer over three decades ago have any bearing on their ability to be President of the United States?
And before you answer about things like "character" or truthfulness, in defense of either side, be careful, as both side has lied plenty. (Yes, [insert Bush or Kerry here]-supporters, he's lied a LOT about things related to his service, both during and after.)
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious what Kerry lied about...
Re:True Lies (Score:4, Informative)
Just because you're on one side of Vietnam in the morning doesn't mean you can't be on the other side later in the day -- it's a skinny country, and they called these things "swift boats" for a reason.
Anyhow, Navy records, first-hand accounts from credible sources, Snopes and FactCheck.org combine to put the lie to this bullshit pretty effectively. Just because you don't *like* the facts doesn't mean you get to ignore them. Even President Bush Jr. is going to find that out.
Parent
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Informative)
Re:True Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, "30,000"? You're only off by a factor of 2 or 3. Even iraqbodycount.net, which is sympathetic to your position, estimates Iraqi civilian deaths at 11793 to 13802.
Second, and to rehash some things I've said elsewhere, sanctions against Iraq for 12 years did nothing but kill approximately 50,000 Iraqis needlessly each year, according to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other estimates.
So, what of those 600,000-some dead Iraqi people under sanctions? That approximately 50,000 a year, the number we were always bombarded with during the tired "no blood for oil" protest of the 90s?
Well, here's some numbers for you:
Since March of 2003, *including* the 10000-15000 Iraqis US and coalition forces are estimated to have killed during the invasion, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, on the order of the thousands. A statistically significant PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, over the previous death estimates of "50,000/year" directly due to sanctions, all from the relatively minimal infrastructure and services improvements made by coalition forces since March 2003. That's how little Saddam cared for his own people, without regard to sanctions. No matter your position on the Iraq war, our direct action has saved, and will continue to save, THOUSANDS of lives of innocent Iraqis. Remember: the only alternative course of action was continuing sanctions. Even the radical idea of lifting sanctions wouldn't have changed Saddam's focus from only concentrating services and resources on Baghdad, leaving over 50% of the population to suffer and fend for itself, not to mention that France, Germany, and Russia would never have allowed the lifting of sanctions, short of military action (which we took). Think about that: exclusively because of US action, statistically, thousands of Iraqis have lived, who otherwise wouldn't have. Countless thousands of others will enjoy this same future, to say nothing of access to basic amenities of life previously not available to rural areas.
Want to follow the money?
Ok, let's follow it.
During sanctions, tens of billions of dollars flowed into, in this order, France, Russia, and Germany for UNOFP contracts administration. TENS OF BILLIONS. Guess when that flow of money stopped? When the US and coalition countries initiated action in March 2003. Guess who didn't want that neverending money spigot turned off...? Thanks to criminal corruption within the UNOFP itself, we may never know the true amount of money that flowed.
So, why not Saudi Arabia? Because Saudi Arabia is an official ally. Saudi Arabia already provides us with needed capabilities in the region, and is critical at this early phase of change in the mideast. Saudi Arabia will be one of the first to go when our support wanes and its royalty is overthrown. By that time, hopefully strong Western-friendly official governments will be present in more nations in the locale which will influence the outcome in the lands of Arabia.
None of what you, or I, say, of course, changes the fact that the people of Iraq are now indeed liberated, even in the face of radicals and insurgents within the country who thirst for control.
Parent
Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Even if we assume that only 12-14k civilians were killed, the number of military casualties were much higher; the Guardian estimates [guardian.co.uk] up to 45k.
60k is probably a reasonable estimate for total deaths.
See also the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].
Also, you just made my foes list for calling someone a troll without justification.
Parent
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, the rate of violent crime has skyrocketted, and is not included in any body count (this tends also to be the primary concern among Iraqis in polls).
Lastly, your number of casualties is right-out, since you're looking only at reported-civilian casualties. There are also unreported
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
It happened. The WHOLE NATION was shocked and embarrassed. WE APOLOGIZED!! I am still waiting to hear a Muslim condemnation of 9/11/01.
Get over Abu Gharib.
Hmm (Score:3, Informative)
Kerry claimed he threw away his ribbons and/or medals.
Kerry claimed he DID NOT throw away his own ribbons and/or medals, but that they were actually the medals of another veteran.
One of those statements is not true. Which one? Who knows; Kerry's changed his story so many time
Thanks for making my point (Score:4, Informative)
You are like so many others. You are unable to think for yourself. You recite the proper phrases to others to confirm that you believe what they believe, but you cannot provide any FACTS for what you believe.
Even when you have a complete article by a fellow true believer, you cannot sort through it to find a single example to support what you believe.
Parent
One more try (Score:4, Insightful)
I do not know WHICH is the lie, because he has said, alternatively, that he has NOT thrown away any; that he has thrown them ALL away; that he has thrown SOME away; or that he threw none of his OWN, but some of another veteran at that veteran's request.
I, personally, do not know WHICH is the lie, because I physically, myself, do not know whether or not Kerry did actually throw away all, some, or none of his own medals. However, HE HIMSELF has said he has thrown away all, some, or none of his own ribbons and/or medals.
ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS A LIE, and I'm not sure why you can't understand that. There is NO WAY for me to tell you WHICH is a lie, because I wasn't physically there. But when you have the following two scenarios, as presented by KERRY HIMSELF:
Kerry DID throw away his medals/ribbons
Kerry DID NOT throw away his medals/ribbons
ONE OF THEM IS A LIE, period, and you cannot refute that. What's worse is not even the lie itself or the subject, but how many times he's changed his story, and the degree of creativity to which he has done so, for this one utterly insignificant event.
I literally cannot believe I just had to explain that.
Further, please note that I DO NOT CARE whether or not Kerry threw all, some, or none of his medals and/or ribbons away over three decades ago. Whether he did or not would not affect my own personal voting decision. What DOES concern me is that he has CLEARLY lied about it, and several times at that. Just because you don't know WHICH is the lie doesn't make them all the truth.
Parent
Re:I don't need another example, but okay. (Score:3, Insightful)
His poker chip example was excellent at showing that you cannot give differing answers to the same black or white questions without one of the answers being a lie. This is something you are not processing.
Process this Khasim - when Kerry has been asked "Did you throw away your medals?" he has given at least 4 differing answers to the question that could not be
Re:True Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't. None of the Democrats, including Kerry, seemed to have a problem with Bill Clinton who dodged the draft and protested against the U.S. while overseas. This wasn't a problem compared to Bush 41 and Dole, who accomplished significantly more than Kerry in the military.
The problem is that Kerry has become almost monomaniacal in hyping his Vietnam experience. OK, a year ago it was good to remind us you served honorably under fire. That counts for something in my book, but what has he done recently?!
The irony is that he spends an order of magnitude more time talking about 4 months from before half the electorate was born than his past 20 years in the Senate.
You might not agree with Bush, but at least he's running on his record. Kerry doesn't want people to know who he really is, because most people don't want someone like him. Like I've said many times before, this is a referendum on Bush... Kerry is irrelevant, and he's run his campaign like he is.
Even if Kerry wins, I bet far more people are voting "for Bush" than people who will be voting "for Kerry" as opposed to "against Bush".
Parent
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
He really never mentioned it until the SBFT fellows came out and started trying to defame him. He had to fight back, and one of the tactics is the "repeat" meme.
It also stands to say that Clinton was elected during the first real peacetime since World War 2. (I'm not sure if a war on terror is any more winnable than a war on drugs, but that's besides the point.)
But if we weren't talking about this, what would we
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't. None of the Democrats, including Kerry, seemed to have a problem with Bill Clinton who dodged the draft and protested against the U.S. while overseas. This wasn't a problem compared to Bush 41 and Dole, who accomplished significantly more than Kerry in the military.
Know why I don't have a problem with either Clinton or Kerry? Because they don't freaking lie about their service records, that's why. Clinton was open and honest about what he did during the Vietnam War. He didn't lie, dissemble, o
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why you are so angry at me, besides the fact that you're angry that I pointed out something true. It's people like you that make politics intolerable. All I did was point out that Kerry's campaign is deeply flawed. I think he deserves credit for his military experience and I said so, but you were too busy trying to come up with names to call me to notice.
You are the perfec
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Informative)
Please provide sources for your contention that Bush lied about his record.
Gladly. Not that it will matter to you, though, will it? Hell, evidence for conservatives is just an excuse to exercise their rhetorical skills.
Lie: CNN 2/13/04: [cnn.com] "We've released all of [the documents]. You should take our word for it and this is the evidence."
Fact: AP 9/9/04 [signonsandiego.com]: "After the [60 Minutes II] broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his p
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be the 'echo chamber' talking about it. Kerry keeps trying to steer things back to modern issues, like health care, jobs, and our 1,000/1 young men to Saddam 'victory ratio'.
Re:True Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Such as what? Kerry has three purple hearts, as well as a Bronze Star and a Silver Star. He did two full tours of duty. I don't know anything about Bush 41's awards, if any, but Bob Dole has admitted that his injuries were self-inflicted. In any case, do you even know what a purple heart is? Have you met any vets decorated with the purple heart? This is not an award you compete for, or a recognition that you apply for; this is not a merit badge in the boy scouts. It is given to recognize the recipient was wounded in battle. Questioning the circumstances of someone's purple heart is ridiculous; the person never applied for it and never asked for it. The real problem the Swift Boat people and their ilk have with Kerry is not about his bravery under fire; it is about his bravery after he returned home, when he had the courage to publicly denounce the war itself. Some soldiers took that personally, which is too bad, but looking at things over 30 years later, we should be able to see pretty clearly that his beef was with the government that got us into the war, not with the soldiers who fought in it ("bravely" or not).
The problem is that Kerry has become almost monomaniacal in hyping his Vietnam experience. OK, a year ago it was good to remind us you served honorably under fire. That counts for something in my book, but what has he done recently?!
Ummm, in case you didn't notice, Kerry was not hyping his Vietnam experience much at all until the Swift Boat Veterans came along and started attacking him on it! I personally agree that what happened 30 years ago is a poor basis on which to choose a president -- especially since his opponent has sent over 1,000 American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq with no end in sight [salon.com]. That should be the real issue in 2004, and it is the Republicans who have diverted the issue to what happened during Vietnam. In which case, Bush's sorry record of dodging service -- while never showing the kind of courage Kerry showed both during and after his service in the war -- becomes a legitimate issue to discuss in the campaign. Sorry, Bush, but while you were bragging every day about how much you drank the night before [salon.com], Kerry was actually taking fire in Vietnam, and later taking fire in front of the US Congress for opposing US involvement in that war. I much prefer a leader who has thought seriously about these issues from either side than one who was just getting wasted the whole time.
I don't particularly like how Kerry is running either -- I wish he would come out more clearly against Bush's policies in Iraq, on terrorism, on the economy, etc. He should be saying what everyone studying the issue honestly has seen -- that Bush's war in Iraq has been a disaster in terms of the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, he's letting Bush get away with murder in terms of pretending the two wars are one and the same. I want to vote for Kerry, I really do, but I think you're right -- I will be on the list of people voting "against Bush" instead, and that is the Kerry campaign's fault. But I don't think you can pin the Vietnam distraction on him.
Parent
Re:True Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? What I heard at the convention was:
"9/11! 9/11! 9/11!" and "Ignoring what happened over the previous 4 years, here's a bunch of things I'll do when I become President!". Now Bush-Cheney are running on "Vote for us or die.".
This is because they CAN'T run on their record. Proverty is up. Jobs are down. The deficit is record highs. Iraq is a mess. None of these is a winner.
Like I've said many times before, this is a referendum on Bush... Kerry is irrelevant, and he's run his campaign like he is.
You're right. The election is a referendum on Bush, and Bush is weak across the board, and Kerry needs to execute, but he hasn't yet. Hopefully soon. (I think that's the real reason the Democrats have so many 527s. The grassroots are fed up with the incompetence of the DLC.)
Parent
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Interesting)
Kerry LIED about some things related to his service some 30 years ago.
[...]
What I want to know is: How does someone's experience as a junior officer over three decades ago have any bearing on their ability to be President of the United States?
I'm not voting for either of the two liars, but if they were my only choices, I'd pick the one that faced enemy fire in Vietnam over the one that played politics in Alabama. Even if Kerry never s
Re:True Lies (Score:4, Informative)
Neither is David Cobb, the Green Party [votecobb.org] candidate. Don't forget that Badnarik and Cobb have already faced off in the first Presidential debate -- probably the only debate this year that will honestly deal with the issues affecting America's future.
(Go ahead, mod me offtopic... I'm just doin' a little educatin'.)
Parent
Re:Truth Matters (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lies that hide assumptions or omit extenuating circumstances. Then there are lies that are directly contradicted by documented evidence. They're not the same.
Parent
Why the quotes? (Score:4, Informative)
Putting it in quotes is disingenuous and misleading.
Military records... feh! (Score:4, Funny)
They had superscripting typwriters in 1973? (Score:4, Insightful)
Typewriters don't automagically superscript such things like Word does.
These are obvious forgeries done with Word and run through a copier 50 times to make them look old.
The scary part is how the press did nothing to verify the authenticity of these documents. You'd think they'd check their sources.
Yes. IBM began selling them in 1941 (Score:3, Informative)
http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?IDLink=111615
ipso fatso.
Re:They had superscripting typwriters in 1973? (Score:4, Informative)
Heh, typical Slashdot. A bona-fide Microsoft-bashing story comes out and they miss it in favor of superficial Bush-bashing.
Parent
Re:They had superscripting typwriters in 1973? (Score:5, Informative)
Selectric typewriters also had 1/2 and some other fractions, a copyright symbol, and some others. They did not have curly braces, less/greater, and many other ASCII symbols. You could also change the ball to a "symbol" ball that had greek (this may not have been possible on the proportional models?)
Parent
Re:They had superscripting typwriters in 1973? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, heck, where do you think Microsoft got the idea? From typewriters, of course. It didn't do it automagically, there was a key for it.
I don't even need to research to know that superscripts were around on typewriters for a long time, because I used an old manual one as a kid that had "th", "st", and others. (It was an Underwood, I think. Some heavy black mechanical beast.)
Re:They had superscripting typwriters in 1973? (Score:3, Interesting)
The position of letters are identical. The word wrap is identical. The superscripting is identical.
and somehow, this is supposed to past muster? CBS had an expert look into this - and they concluded that they are authentic.
you, are lieing, and poorly at that.
It is a sad statement that clear, authentic pointed evidence can be called into question because of some conspiracy theory based in bullshit.
Here's the crux of the matter, according to official Navy Records
Facts on Bush's Service (Score:5, Informative)
A reporter called Byron York has written a tremendously accurate article on Bush's service. I suggest you read it.
http://www.thehill.com/york/090904.aspx
Notice this particular quote:
"In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," [retired Col. William] Campenni says. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."
Now go read the other side of the story, the side that actually reads the whole story, and make a decision.
Remember, President Bush has asked all the 527s to stop the mudslinging, including the SBVFT. He has also said that he thinks Kerry has served honorable, to which Republican audiences have cheered audibly. The Republicans officially do *NOT* question John Kerry's service.
Re:Facts on Bush's Service (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I've seen, though, he has evaded requests (by John McCain, for example) to condemn their tactics. "Will you condemn those ads?" really breaks down into two questions:
1) "Do you believe 527s should be allowed to run political ads without limits on funding?"
and
2) "Do you believe that any group, whatever the legal definition, should be challenging John Kerry's military record?"
As far as I've seen, Bush has repeatedly been asked the second question, and responded with an answer to the first. If he won't answer the second part, any statements he makes about respecting Kerry's service don't really impress me much.
Parent
Re:Facts on Bush's Service (Score:3, Insightful)
CNS is now covering it (Score:3, Informative)
They cite and directly quote three typography experts, all hitting the same basic points as noted below: proportional type, the superscript 'th', the lack of a letterhead.
And one other -- it looks like the 01 Aug 72 signature may have been cut and pasted (the old fashioined way, actual cutting and pasting) because of the cutoff of the top loop.
Re:Hoax? (Score:5, Insightful)
from the article:
Anchorman Dan Rather reported that the White House did not dispute the authenticity of the documents and said the network had used document authorities to verify their authenticity.
Parent
This is a better FR thread ;- (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM started making proportional typewriters in '41 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:IBM started making proportional typewriters in (Score:3, Informative)
They're not. I spoke to him about 2 hours ago.
Assuming you choose to ignore that Word's "th" is placed such that the bottom of "th" is colinear with the bottom of the top of the '7',
Not on my computer. On mine, the bar in the "th" is just under aligned with the bottom edge of the bar of the 7. But in any case, Word renders superscripts differently on paper than it does on screen. Print it out. Don't look at it on-screen. You will see a differenc
Re:The Documents might be forgeries (Score:5, Insightful)
Rule number one. Cast doubt on the veracity of the documents.
Have some far right site start it. Next the Rush's of the world will start to quote the site as if the site was reporting facts. After that, Fox will pick it up and before you know it, the whole world will think it is fake. And if it turns out to be true, never admit that your were wrong. Instead move on to another attack point.
Politics these days are full of depraved individuals.
Parent
Correction: CNS NEWS CONFIRMS, not CBS (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Documents might be forgeries (Score:4, Informative)
A forgery would almost certainly have been done in a courier typeface. The forging of documents, and the forensics of relating typewritten materials to the machine of their origin is a well-known topic. Freepers need a red-herring for this issue. The next claim they will make is that the Memos originate with Hillaty Clinton.
Parent
IBM started selling proportional typewriters in 41 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not so much. They made some... (Score:3, Insightful)
Says who? When you realize that lowercase 'L' was used for the digit 1 on most typewriters and that the top row was longer than the standard 101-key keyboard we're used to, and the symbol set was different [cents key, for exam
Re:Not so much. They made some... (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't insanely expensive, it was a model that had been produced by IBM since 1941, and cheap enough after the introduction of the Selectric that a low-level IBMer such as my mom could afford one.
It's a lot like a Word document because the fol
Re:Little Green Footballs points to potential forg (Score:3, Informative)
Re:look closer (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
"CYA" and other military culture explained. (Score:4, Informative)
CYA -- Everyone in the military knows "CYA" this means "Cover Your Ass". The term is used because of the culture of the military. Most people in the military have very little social sophistication, as you might expect of people whose business is solving problems by killing other people. When something is wrong, it is dealt with by attacking, rather than inquiring and fixing.
The person who wrote the memo wanted something in the files that would show he was not part of the corruption. Without the letter, it would be assumed he agreed to the corruption. The lowest ranking person would be punished, and that might be him. The letter "covered" his "ass" from attack.
The handling of these kinds of matters back then is no different than the way the military is handling the torturing of Iraqis now. The people who did the torturing were there to KILL Iraqis. Anything less than killing them may have been thought of as gentle. There is little analysis of anything among those whose business it is to resolve problems by killing others. The leaders only think about escaping responsibility and laying blame on someone of lower rank. So, problems are almost never fixed. Anyone with a sense of idealism finds the military culture very bleak.
Credibility of the man interviewed on the CBS show, "60 Minutes II" -- Someone being interviewed told 60 Minutes last night that he found the letters completely credible: Bush really would have received preferential treatment. I found the man completely credible. That's just the way things were done back then, just as he said. If you had power, you could arrange preferential treatment. If you objected, you would either be ignored or attacked.
Typeface and font used in the letters. -- Much is being made of the proportional font used in the letters. However, I've often had the experience of walking into a military office and being shocked by the office equipment there. There are numerous ways that people in the military get things that they don't really need. For example, a general may requisition something and then discover that his secretary doesn't want to learn how to use it. So, then it is available to an office of lower rank.
The fonts are consistent with those sold with a kind of upscale IBM Selectric typewriter that was actually a low-cost typesetting machine. (Typesetting was what it was called before everyone could do it on a personal computer.) These machines had a use-once carbon ribbon. The impression of each character was clearer than the clearest laser printer.
I'm a bit confused about the model numbers of the typewriter. It could have been called a Selectric costing then about $2,500, I believe. I seem to remember that they had another name for the more upscale, true typesetting machines. (I wrote computer manuals which I typed on a Selectric and were prepared on those machines.)
There were usually some odd symbols and characters like "th" on the type balls used by the Selectric family of typesetting machines. That's because of the design of the balls. Whereever there was room, there were characters, partly to assure that the balls would be balanced, I suppose, and partly just because there was room.
--
Bush's education improvements were fraud [cbsnews.com]
Parent
The uneven baseline is consistent with explanation (Score:3, Informative)
There's a funny self-consistency in my guess about the machine used to prepare the memos. Back then anyone writing and publishing computer user manuals really struggled with the publishing. Whenever something needed to look professional, we had it typeset. To do that, we did what is called "spec type". On one occasion I spent 11 hours specifying typesetting values for one particularly complicated page.
After you have spent many, many hours worrying about the look of type, you begin to be extremely sensit
Re:The 'th' in the memos is different than in Word (Score:3, Interesting)