Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans Government Politics

New Bush Guard Records Released 405

Posted by michael
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This discussion has been archived.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.

New Bush Guard Records Released

Comments Filter:
  • True Lies (Score:4, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Thursday September 09, 2004 @12:26PM (#10201873)
    Bush LIED about some things related to his service some 30 years ago.

    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)

      by baywulf (214371)
      "Kerry LIED about some things related to his service some 30 years ago."

      I'm curious what Kerry lied about...
      • Sure, here's one thing:

        http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinio n /oped/articles/2004/04/29/the_kerry_medals_mystery / [boston.com]

        But I'm not going to let this devolve into who lied about what, because both sides lied about things related to and/or surrounding their military experience, and I just provided you one one extremely clear example for Kerry (nevermind that several individuals have specifically said that Kerry has categorically lied about things that happened while in Vietnam, said he was in Ca

        • Re:True Lies (Score:4, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 09, 2004 @12:54PM (#10202254)
          It wasn't impossible for Kerry to be in Cambodia when he said he was. In fact, one of the SBVFT guys told the President of the United States of America that he was in Cambodia with Kerry.

          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.

        • Could you perhaps quote it?

          Yes, the link is nice, but it seems to go on and on and on and on about medals, decorations, ribbons, decorations, medals, decorations, ribbons, ribbons and medals.

          What did Kerry claim that was not factual:
          • Why don't you pick one?

            When you have a half dozen different positions of what actually happened with regard to a single event, some diametrically opposed to one another, it's pretty clear one of them is a lie. And you should get the impression that Kerry has changed his story on this numerous times, because he has. If you like that feature of Kerry, great.

            If I am holding a poker chip in my closed hand, out of your view (such that you, yourself cannot determine its color or shape), and I say:

            "This poker c
            • Maybe you are quoting the wrong article?

              "When you have a half dozen different positions of what actually happened with regard to a single event, some diametrically opposed to one another, it's pretty clear one of them is a lie."

              Again, post a quote where he did that. I've read the article. I didn't see any lies from Kerry.
              • Hmm (Score:3, Informative)

                by daveschroeder (516195) *
                Well, I'm basically going to paste the whole article. I'm sorry if this isn't good enough for you to understand; if it isn't, I'm afraid I can't help. If you're looking for a sound-bite type answer, I guess the best I can do is this:

                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
                • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Thursday September 09, 2004 @02:32PM (#10203724)
                  Since you are unable to clearly specify WHAT LIE HE TOLD, all you are doing is repeating your mantra.

                  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.
                  • One more try (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Thursday September 09, 2004 @03:54PM (#10204934)
                    He LIED, specifically, about whether or not he threw away his medals/ribbons.

                    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.
    • Re:True Lies (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by JofCoRe (315438)
      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.)

      How about instead of voting for the lesser of two evils (which still inevitably leave you with evil), you vote for "the party of principle": The Libertarian Party [lp.org] is the only political party that seems to not be afraid to give straight answers. Ple
      • Re:True Lies (Score:4, Informative)

        by RobertB-DC (622190) * on Thursday September 09, 2004 @12:56PM (#10202273) Homepage Journal
        The Libertarian Party is the only political party that seems to not be afraid to give straight answers... Michael Badnarik isn't afraid to answer the tough questions and give answers that aren't always "politically correct".

        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'.)
    • Re:True Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ConceptJunkie (24823) on Thursday September 09, 2004 @12:50PM (#10202213) Homepage Journal
      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?

      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".

      • Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Eneff (96967)
        You'll notice that Vietnam was almost never mentioned in the thick of the Democratic primary.

        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:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        You might not agree with Bush, but at least he's running on his record.

        No, he's not running on his record, he's running on an anti-Kerry record. His record over the past four years is not something he wants to discuss.

        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".

        I think you're dead-on right on this point. I'm one of those voting against Bush. I'd vote for any of the candidates from the Democratic primary over

      • Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)

        by revscat (35618)

        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)

          by ConceptJunkie (24823)
          I love the name-calling. It really adds to your argument. You should wipe the specks of spit of your computer screen.

          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, Insightful)

        by Wah (30840)
        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.

        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)

        by commodoresloat (172735) on Thursday September 09, 2004 @05:22PM (#10206158)
        This wasn't a problem compared to Bush 41 and Dole, who accomplished significantly more than Kerry in the military.

        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.

      • Re:True Lies (Score:4, Insightful)

        by coaxial (28297) on Thursday September 09, 2004 @10:11PM (#10208857) Homepage
        You might not agree with Bush, but at least he's running on his record.

        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.)
    • Re:True Lies (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RobertB-DC (622190) *
      Bush LIED about some things related to his service some 30 years ago.

      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
    • Politicians lying -- oh my!

      My problem with Bush is one of character. No, not truthfulness, it just doesn't come with the territory in that business. My problem is this: Bush is a guy who's had doors opened for him and his ass kicked through them all his life. But he still has the delusion that he's a self made rugged individualist. It's his sense of entitlement that irks me.

      His national guard service is a perfect example. His family pulled strings to get him into a champagne unit, get him bumped u
  • Why the quotes? (Score:4, Informative)

    by avalys (221114) * on Thursday September 09, 2004 @12:28PM (#10201906)
    Why is "over his head" in quotes? That phrase doesn't appear in the PDFs. It may be the submitter's interpretation of the sentiment expressed by the author of the memos, but the author didn't use those words.

    Putting it in quotes is disingenuous and misleading.
  • having their files coming out, and frankly, they don't look so good.

    So who do I vote for then? Kermit The Bot? [slashdot.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward
    That will affect the future of the country for the next 4 years?
    • That will affect the future of the country for the next 4 years?

      So true, while the politicians (and their supports) could be talking about issues they differ on such as the war on terror, the economy, outsourcing, iraq, the patriot act, universal health care, social security, tax reform they keep going back to this mudslinging crap.

      Of course, if they talk about the above issues, they might have to talk about issues they are close to each other on such as globalization, protectionism, interventionism i
  • by keiferb (267153) on Thursday September 09, 2004 @12:32PM (#10201976) Homepage
    What I want to know is... are either of them Eagle Scouts?

  • linky [littlegreenfootballs.com]

    lgf is a right leaning weblog, but I wanted to make sure that the right's talking points were also represented. I believe that the other point the right made (as seen on 60 minutes) was that this is a purely political move and merely the rehash of an attack that the right claims to have defused during Bush's first run for office.

    My understanding is that if this information is new, then the right's argument doesn't hold water, and if these documents are truley forged, then the left has some splainin
  • by baywulf (214371)
    CYA=California Youth Authority?
    • Cementing Your Aspirations?

      That certainly explains what most of these kinds of folks were doing 35 years ago (Kerry re-enacting his battles on film?!)


    • 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]

      • 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
  • More info [littlegreenfootballs.com]

    From and post from Freerepublic:

    Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.

    In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.

    The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you n
  • by mc6809e (214243) on Thursday September 09, 2004 @12:45PM (#10202140)
    Look at the part of the memo that reads "the 187th group". Notice anything about the "th"?

    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.

    • 1941 1973.

      http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?IDLink=1116157 &l ocation=http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/y ear_1941.html

      ipso fatso.
    • by Otter (3800) on Thursday September 09, 2004 @01:06PM (#10202387) Journal
      Also note a "smart quote" in place of what should be a single apostrophe. To me, at least, the Word-isms are far more incriminating than the font, which certainly existed at the time (although probably not in the office that generated these minor documents). Good summary here [powerlineblog.com], for the Free Republic-phobic.

      Heh, typical Slashdot. A bona-fide Microsoft-bashing story comes out and they miss it in favor of superficial Bush-bashing.

      • by spitzak (4019) on Thursday September 09, 2004 @01:26PM (#10202617) Homepage
        IBM Selectric typewriters had a single back-quote character, and a single forward quote that was also used as apostrophe. I seem to remember that they also had double back and double forward quote characters, but those may have been missing on the proportional-spaced model that I also remember somewhat. The certainly did not have the neutral double quote from ASCII. Early ASCII teletypes also had a neutral single quote, it was changed on newer systems that added the backquote as well as the lower-case characters.

        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?)

    • In the 1979-80 timeframe there was a typewriter in use at Xerox (where I worked) that had "th", "st" and a few other things superscripted. It also had some fractions - "1/2" for sure and I remember some others. I'm pretty sure the typewriter was at least several years old, perhaps more, because the secretary (remember those?) who used it was keeping it because she didn't like the word processing system her boss was trying to get her to use. (And before anyone says they didn't have word processors than, I
    • Typewriters don't automagically superscript such things like Word does.

      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.)
  • BY JOHN F. KERRY
    Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

    (Editor's note: Sen. Kerry delivered this speech on the Senate floor Feb. 27, 1992. The previous day, Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, spoke in Atlanta, where he criticized fellow candidate Bill Clinton for his lack of military service during Vietnam.)

    Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to
    • Not one, but at least two people have modded the parent post down as "Off-topic," even though it is extremely on-topic. This is the words of the opposition candidate on the topic of running people down for not entereing combat service during Vietnam. It's extremely relevant to the topic at hand.

      What the hell, I've got Karma to burn.

      Here it is again, in full, with the "Bully pulpet" of my bonus point thrown in. Feel free to mod me down as "-1, Redundant" as soon as the parent post is at "+5, Informative
  • by jgardn (539054) <jgardn@alumni.washington.edu> on Thursday September 09, 2004 @01:34PM (#10202737) Homepage Journal
    Since Bush made his military records available, and Kerry has not, you can search his documents yourself and determine whether he deserved to be discharged honorably or not.

    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.
    • by Heisenbug (122836) on Thursday September 09, 2004 @01:51PM (#10202981)
      "Remember, President Bush has asked all the 527s to stop the mudslinging, including the SBVFT"

      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.
    • This is vintage bush campaign strategy. He pretends to take the high road personally, while 'persons not affiliated with the Bush campaign' get down and dirty. It's despicable, but highly effective.

      Examples:

      • When Bush was running for TX Gov, Rumors surfaced that Democrat Ann Richards was a lesbian.
      • Push pollers in SC in 2000 tried to imply that John McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter was the product of an affair with a black woman.
      • In that same campaign, McCain was labeled as unstable emotionally
      • As opposed to John Kerry's strategy, where he merely allows demonstrable liars like Michael Moore to sit with former presidents during his own convention. If you're going to be a Kerry supporter and criticize Bush for not bashing the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, you need to also call on Sen. Kerry to bash Michael Moore, George Soros, and the others on the far left who make up the most insane tin-foil-hat lies about President Bush.
  • Fire up Microsoft Word with the defaults -- Times New Roman 12pt, etc.

    Type in the memo with SUBJECT: CYA

    (Make sure you use two spaces after each period.)

    Compare what you typed with the memo that supposedly was written in 1973.

    They're identical. The word wrap is identical. The letters line up in the same way relative to those above and below.
    • Letters line up the same way relative to those above and below what, exactly? You typed one line, "SUBJECT: CYA" and then magically extrapolated the pt size, font selection, margins, leading, and kerning of an entire document?

      Not likely.

      • Letters line up the same way relative to those above and below what, exactly? You typed one line, "SUBJECT: CYA" and then magically extrapolated the pt size, font selection, margins, leading, and kerning of an entire document?

        No. I typed the whole memo using Word's default settings and didn't change a thing.

        I got an identical looking document.

  • Have a look at the documents, and then ask yourself "where did Killian get a laser printer in 1972"? Look, for example at the superscripted 'th' on "187th"
    Remember typewriters? They can't do that.
  • I've been reading about this for roughly an hour, and one of the major issues is the position of the "th". Many claim that these documents were obviously prepared in Word, as it automatically superscripts the "th". I'd like to point out that in the memos, the "th" appears differently than in Word. In the memos, the th partially exceeds the top of the letters around it, whereas in Word, the top of the "h" is matches with the top of the other letters. An attempt at an example:

    Word is this...

    ____
    XXXX th
    XXXX

  • by crmartin (98227) on Thursday September 09, 2004 @03:32PM (#10204604)
    http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CP olitics%5Carchive%5C200409%5CPOL20040909d.html [cnsnews.com]

    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.

Remember: use logout to logout.

Working...