New Bush Guard Records Released 405
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.)"
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:2, Troll)
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)
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.
I'm having a little trouble finding the "lie". (Score:2)
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:
Re:I'm having a little trouble finding the "lie". (Score:2)
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
I cannot find "poker chip" in that article. (Score:2)
"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)
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.
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.
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: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.
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.
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.
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Informative)
You must not be looking very hard.
Egypt: [sis.gov.eg]Ahmed Fathy Sorour, Speaker of People's Assembly denounced what he termed as a criminal act against the US people
Iran: [president.ir] Iran denounces massive attacks on U.S., expresses sympathy with victims Tehran, Sept 11, IRNA
Jordan [ctkelc.org] The people of Jordan join the people of the United States in our absolute condemnation of the terrorist aggression against your nation
Organization Of The Islamic Conference [oic-oci.org]Dr. Bel
Re:True Lies (Score:2, Offtopic)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.)
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:2)
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
Re:Truth Matters (Score:2)
No, but at the end of the day, you'll be right and they'll still be in charge, which is exactly where you started the day. Only when enough people get fed up with the whole damn system are we going to change it.
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.
Re:Are they proud of it? (Score:2)
Re:Are they proud of it? (Score:2)
Read the transcripts!? Dude, that's not how it works. The aparachniks tell you want happened, then they tell you what to think about it, then tell you what to say about it in words that can be printed in 200pt type on a bumper sticker. Get with the program!
Why the quotes? (Score:4, Informative)
Putting it in quotes is disingenuous and misleading.
Re:Why the quotes? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why the quotes? (Score:2)
Re:Why the quotes? (Score:2)
Re:Why the quotes? (Score:2)
With both runner ups... (Score:2)
So who do I vote for then? Kermit The Bot? [slashdot.org]
Re:With both runner ups... (Score:2)
I'd vote for Jet-Poop from Everything2 [geocities.com].
The guy makes fucking sense, too bad (it looks like) it's a joke.
Re:With both runner ups... (Score:2)
Take that for what you may.
why can't we worry about something.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:why can't we worry about something.... (Score:2)
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
Military records... feh! (Score:4, Funny)
Little Green Footballs points to potential forgery (Score:2, Redundant)
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
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)
CYA? (Score:2)
Re:CYA? (Score:2)
That certainly explains what most of these kinds of folks were doing 35 years ago (Kerry re-enacting his battles on film?!)
"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]
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
The Documents might be forgeries (Score:2, Interesting)
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
This is a better FR thread ;- (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM started making proportional typewriters in '41 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IBM started making proportional typewriters in (Score:2)
It's probably unlikely that a army field officer would use a $4500 IBM Executive Selectric.
From IBM's history site: At a 1961 release price of about $765 the Selectric quickly became a profitable line for IBM.
Due to inflation:What cost $675 in 1961 would cost $4541.11 in 2003.
(but then again, the military has never been cost effective)
Re:IBM started making proportional typewriters in (Score:2)
Good fun - reminds me of trying to re-ink the old TRS-80 printers.
If you have the room, and old IBM typewriter is fun to have around - they make some severely satisfying noises.
I did a bit of research - apparently IBM proportional typewriters were about twice the cost of the other ones, and weren't too popular due to the cost.
Who knows - I have no doubt that GW pulled a lot of strings. This whole election has got me bummed - I'm voting against one guy, and not happy with my choices.
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.
Correction: CNS NEWS CONFIRMS, not CBS (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Documents might be forgeries (Score:2)
Re:The Documents might be forgeries (Score:2)
That's a very interesting point.
However, some quick research has revealed that there existed non-monospace typewriters at the time. See wikipedia. [wikipedia.org]
This typewriter series offered four character widths, apparently, and was available from well before the period in question. I haven't really had a chance to go over the memos with a ruler, and I'm no typography expert, but it might be that this is the explanation.
(
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.
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.
better link (Score:2)
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.
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?)
Re:They had superscripting typwriters in 1973? (Score:2)
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:2)
1) released by the navy from an FOIA request
2) simulataneously released by the WHITE HOUSE!
"I can't explain why that wouldn't be in his record, but they were found in Jerry Killian's personal records," White House communications director Dan Bartlett told CBS's "60 Minutes II," which first obtained the memos.
So you're wrong. Several of the memos came from "Killian's personal records" and not the White house.
And at least one is fake.
Prove it to
Re:They had superscripting typwriters in 1973? (Score:2)
Its default settings produce the same results as a well-typed document on a good typewriter.
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
John Kerry's own comments on vietnam (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:John Kerry's own comments on vietnam (Score:2)
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
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.
Re:Facts on Bush's Service (Score:2, Interesting)
Examples:
Re:Facts on Bush's Service (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy to prove fake. Just type it yourself! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Easy to prove fake. Just type it yourself! (Score:2)
Not likely.
Re:Easy to prove fake. Just type it yourself! (Score:2)
No. I typed the whole memo using Word's default settings and didn't change a thing.
I got an identical looking document.
Interesting (Score:2)
The 'th' in the memos is different than in Word (Score:2, Interesting)
Word is this...
Re:The 'th' in the memos is different than in Word (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Hoax? (Score:2)
1. They are not proportional fonts. Look at the cases where "We" show up. Proportionally this should be kerned (that is, the "e" moved to slightly under the right leg of the "W" for those who don't know what kerning is) - it's clearly not.
2. Claiming that there was no such thing as a superscript "th" on 1972 typewriters is nonsense. IBM Selectrics had dozens (maybe even hundereds) of ball-shaped typewriter heads for various fonts and functions - and superscript
Re:Hoax? (Score:2)
Proportional fonts don't imply kerning.
Just try typing "We" into Microsoft Word using times new roman-- no kerning.
Re:Slashdor politicing? (Score:2)
Because Michael and Pudge hate you. HAND.
Re:should be "Slashdot Politicking" sorry (Score:2)
Re:look closer (Score:2)
(link from fark)
Re:look closer (Score:4, Informative)
Re:look closer (Score:2)
Re:look closer (Score:2)
Re:look closer (Score:2)
Re:Memo quality (Score:2)
to even think that these standards were upheld by everyone, especially during a time of war, is a little silly.
besides, I would hardly describe the author of the memos as 'administrative staff'.
I would also highly doubt that all branches of the military used the same procedures for something as simple as a memo.
Re:Sure am glad. (Score:2)