Authenticity of Bush Guard Docs in Question

Ok. I was pretty sure this would happen eventually, and I was wondering what everyone's opinion was. And don't Cast your vote based solely upon your support for Kerry or Bush. Please read the articles and make your own decision based upon the credibility of the documents and the supporting/dissenting opinions.

One link is to the CBS writeup on the issue, who broke the initial story (on 60 minutes I think), and the other link is to the Fox writeup on the issue.


http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131997,00.html



So what do you guys think?

<edit>I forgot to add in "Im not sure." If a MOD wants to add it in, please feel free to do so. ,edit>

I don't know yet, not having immediate access to the documents,
but there is a simple lesson for all budding political operatives.

Do your homework! If it really turns out that the document is
a sloppy forgery done on Microsoft Word, maybe future wannabe
campaign consultants will take heed and at least try to do
a more professional job. When you need to forge a circa 1970
document, you go to the flea market and get an antique typewriter!

Any 13 year old skiddie knows at least that much!
ROFLMAO
:cool:

What's really silly about this is that Bush has two lives in the US military.. He spent a couple of years and the ANG when he was "twenty-head up his ass" and four years as the commander in chief..... Since the commander in chief bit has clearly occurred _since_ the twenty-something bit we should be assessing him on current performance not 30+ year old performance... If for no other reason I could quite easily say "Better the devil you know....."

OTOH, the only military service JFK can come up with is back then and comprises 4 1/2 months in and another couple of years on "reserve" when he "met with and gave comfort to the enemy"... Since then, even though he hasn't been "in the mob" he has had influence over it and during that time he has appeared to have been no more supportive of them than he was in the couple of years after he left the mob.....

Since Kerry was clearly anti-military at Yale, went into the military and left as soon as he could, (3 purple hearts - which no other members of his units ever did - they stuck out their 1 year tours) and when he returned was clearly anti-war and gave that "comfort" to the enemy that disaffected the existing POW's how can Bush be considered worse when we need a wartime president.... Fact: we are at war now no matter how we got there.... So we need a wartime president....

The libs best argument so far in the campaign really is that Bush was irresponsible, (unproven), in his twenties.....

Ok, taking that as a fair comment.... how was Kerry _more_ responsible in his twenties???

Fair question... Anyone want to take it up?

I am not yet truely sure that bush is even human anymore. Here are the facts.

rofl... just joking.

As for the topic... I do think that the docs are legit. I am not really too sure of their relevance to his campaign. There you go Tiger, one from me for the Bush side. :D

P.S. Tiger, my beans are hot and steamy, yours are the coolest. (Inside joke for those of you who may wonder)

AE.... OK, I'll give you a simple choice.... Would you prefer George W. Bush or me as president... 'cos right now I'll bomb anything that even farts in the direction of the USA.... And I'm a Brit.... But I live here.... ;)

As to the Bush bit.... He's far from perfect.... but he can still _see_ perfect.... JFK is so far removed from perfect the hubble won't help him..... fair enough?

BTW, if "W" stands for "wrong" I gotta know what "F" stands for.... I have my thoughts.... :p

I had spicy beans a few times.... they rock.... But if you get them spicy enough they come back to haunt you in the morning..... Double the pleasure - double the fun.... ;)

Tiger my opinion of Bush has nothing to do with who he has bombed recently, but with our current state of affairs on US soil. And what he is not doing to help us who really do need it.

<edit>And foreign relations</edit>

I GTG till tomorrow...

But for now I'll say foreign relations are what you "want" them to be..... If you are the big kid on the block.... there's some leeway..

As to at home.... Hmm.. Bush is spending like a rich pimp on crack..... Dichotomy really, isn't it? &lt;LOL&gt;

Greetings All:

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by OverdueSpy

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131997,00.html

So what do you guys think?

---

I think it's ridiculous to even quote "FoxNews" as being a "News" channel. It has more in common with China's governmental propaganda channels than it does with a legitimate news source.

If you haven't seen "OutFoxed", I suggest you do so. It's only $9.95 + shipping :

http://www.outfoxed.org/

As for the authenticity of the letters, keep in mind where the "questions" as to their legitimacy arose: the internet. Yes, it started as idle conversation not much different than a thread on AntiOnline recently that discussed whether or not a plane actually crashed into the Pentagon....

Take it for what it's worth. I think it's been well established that Bush dodged the draft and didn't even meet the commitments of his "gimme" national guard duties. It's also been clearly shown that Dick Cheney dodged the draft with the five deferments that he received.

Politicians like Bush are so quick to war for one reason and one reason only: they know they don't have to worry about their sons or daughters dying in one....

Quote:

---

I think it's ridiculous to even quote "FoxNews" as being a "News" channel. It has more in common with China's governmental propaganda channels than it does with a legitimate news source.

---

Whats even more ridiculous is to see the liberals bark on and on about fox, when they know that 80% of the media is liberal...so SHHHH.

[gloworange]HYPOCRITE [/gloworange]

Quote:

---

Politicians like Bush are so quick to war for one reason and one reason only: they know they don't have to worry about their sons or daughters dying in one....

---

How's that different from democratic presidents?

my opinion on the whole military background of both candidates is, really.. who gives a ****? I don't care if bush did cocaine or if clinton did weed 20+ years ago.. and this is the same type of argument. The dems aren't going to win simply because of the DNC and how shitty it was. In order for the democrats to win they would have had to stick with "Any body but bush," or "Vote for Kerry" the entire race. However, they were at first pushing for Kerry, then at the DNC it was basically "Anyone but bush." The RNC however, was bush bush bush bush.

I recently was watching the history channel for a few hours at a time. A documentary over 9/11 was on, and the people on the history channel would not stop reaffirming alot of michael moores points about bush not doing a thing about 9/11 before or after it happened. Anyone know of the press conference with condaleeza rice just after 9/11? Apparently, the head of antiterrorism or whatever had weeks before briefed the **** out of the entire government about Bin Laden and how he was soon to attack the U.S. They asked Condaleeza Rice if she was aware of this briefing, and she stuttered through about 15 excuses until they interupted her, and said "Are you aware, answer the question" and she again started mumbling. It was rather humurous to watch. The head of counter-terrorism was discussing how much of an idiot Bush was for not listening to him. Bush replied to him, "Im tired of swatting flies, this is getting old"

however, we hadn't done **** about terrorism since 1998, when clinton was president. so why was bush tired? He hadn't done a damned thing?

Anyway, this was on the history channel, i am merely vaguely quoting it. The point the head of counter-terrorism was trying to make was "Why the **** is bush basing his campaign on how good he handled terrorism etc when he didn't do **** to prevent it? " He ended his little talk discoursing on how sickened he is that bush isn't in prison.

By the way, this was on the History channel just in case i forgot to mention.

So you hardcore bushies enjoy your time in the limelight now, because in about 50 years, the history channel will be airing the actual occurences, the truth, etc. because they wil find out, and its going to be a hilarious and sad day when half of america wakes up and realizes how ****ing retarded they are about keeping a dipshit cowboy in office for so long.

The documents are likely fakes, in my opinion. CBS's so-called "experts" are now in the minority of those who are giving them any credibility whatsoever. The guy's son wasn't even contacted before CBS ran the story on the memos?! Doesn't sound like typical, corroborative journalism to me.

Getting back to Kerry for a second. Wow, what won't this guy say to get elected?! Does he not realize that cameras/microphones are recording everything he says? You can confuse some in private, flipping positons like that, but when they've been documented, it's over. Isn't he on his 8th position on Iraq right now? There is so much ammo to go after Kerry on his flip-flops alone that no one should even have to bring up how he smeared the Veterans when he got home. It would be hard to blame them though (swiftvets), after all, it's a fact that he smeared them. The medals I don't really give a hoot (I'm no soldier, though), but broadly accusing his fellow soldiers (whom the majority of Americans revere) of war-crimes while they were still fighting just scratches my a$$ the wrong way.

I'm an Independant, but is it any wonder Bush got such a big "bounce". John Kerry doesn't have the guts to fight this war on terror, and every poll since this last year, concerning questions in this reguard, reflects that. The majority of people think Bush can fight this war better and that Bush will keep them safer. Kerry's own words indict him, or should I say, "flip-flops".

When was the last time National Security has ranked above the Economy as the most important issue among likely voters? Hasn't been since Vietnam, if I'm not mistaken. I can only speak for myself, but National Security/War on terrorism is the most important issue to me this year. Zell has a point.

I went to bls.gov, and from what I can tell (not an expert), Bush is in a fairly different position than his father was in 92, concerning the economy. Perhaps this is/in combination with post 9/11, why Bush is holding up so well? Subjectivity is sure to reign supreme on this one....

I will be casting my vote for Bush this year.

although i think this whole thing is irrelevent, everyones talking like these are original docs...they're photocopies of faxed photocopies of copies, etc. these wouldnt mean **** in any court in the land as evidence for or against anything. simply because you could cut and past IRT or using ms-word, john handcock's original sig onto/into anything. then photocopy fax etc...dammed, it looks real to me...definitly JH's signiture. its not like 226 man are testifying against him...conviently the author is dead and the original docs appear to be, well, non-existant.

user_batch i couldn]t agree more. the ONLY issue this election is national security and the war on terror.

do a poor job on the war on terror and what happened to our economy after 911 would look like high times. wether or not one creates allot of high paying jobs wont mean anything at all if the buildings we work in get blown up and i dont think we need to go into education after what happened in russia.

The sad thing for the Democrats is that they appear to
have shot themselves in the foot. I would bet that most people would probably
agree with them that there is something suspicious about Bush's
National Guard service, but if this is a sloppy phoney hatchet job,
people will sympathize with Bush, figuring that his imperfections aren't
bad enough to throw him out of office, the same way they sympathized with
Bill Clinton over the Monica business.

On the other hand, if they could produce genuine original docs...
:cool:

Quote:

---

do a poor job on the war on terror and what happened to our economy after 911 would look like high times. wether or not one creates allot of high paying jobs wont mean anything at all if the buildings we work in get blown up and i dont think we need to go into education after what happened in russia.

---

One thing that people confuse the most: Presidents do not create jobs. I don't know why people even think that. If the government does not interfere too much into the private market, business owners will create jobs. Unfortunately for me, and my employees, I had to let go over 20 employees, but its not because of Bush...AT&T decided to take a **** and screw indirect dealers. Anyways....thats the way the cookie crumbles ;).

Quote:

---

The sad thing for the Democrats is that they appear to
have shot themselves in the foot.

---

Thank you :)...very intelligent observation. Now I just want to see some dumbass liberals argue that here so I can get a good laugh first thing in the morning tomorrow. Good night. :D

User_batch - I too am independent, but leaning very heavily towards Bush - playing devil's advocate here though, How can one effectively fight and win a war on a concept?


Cybr1d - Sure Presidents create jobs - the republican philosophy is to give the money to the corporations and business world, and that it will 'trickle down' to the masses, in the form of higher wages, lower prices, and more jobs. the democrat philosophy is to give it to the common guy in the form of social programs. After seeing firsthand the results of these philosophies all the way back to Nixon, I tend to agree with the Republicans method more. When a republican is in office, we get recession because we're busy 'cleaning up the mess' left from the last democrat. Comes the 2nd term of the republican, or the first term of the next democrat, we get an economic boom. Go figure. One exception to that rule was the 2nd Clinton term, but even then the astronomical growth of the economy was grinding down. Now we look at figures a bit - what were the unemployment rates during the 2nd Clinton administration? Now what are they? I'd say that's a pretty sure statement that the President created (or in some cases destroyed) jobs.

also, to get us out of the great depression.. im fairly sure fdr created millions of jobs..

The unemployment rate is at around 5.4 percent right NOW. In 1996 when Clinton ran for office it was around 5.6 or so. He used that. There was this woman on TV the other day, the same one I SAW in 1996 tout how GREAT the rate was and how awesome the mighty president Clinton was. He dodged the draft too but he never even showed up ANYHERE, his strings landed him in England inhaling marijuana oh wait he didn't inhale - defense from the left that time, contempt this time around. At least Bushy showed up once in a while and went to manage and election in the South. So I saw this SAME lady talking about how absolutely devastating this 5.4 percent unemployment rate economy is. Devastating, on and on and I thought what I fckling little azz wiping puppeteer she is. (that is another example negative)

The same damn person.

Just for curiosity's sake what was the unemployment rate during Reagon's rein, and just before the election for GWB during Clinton's rein?

aellison,

When I qoute rates they either come from GOV or the Stock Market

Reagan
1980 Reagan elected (6.3)
1982 Spike (10.8)
1988 Reagans Term ended (6.6)

Daddy Bush
1989 (5.0) Some argue Reaganomics started working?
*You will see the rate go UP again under Bush, note he was not re-elected he did a liberal thing, raise taxes after PROMISING not too. He did not get my vote. Note that we started a war and our financial epicenter was NOT yet destroyed.*
1990 (6.3)
1992 End of term (7.4)

Enter the mighty infallable Clinton.
1993 Year end (7.4) fist year not so good, it's hard to fix inherited problems unlike those who expect them to fix everything the first day (case and point the present asministration)

1994 Year End (5.5) nice the market is also making alot of Democrats and Republicans money. Defense spending was almost eliminated, wonder if Moore entertained that idea, not at all.

1996 Clinton runs on his great undoing of the unemployment rate (5.4 with a few spikes at 5.6) It then goes up and down staying at a very very low rate. Clinton did do well at the economy at the expense of defense.

Baby Bush
2001 1st Quarter (4.4)

2001 August (4.9) not bad a typical swing even under clinton if would sway whole points at a time.

2001 Sept (5.0) and then the economy stopped dead for days, arilines grounded, entire corporations obliterated in a fire. Also companies cooking the books for a decade are catcing up with their overspending. In addition the tech market is having trouble making sales after the run-up of the Y2k scare. Hmm that was a lot of sales in the 90s.

2002 Year end (6.0) all that and only a point? Sure that's alot but there was such doom and gloom all over the spectrum.

2003 Year end (5.7) full on war, horrible things afoot and it's falls again

2004 NOW (5.4) the same as in 1996 when that rate was a godsend by the same party and the same people filling the chairs.

Thank you RoadClosed,

I am presently too busy to look up these things. What I see that stands out the most is the numbers of 7.4 to 4.4 in 8 years of the Clinton administration. thats 3 whole points! Not bad at all. I can tell you from a personal standpoint that I lived a whole lot better while Clinton was in office than I do now or before him. I am not so sure why, or if it had anything to do with Clinton's policies. But I can barely make ends meet now. I suppose that is why I will vote the Dem ticket this year. Not so much becase of who is running, but more to see if my financial status will rise again under a Dem administration. During the 12 years of Reagon/Bush I was about in the same shape I am in now (barely employed) During the 8 years of Clinton I was able to pay off my home and start to put money away for retirement. Since Bush 2, I have lost every bit of my savings and am now wondering if I will ever have a retirement at all. I could elaborate on this forever but rather than cry on everyones shoulder, I have chosen to vote for Kerry.

At the same time under the GREAT pressure and horrible events Bush faces, the rates are dropping. I too see that as an accomplishment. Given the current state of economic trends there is no reason to see the economy going anywhere but in good places. Buy signals are all over the market. In fact if I wasn't so stupid I would have profited a little by now. I can honestly say my position is better under Bush, under Clinton I spend spend spend and charge up cards but under Bush I mad a decision to pull in the strings because that was what the economy tended to portray. Neither of this is an actual result of what specific actions each leader did, but of my own. In fact there is a 95 percent probabiliy the fed with move with a .25 rate increase at the end of september. That is the highest probability I have seen and only means one thing, rates are increase to slow the economy and REDUCE the effects of inflation. Greenspan does a great job on controling growth and aslo the down side when that happens.

Ok.

Now we know that the memos are fake. However CBS stands by the information that inspired the creation of the forged documents. Boy! Does that ever open up a slew of questions.


http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040916_979.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019186/


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in641481.shtml

Quote:

---

(CBS/AP) Acknowledging questions raised about documents suggesting lapses in President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News promised a full-court effort to determine their authenticity while standing by its story.

"We will keep an open mind and we will continue to report credible evidence and responsible points of view as we try to answer the questions raised about the authenticity of the documents," CBS News Anchor Dan Rather said on 60 Minutes on Wednesday.

But Rather said CBS' critics have never attacked the thrust of the network's story: that Mr. Bush received preferential treatment to get into the National Guard and stay stateside during the Vietnam War, and failed to satisfy the requirements of his service.

"If we uncover any information to the contrary, rest assured we shall report that also," the embattled anchor said........

CBS on Wednesday flew Killian's former secretary, Marian Carr Knox, 86, from Texas to New York for an interview. In the interview, Knox said she believed the documents were fake but their content accurately reflected Killian's opinions.

"I know that I didn't type them," she said. "However, the information in those is correct.".......

"I think at the very least CBS should characterize the source," said Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri. "I think it's amazing that they haven't already done that."

CBS News officials said the memos came from a confidential source, and in a statement cited longstanding journalistic practice in refraining from describing how they obtained the documents.

---