Stay safe !
Posted on 09/09/2004 7:55:59 AM PDT by pabianice
On a previous thread the author makes excellent points about the anachronism error in the "memos" the Liberals have recently "discovered" regarding George Bush's alleged "desertion" and "dereliction of duty" while in the Texas ANG.
A look at these memos shows another problem. A big problem. To understand it, you have to understand a bit about the military. In official documents of any kind, proper rank abbreviations are strictly enforced, to the point that, if they are incorrect, the document has to be destroyed and rewritten. A document forwarded with incorrect acronyms is returned for resubmittal.
The "memos" the Liberal Gang has "discovered," showing Bush to have been a shirker, all carry a consistent incorrect abbreviation for his rank. The only acceptable abbreviation for a USAF or ANG first lieutenant is "1LT." I have also seen, rarely, it written "1/LT," although this is the exception. All the "recently discovered" memos about Bush say "1stLt." While I am Navy and not Air Force, to the best of my knowledge, this is not allowed, let alone a mispunctuated memo addressed to Bush as "1stLt.3244754FG."
I am willing to bet a week's pay that these memos are forgeries.
These memos are in tru-type fonts. Not only are the forgeries, they are obvious forgeries. There is no way CBS could be so stupid that they do not know what they have.
Stay safe !
Here is a good link that shows official military rank abbreviations:
http://www.army.mil/soldiers/styleguide/styleguide4.html
I don't think we can make too much about the use of abbreviations, etc. Remember, these are personal memos to the file. I write them all the time in my work within the US government. It's so that when someone accuses me of not knowing about, or dealing with, a situation, I can pull out my file and show them my thoughts at the time. Since they are for personal files, it's reasonable that they would not be on letterhead, and not follow strict military memo guidance.
In any event, I think the memos, if real, are harmless.
.
Private, E-1: PVT
Private, E-2: PV2
Private First Class, E-3: PFC
Specialist (Old Spec4): Spec; (SP4)
Sergeant, E-5: SGT
Staff Sergeant, E-6: SSG
Sergeant First Class, E-7: SFC
Master Sergeant, E-8: MSG
First Sergeant, E-8: 1SG
Sergeant Major, E-9: SGM
Command Sergeant Major, E-9: CSM
Second Lieutenant, 0-1: 2LT
First Lieutenant, 0-2: 1LT
Captain, 0-3: CPT
Major, 0-4: MAJ
Lieutenant Colonel, 0-5: LTC
Colonel, 0-6: COL
Brigadier General, 0-7: BG
Major General, 0-8: MG
Lieutenant General, 0-9: LTG
General, 0-10: GEN
You're saying that a senior officer would mis-abbreviate his own rank ("Lt. Colonel") on an important document that he himself typed. Sorry. I don't buy it.
The IBM Selectric which we used extensively in the early 1980's was a daisy whell device which did not use proportional spacing to the best of my knowledge. I don't think it was even technically possible at that time, much less a decade earlier in the early 1970's. Also, I was a training sergeant and buncked with the company clerk. It is true that rank abbreviations were done exactly one way and 1LT is correct for first louie.
You're wrong on this one. Proper use of rank abbreviations is so ingrained that even in personal notes proper usage would be utilized, particularly if the person writing the memo has served many years in the military. I've been retired for 16 years and still use proper abbreviations.
Irrational hate can be very blinding.
Thanks! I'm having trouble "finding" it all myself!
I believe I was the one who first broached the subject of proportional spacing in an earlier thread. However, I've since backed off because it's been pointed out to me that there were several models of composing machines available in 1972 that were capable of proportional spacing.
There are so few military veterans working in journalism that they don't even "know what they don't know." What I mean is that they could easily fall for a forgery because they don't recognize details like rank abbreviations and other minutea that the military takes VERY seriously.
The networks wouldn't need to retain so many military consultants if they'd just hire a few of their journalists from the military instead of continuing to hire exclusively from the J-schools.
When you are really horny for something, you don't notice a fake until the doll blows up in your face.
http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/lookup/encyclopedia/ib/IBM_Golfball.html
This has the background on the IBM Seletric. However, judging from the other things that are wrong about these memos and the clearly forged signature, I think it is safe to say that these are bogus documents.
Guys this memo will go no where because bush didnt make his service an issue. If you drag it all out you keep it in the news like the swiftys did. Be smart. People dont care with Bush, they care about kerry lying about his record because he ran on it.
The Kerry Kamp's Nuance Team is already working on the spin:
"These documents were planted by Bush operatives to trick us.
They took advantage of our gross incompetence and blind
lust for dirt on Bush.
It's just so unfair."
_______________
In other news, although already off the Kerry team,
Sandy Berger was fired again for bungling an archival
document insertion mission.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.