Posted on 09/09/2004 11:14:40 AM PDT by RatherBiased.com
Check this out:
Watch Your Six
Watch Your Six is the term used by military aviators of which CoverYourAss (CYA) is the civilian analog. I put it in as a euphemism for such things as CYA, which is the motivation for things like PearlHarborFile(s). The issue is that when you are directed to do stupid things, you need to be sure that the system isn't setting you up as the fall guy. GetItInWriting is probably one of the related ideas. BlowingTheWhistle is a nice strategy, but tends to shorten your employment and make you unemployable to boot. So the next best thing is to make it obviously dangerous to make you the fall-guy so that such predators will search elsewhere for targets. If this sounds cynical, I've got a lot of experience watching the unscrupulous prey on the unwary. CaveatEmptor is good advice in all domains. -- RaySchneider
So military aviators would not use a term like "CYA", but "Watch Your Six" instead?
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WatchYourSix
For me, Dan Rather lost the little credibilty he had left during election night 2000 when he was obviously trashed. My friend worked at a local CBS affiliate at the time and they were so embarassed by the drunken fool that they switched to CNN for most of the coverage.
The article raises a few details which are difficult to ignore regarding the likelihood that these documents were typed quite recently using word processing software. Even if the doc's are genuine they are irrelevant to which man is the best pick for Commander in Chief, but if they are demonstrably forged it would and should be a very big story.
As with the Swift Boat commanders' expose of Kerry's distortions and lies, the White House will want to avoid any appearance of involvement with exposing Rather as either the victim or the source of a hoax. But it is exactly what this forum and the internet are good for.
BUMPING!
Not really. Just vague references to the usual smears, stuff like that.
They didn't comment on THESE memos.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer (cough) guy. "What's the frequency, Kenneth?"
lol
Clearly, the apostrophes in the documents are curved. I am not familiar with the typewriters in question. If it is true that typewriters from this time period have straight apostrophes, it pretty much confirms a forgery.
60 Minutes II
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019
PHONE: (212) 975-6200
E-MAIL: 60II@cbsnews.com
It doesn't matter about "liability"--if this is indeed a forgery, it will be an incredible embarrassment for Rather.
Here's hoping.
| OK, clumsy to do corrections. But this was a fairly high level officer. This could be settled by seeing a handful of documents from the same office and time period. My problem with these threads is that certain facts have been established: a typewriter existed at the time that could have produced these documents; people are confusing proportional type with justification; people are not concentrating on the possibility that the documents might be real but slightly altered. I'd like to know if the originals exist. |
Other threads on this subject have made much of the rank abbreviations in the 60 Minutes documents. Ex-military FReepers have insisted that no genuine military document would use any abbreviation other than "1LT" for a First Lieutenant and "LTC" for a Lieutenant Colonel. However, in the first of the four documents you offered for comparison purposes (and I assume there is no question about the genuiness of this document), which is the President's request for transfer, his rank is abbreviated "1st Lt." and the Colonel's rank is abbreviated "Lt. Col."
Not a killer, mind you, but it does make me wary of experts who are so absolutely certain they are right.
Hiya Troll!
Yes!!!! Next stop talk radio then onto Fox News.
Did they even have "white out" back then?
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.