"The OETR Scam"

Allah Pundit ^ | Allah Pundit

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the information!

[maica]

Thanks for the link! The documents explain how the antiBush folks thought they found the motherlode of his AWOL status in the official records of May72- May 73.

It is also obvious how totally detached antiBush people are from any knowledge or association with military matters.

[dalebert]

I would love to know what McCain thinks of this.

[savedbygrace]

The zip code (77034) is for an area that includes Ellington Field in Houston and the same PO box is shown on legitimate Bush documents. The 34567 box is real, one of the few things real about the discredited documents.

[Howlin]

Does that link include the documents that the AP got last week from the FOIA lawsuit?

[Cboldt]

Does that link include the documents that the AP got last week from the FOIA lawsuit?

Yes. The link to a web page (ends .html, .htm, or similar) contains links to all of the documents, including the forgeries. USA Today's version of the forgeries contains 6 documents, the same 4 that CBS aired, and 2 others that provide further evidence of forgery based on forensic analysis.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-02-14-bush-docs.htm <-- Links to all docs
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf <-- Forgeries

[jmstein7]

BUMP!

[Timeout]

You're right, of course. I was just curious about Stauldt.

Do me a favor? I'm preparing to evacuate from Ivan in a little while. I may be away for a while. Please ping me to major developments in the forgery story? I might want to read them some day.

(Hopefully, I'll have power and 'puter access where I'm headed, but there's no way to know. Thanks.)

[Cboldt]

I'm preparing to evacuate from Ivan in a little while. I may be away for a while. Please ping me to major developments in the forgery story?

You'll be in my thoughts and prayers. Hope Ivan does you and yours no harm.

I'll include your handle in selected responses of mine, to threads. I'll try to keep the number of pings manageable! Let me know when to start. If not, I'll start adding your name sometime around 5 PM this afternoon.

[Timeout]

You're a peach! As of now, we're planning to set out at around 4am Wed. If I can get back online Wed. night, I'll ping and let you know. T.

[Howlin]

How's it going down there?

[Fedora]

Thanks. Looks like the usual suspects. . .

[visualops]

ping

[YaYa123]

I"m loving this!!! (from the link provided)

"""I’m an active duty USAF Lt Col with 19 years in and wanted to add that the OETR/OER/OPR flap is likely just another nail in Dan Rather’s coffin.

To clarify:
OER (Officer Effectiveness Report...AF Form 707B--Company Grade Officers) was used to describe officer reports until 1988 (my last OER was dated May 88)

The acronym OPR (Officer Performance Report, still AF Form 707B--Company Grade Officer) replaced the OER in 1988.

Training reports (AF Form 475 since 1983, at least) are called Education/Training Reports and are used for either officers or enlisted personnel.

There is no Officer Effectiveness Training Report (OETR) currently nor can I find any evidence that there ever has been. It’s quite likely that whoever concocted this document simply made the erroneous assumption that an Education/Training Report (E/TR or ETR) would have both an officer and enlisted version.

Not a bad assumption since performance reports are different for officers and enlisted. It’s just that training reports aren’t! We all get the same form. And, FWIW, we don’t refer to training reports as “ETR"s...believe it or not, we just call them training reports (one of the few exceptions to the military rule to shorten everything). Whoever did this just showed they don’t know the USAF. I won’t even bother with “memo for file”...WTF? It’s Memo For Record!!!!""

[Timeout]

Not looking good. We were hoping it would go at least a little to the east of us so we wouldn't be subjected to the most destructive (east) side of the eye. But as of now they're saying it will land just west of us...our nightmare.

I'm leaving either tonight or at 4am tomorrow. I'm probably going all the way up to my sister's at the Tennessee border, so will probably have computer access for the time I'm there. Hope to be checking in with you guys. God bless us all. T.

[William Terrell]

Does anyone not think that the forger could have easily used a vintage typewriter, like those used for real 1970's memos, and a few copies of legitimate AF memos to produce something that was indistinguishable from the real thing? The question is why didn't he/she? Why fake a document that is so obviously fake, when to do it right would have taken very little extra time and effort?

Hatred of Bush, arrogance of the media and perceived stupidity of the Bush campaign and general public, lust to get Bush fast tracking the memos without scrutiny? Bullbutter. These people are not stupid, nor are they fools, nor are they incompetent.

I believe that the fakes were meant to be discovered and create controversy. Any theory as to the source(s), in my opinion, has to take into consideration this undeniable truth. You connect the dots.

Myself, I think it very reasonable that Billary & Co. produced the docs with the knowledge and willing collusion of CBS to out them, knowing ti will be blamed on the Kerry campaign. Dan Rather? Maybe he's ready for retirement anyway.

Very probably, again we are just being led around by the rings in our noses, lapping up the duck soup and implementing the plan.

[Bob]

To put it simply: any reference to “Bush’s OETR” is absurd in the extreme, because it’s not an acronym for a report. The supposition that an officer would get the name of the OER, a widely used and important report, wrong is absurd as well."

Based one of the form headings which contains the phrase: "Officer Efficiency / Training Report", I would think that there would be two types of reports:

1) an Officer Efficiency Report (OER) for officers who weren't in a training status
and
2) an Officer Training Report (OTR) for those who were.

An Officer Efficiency Training Report (OETR) makes no sense at all and certainly wouldn't have been used by a senior officer.

[Bob]

Also, I recall one memo uses the acronym NLT, but spells it out first, so it reads "not later than (NLT)"

Why would you use an acronym if you are going to use the longhand version as well?

You wouldn't. Common acronyms are expected to be understood without spelling them out.

Doesn't make sense or is some peculiarlity of the military?

It looks to me as if the forger looked up the acronym in some lexicon and pasted it along with it's explanation, by mistake.

Bingo! The purpose was to ensure that when civilians read the memo, they would understand it and still make it look 'more military'.

[Grampa Dave]

Not being an Air Force guy, I have no idea. However, some airforce freepers have noted that there is no OETR.

[Hatteras]

BUMTP...