Posted on 09/14/2004 2:01:31 AM PDT by Qwinn
I haven't seen anyone else, here or on any blogs mention this. I figured it out myself, but I don't have a blog, so here it is.
As most people know, one of the single most damning criticisms of the memos is the perfectly centered address headers of the May 4, 1972 and August 1, 1972 memos.
Liberals have attempted to rebut this with the highly improbable possibility that this centered address was a -letterhead- that someone had gone through tremendous trouble to do and then duplicate. Highly improbable, but certainly not impossible, so they feel this point has been "debunked".
Well, consider that theory COMPLETELY debunked.
USA Today has a PDF on their website containing the original 4 memos AND 2 new memos, supposedly by Killian. USA Today has confirmed that they got their copies of the memos independently of CBS. This is supported by the fact that their versions do not have Bush's Longmont address redacted the way CBS's versions do.
The PDF is linked to below.
Look at Page 5.
The centered address in this new, June 24 1973 memo that CBS did not release, has two striking differences versus the centered addresses on the other memos. For one, in this one, the "th" -is- superscripted. More importantly, THE ENTIRE "HOUSTON, TX 77034" line is MISSING!
And if you type it into Word, YUP, these two address lines are PERFECTLY centered. The second line begins and ends at the exact same place in the forgery as it does in Word after centering.
So what's the liberal's answer to this going to be? That someone went through the meticulous effort to design a letterhead for this letter - AND FORGOT TO PUT IN THE CITY, STATE AND ZIP?!?!
Qwinn
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf
Qwinn
Okay, here's a real link.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf
Qwinn
It seems that CBS was marking up their copies of the memo before scanning it for release. Ditto for the half-assed "redacting" of W's address -- it's poorly blacked out on the CBS copy, but not blacked out at all on the USA Today copy.
The same "underlined" memo also had odd discrepancies in the "initials" or whatever they are on the lower right corner of the page (the CBS copy they look like they say something like "Berf"). However, they appear to be entirely different on the CBS copy of the memo as opposed to the USA Today copy of the same memo.
Okay, if this is common knowledge already and Freepers are all aware of it, let me know so I can feel properly silly for finding a thread. I would just think by now that this would've hit a blog somewhere if it were true (beyond my posting it on the Charlie Rose boards and in the Comments section of a post at One Hand Clapping)
Qwinn
Interesting, that I didn't see.
Qwinn
Okay, I -can- speak English. Correction to two phrases in my post #4.
"...so I can feel properly silly for STARTING a thread."
"...that this would've hit a blog somewhere if IT HAD ALREADY BEEN NOTICED"
Qwinn
The interesting part of this whole episode is not the pro or con of the documents being false or genuine. The interesting part is that they could be true. Running an election in Alabama is not wartime duty, which has been fully acknowledged by the Bush. Tap dancing around the issue does not change the overall aspect.
I feel I have a far better chance of getting it out through the blogosphere than the press, for reasons which this very episode has made apparent.
However, your point is taken and I might as well send them as well. I wouldn't try Fox though, I think there's a better chance with the Washington Post, who are really hitting this story hard.
Qwinn
"The interesting part is that they could be true."
You've got to be kidding me. This is practically Rather's response.
"Running an election in Alabama is not wartime duty, which has been fully acknowledged by the Bush. Tap dancing around the issue does not change the overall aspect."
The "issue" has been rebutted a thousand different ways. The F-102 had pretty much been recalled, and Bush simply wasn't going to get sent over. I fully believe for a variety of reasons and sources that he -wanted- to be, that he very much wanted to be a fighter pilot and fight in Nam. That's why he put in a ferocious number of hours his first three years. But when he was told that he had no chance of getting into Palace Alert, that's when his enthusiasm waned, and since the NG didn't really have any use for him either (having a glut of F-102 pilots at that point), they made it easy for him to just finish out with the minimum requirements. I suspect that was typical for the glut of pilots they had, nothing preferential about it.
General Turnipseed, the guy who liberals love to use as one of their primary sources that "he wasn't there", is on the record as saying he was never -required- to show up to Alabama. That it was strictly voluntary for him to do so.
Same goes for the unsubstantiated allegations about how he got "preferential treatment" for getting in in the first place. There may have been 500 applicants for the TANG... but not for officer positions, which is what Bush was applying for... and not for fighter pilots, which required a voluntary commitment for -heavy duty- training on the part of the applicant. Most applicants didn't want to do it. Bush did. This put him on a very very short list, and when he was accepted there were three other slots for fighter pilot still open.
The whole thing is a farce and a fraud by liberals. Bush has nothing in his record to be ashamed of. Especially given the wartime record of so many of the very liberals that have the gall to launch this accusation. I wonder how many liberals "outraged" at Bush's NG service spent the war in Canada.
Qwinn
You've been suckered with a liberal mindset.
It's not interesting that they might be true. They aren't, and in that context it matters what they say, because they are a smear job. Additionally, nobody is "tap dancing" around anything. Bush wasn't "running an election" either.
You know, find some ignoble way to escape his obligation to be loyal to those he served with.
Additionally, Bush volunteered more than once for a position or status that would have put him in a position of being likely to be sent to active duty in Vietnam. I'll have to find that, that fact is being ignored (big shock there) by the MSM.
Great - let us know if they respond.
So far the score is Bloggers 137, Dan Rather 0.....
W did EVERYTHING he was REQUIRED to do (and a lot more) -- that's why the Honorable Discharge.
IF these were typed on a typewriter sentences would end unevenly. When you got to 5 spaces before the end of a sentence with a typewriter a bell rang to alert you that you were running out of space. If the word you were typing was longer than those 5 spaces you had to do a carriage return to start the new line or hypenate the word you were typing. Word wrap eliminates this problem.
If the allegations are true, then when the deception? The memos are not just possible forgeries; they are forgeries. It would be impossible for any typewriter in the earlier 70's to produce a document identical in every detail with a document that's produced from Word. With great effort it might be possible to create a similar document from Word, but it takes no effort at all to reproduce these documents. You don't even have to change the default font or margins!
These documents were forged precisely because it was known that the story had no legs.
Its got legs now.
We are talking about Bush's guard service now and not Kerry's Vietnam Swift Boat experience...
What was that they once said, the found that a negative story on someone had not effect if they included a picture of the person and the person was smiling.
The Swiftvet ads are still running. And right now, I think it's okay for the Swiftvet story to simmer for a bit. More people are reading the book and finding out about their story so far. Let the Navy investigation started by Judicial Watch cook a little while this plays out.
Besides - taking down Rather isn't a minor victory, it's bloody MASSIVE. The Dems will have lost one of their biggest voices, and the liberal media's credibility is suffering -permanent- damage. They're also VERY aware that the bloggers are watching them now.
And if it turns out the Kerry campaign was responsible for this... it won't just be another Watergate. It'll be bigger than Watergate.
The Swiftvets will get another moment or two in the spotlight before the election, I have no doubt. Heck, I heard unconfirmed reports today that part of their story has been borne out - that Kerry really did write up his own after-action report for the Silver Star. Let that get confirmed, let a little more of this raw data come out, and THEN give the Swiftvets the floor again. Otherwise, people will just burn out if they're the focus for too long a stretch uninterrupted.
Qwinn
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.