Posted on 09/09/2004 7:33:57 AM PDT by TastyManatees
New Questions On Bush Guard Duty
CBS) The military records of the two men running for president have become part of the political arsenal in this campaign – a tool for building up, or blowing up, each candidate’s credibility as America's next commander-in-chief.
While Sen. Kerry has been targeted for what he did in Vietnam, President Bush has been criticized for avoiding Vietnam by landing a spot in the Texas Air National Guard - and then failing to meet some of his obligations.
Did then-Lt. Bush fulfill all of his military obligations? And just how did he land that spot in the National Guard in the first place? Correspondent Dan Rather has new information on the president’s military service – and the first-ever interview with the man who says he pulled strings to get young George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard.
...
But 60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file. Among them, a never-before-seen memorandum from May 1972, where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about "how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November."
Lt. Bush tells his commander "he is working on a campaign in Alabama…. and may not have time to take his physical." Killian adds that he thinks Lt. Bush has gone over his head, and is "talking to someone upstairs."
Col. Killian died in 1984. 60 Minutes consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
I used a Selectric Composer in 1975 working for the City of Anchorage. It did do proportional spacing and superscripting but was hugely expensive. Also, it was used in conjunction with an MTST -- about the size of a VW Bug. Did the inputting on the MTST tapes, then schlepped the tapes to the Composer. Doubt that the military had these two monster machines in every office.
Check this out
OMG. Your're the only other person I've seen so far that used one of these. I used an MT/ST in 1972-3 at Ft. Monmouth NJ (Army). Those were indeed monstrous, state-of-the-art, hugely expensive, and rare. I didn't know it did proportional spacing, though. Mine didn't.
Republican running for office-have no skeletons in your closet-no problem-the Democrats and their Media will create one for you.
Democrat caught in a lie-no problem-just tell a bigger lie.
No skeletons in your closet? No problem. Dan Rather will provide one for you.
You deserve an Honorable Mention for sure.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212299/posts
BTTT
Is this one of those threads that will go on and on?
Check this one out:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1163131/posts
I really can't wait to see what Ann Coulter does with this story rofl.
LOL! Thanks for the good laugh, although I know it is too close to the truth to allow that laugh to be sustained. Those people are just disgusting.
Gosh. I am blushing! :) Thanks. :)
You're welcome.
That wasn't from a memo. That was from a campaign speech in '74. But he later said that in no way was he a Pod Person in a '92 press release so of course we must trust him on that.
This is it exactly.
Kerry 'spoke for' all vietnam vets when he called them murderous rapists and war criminals. Why would he balk at besmirching the reputation of one more military man?
Selectric was the best typewriter there ever was...well, at least in MY "ever"!
Yep, just one more attack on his "enemy."
MS Word will not auto superscript if there is a space between the numeral and the suffix, nor if the last 'numeral' is really a lower case L.
Now look at the discharge papers: 147th no space. A typist trained in the 1970's or before (I'm one, having taken typing in HS right about the time the forgeries purport to have been made, and from an old typing teacher to boot) would not have put a space in between the numerals and the suffix. 1st, 2nd, 3rd. . .147th, not 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd . . .147 th. (I even had trouble typing that, putting the spaces in required suppressing an automatic reflex.)
The forger in fact made three glaring mistakes: putting in the extra space, forgetting to put it in, resulting in the superscripts, and typing a one instead of a lower case L in the one place where 111th occurs with a superscript.
I think this is the first time I've ever been happy that MS Word has idiotic defaults which are almost impossible to change since the change buttons are buried so deep in the menus. (Gloat, gloat.)
The "that" in this construction is a fairly recent adoption -- say, the last ten years. In 1972, the writer would have said, ..."who" have rotated.
For me, the newer usage just jumps off the page. "That" aways sounds wrong to me because I grew up before we abandoned who and whom. (I suspect that public school teachers, themselves ill-educated, couldn't get the who/whom rule right -- so they gave up and started teaching "that" instead.)
The rule I learned (somewhat recently) is to use "that" when the subordinate clause serves to identify something, and use "which", "who", or "whom" when the subordinate clause serves to describe something whose identity would be clear even in its absense.
Consider the following two texts:
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.