Concur
It's DNCBS
Posted on 09/12/2004 10:18:12 PM PDT by ambrose
USA Today acknowledges that it indepedently received the documents
"I just don't understand why the GOP does not seem to be making a stink and investigating who made these memos."
-- Why get your hands dirty when they already have enough rope to hand themselves. ABC and USA Today are starting to "investigate" Rathergate.
Folks have no idea of the military "culture" in 1973. The military was hyper-glutted with super-qualified jet jockeys. Pilots were being riffed by the thousands. A last-year ANG pilot, of a plane going out of commission, was not exactly needed around, LOL! The military was BEGGING pilots to take "early outs!" What was Bush supposed to do in Alabama in 73, sharpen pencils? Do crossword puzzles? Thousands of top-notch pilots were given the heave-ho, and they certainly didn't need an extra ANG pilot of an obsolete F-102!
Kevin Drum is a rabid rabid rabid Bush hater, and even HE had doubts about Burkett's credibility.
I just found out by a DU guy that the DU is banning ANYONE who questions the memos. Even hardcore members getting their posting privileges suspended for questioning the memo's or anything about Kerry. You either tow the hardline or they out you.
> which has been a persistent irritant
> for Bush since he first campaigned
> for the White House
I don't know, it seems pretty worthless as an attack on Bush in 2004. Because, unlike Kerry, Bush is a PROVEN leader. WHO CARES what he did early on? he was proven under fire after 9/11.
Kerry, on the other hand, has had a completely empty "career" as a senator (zero accomplishments, barely showed up, initiated nothing), and back in those days when he did actually ACT in public life, his actions were completely suspicious. Go meet with North Vietnam during a war?
Pretty desperate they must be to go after Bush on anything other than what he's done while in office, as that is by far the best indication of what he'll be like the next four years.
November 2000 Burkett says he wasn't trying to point a fingure and makes no mention of having any docs...
http://www.onlinejournal.com/bush/110500Conover/110500conover.html
,,,,,Question: Did you allege that the governor’s staff “doctored” the records?
Burkette: No, instead I stated that the way this had been handled by the Bush staff, including knowledgeable military officials at the Texas National Guard, that it left the implication that the Bush staff had first incompetently provided an incomplete military file for the Governor which was consistent with his autobiography. I further observed that they probably did not anticipate that the file would be scrutinized to the level that it was. Whenever someone determined holes in service “big enough to drive a Mack truck through,” additional information—all of which was unofficial and some in pencil notations—were then submitted to the press to answer questions. I further observed the this “trust me, I’m the Governor” approach had worked throughout Texas for George W. Bush within his tenure and the media had given the Governor a free pass, without the same scrutiny as the vice president [was given], until the eleventh hour revelation of the DUI. But this still left the basic question: Why didn’t Governor Bush simply release his military pay files and retirement points accounting records, which are the only official records that will show that he satisfactorily and honorably completed his service commitment?,,,,,,,
Burkett is the guy who said he overheard orders to "clean up" W's TANG records some 7-8 years ago.
"stone, if i were to use the logic that USA TODAY used (but they did NOT print it to their credit) - I could pretend to be a disgrunted Kerry campaigner and drop off some forged documents of my own explaining how Kerry is a closet communist.
I am not that bad with photoshop either. :)"
-- I'd be careful about making comments like that. Trollers are everywhere now, and your comments can and will be used against you. Recall how the co-Author of "Unfit For Command" saw his sarcastic comments on FreeRepublic picked up by Reuters and AP. It wasn't long before liberal pundits on CNN and FOX were calling him an anti-catholic bigot (even though he's catholic).
FreeRepublic is considered the originator of Rathergate (along with Powerlineblog), so there's even more spotlight on us now.
I'd utilize private message a lot more...
Or, as I put it on another thread...
They will also have to explain how Killian, when he went through all those typographic contortions back in 1972 and 1973, knew exactly what these documents would need to look like to perfectly duplicate a format and type in an unimaginable future on a computer system and software he coudn't possibly have dreamt of.
Was Killian the most accomplished clairvoyant of the age?
Correct me if I'm wrong but... Burkett had access to official Guard records. CBS claims these documents are from Killian's personal file. Personal files would not be kept with the official files and would most likely be kept at home. So Burkett did not have access to these and could not have been the source.
If these personal files were kept at home the docs HAD to come from Killian's family. But Killian's family says he wasn't the type of person that would take notes or keep personal files and claim these are forgeries. Which still leaves us with the question - where did these docs come from? CBS has got to tell us or their credibility is down the tubes.
Yup - and W. did hundreds of hours of service while the war was raging. The war was winding down to basically nothing during the disputed time period.
Of course, Kerry was giving aid and comfort to our enemies WHILE THE WAR STILL RAGED.
of course, this doesn't bother the media - in fact, they applaud it.
Heh I heard Bev Harris on Art Bell a few months ago.
All my military records were hole punched. And most if not all paperwork that was worth keeping in a file had the same.
Concur
It's DNCBS
They wouldn't be hole-punched, because they aren't part of any official military record.
Same point applies to the claims that these aren't authentic because they aren't on letterhead. The memos for record/file wouldn't necessarily be on letterhead. I never did any of mine on letterhead. The exception is the memo that was purportedly sent to Bush, ordering him to report for a physical. That one you would reasonably expect to be on letterhead (although I don't know what the Texas ANG did in that regard -- do we have other, official memos from that time period that are on letterhead?) Also, one would expect that one (since it is an order) to have been filed "officially." Again, though, I don't know how complete the Texas ANG record-keeping is.
I never did understand those underlines. Why would an officer underline things in his own memo for record? If they are absent in the USA Today versions, then this means there is proof that these (probably forged) documents or document copies were tampered with by someone.
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.