Dan Blather...

[cjcj]

Looks like Dan Rather is busy pulling his foot out of his mouth these days....He sure was flapping his lips on 60 min....then just 3 days ago he defended his sources and the "fake" papers on Dubya... now he has egg all over his ugly liberal face...

 

[A-con]

Yea, but what are they going to do about it ?

One of the most trusted news organzations in the world ran a story on the most important election in the world, several times, useing phony documents. How can they repair the damage (that they caused )?
Rather should be fired (and/or thrown in jail), and CBS owes Dubya at least a half hour of free (prime) air time. Maby 60 Min. should do a piece on what a great guy Bush is ?

I don't care if you like Bush or hate him, I would be livid if they did this to Kerry as well.

They (CBS) did at least three pieces on this "document", 60 min. and the evening news, then another defending it on the evening news, totaling what 20 or 30 minuets ? Then they give a 10 second " Opps, we made a bobo, were sorry "

BULLCHIT !

This is election tampering !

 

[wyomingtim]

Yep, same here. It isn't about who the papers were about, it is the fact that they were forged, CBS evidently didn't check enough or even care, and they passed them off as real. Let alone it was done against the sitting President.

 

[Ten Bears]

I'm sure there are more here that know more about the topic then I, but isn't that libel????

 

[danr55]

If you read it all, they passed the blame to the guy who gave them the info. He has appearently admitted to doing it purposely.

 

[wyomingtim]

Well, when you are a public entity (politician, athlete, celebrity, etc) there are much more liberal definitions. People get away with a lot more.

 

[JoseCuervo]

It would only be libel if the story was false. Nobody has ever questioned the facts in the memos. And there is no way Dubya would EVER want to try and prove those charges were wrong. he would open himself up to huge issues.

Remember, he could shut all this down if he would just explain where he was in 72. He won't do it, as he has way too much to hide. That is why he justs says "I met the obligations".

September 17, 2004

Judge orders full release of Bush’s Guard records by next week

By Matt Kelley
Associated Press


A federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to find and make public by next week any unreleased files about President Bush’s Vietnam-era Air National Guard service to resolve a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The Associated Press.
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. handed down the order late Wednesday in New York. The AP lawsuit already has led to the disclosure of previously unreleased flight logs from Bush’s days piloting F-102A fighters and other jets.

Pentagon officials told Baer they plan to have their search complete by Monday. Baer ordered the Pentagon to hand over the records to the AP by Sept. 24 and provide a written statement by Sept. 29 detailing the search for more records.

“We’re hopeful the Department of Defense will provide a full accounting of the steps it has taken, as the judge ordered, so the public can have some assurance that there are no documents being withheld,” said AP lawyer David Schulz.

White House officials have said Bush ordered the Pentagon earlier this year to conduct a thorough search for the president’s records, and officials allowed reporters to review everything that was gathered back in February.

Through a series of requests under the federal open records law and a subsequent suit, the AP uncovered the flight logs, which were not part of the records the White House released earlier this year.

Both Bush’s and John Kerry’s service records in Vietnam have become a major issue in the presidential race. New records that have surfaced in recent weeks have raised more questions.

Bush’s critics say Bush got preferential treatment as the son of a congressman and U.N. ambassador. Critics also question why Bush skipped a required medical examination in 1972 and failed to show up for drills during a six-month period that year.

Bush has repeatedly said he fulfilled all of his Air National Guard obligations.

The future president joined the Texas Air National Guard in 1968, when he graduated from Yale. He spent more than a year on active duty learning how to fly and then mostly flew in the one-seat F-102A fighters until April 1972.

The pilot logs show a shift to flights in two-seat trainer jets in March 1972, shortly before Bush quit flying. Former Air National Guard officials say that could have been because F-102A jets were not available for Bush to fly or because of other reasons, such as concerns about Bush’s flight performance.

Bush skipped his required yearly medical exam in 1972 in the months after he stopped flying in April. Bush has said he moved to Alabama to work on the unsuccessful Senate campaign of a family friend.

Bush never showed up for Guard service between late April and mid-October 1972. He won approval to train with an Alabama Air National Guard unit during September, October and November 1972, but more than a dozen members of the unit at that time say they never saw him there.

The only direct record of Bush appearing at the Alabama unit’s base is a January 1973 dental exam performed at that base. Bush’s Texas commanders wrote in May 1973 they never saw him between May 1972 and April 1973, a time when his pay records show he trained on 14 days.

Although military regulations allowed commanders to order two years of active duty for guardsmen who missed more than three straight months of drills, that never happened to Bush. Commanders had leeway at the time to allow guardsmen to make up for missed drills.

 

[Nemont]

EG,
I think the real problem with that logic is that there was a clear rush to judgement by Mr. Rather. He wanted the story to be true and to be damaging to the president. I think it did two things 1) again clearly demonstrates the liberal bias in the mainstream media. 2) Clearly shows that politics is a nasty contact sport. The nastiness of this political cycle will keep many qualified, competent, caring and civil candidates from running in the future. The personal costs are simply too high.

If it doesn't matter what Kerry did in the 4 months in Vietnam it also shouldn't matter what young George was doing in Alabama in 1972.

I don't think it would matter to anyone on the other side what he said about his guard service because they wouldn't believe him. Look at Mr. Rather he wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt by simply verifying the documents through a couple of sources.

If Rush or Hannity did the same the liberal press would lose their collective mind.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

From the Liberal Media, Airforcetimes.com.....

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-AIRPAPER-357916.php

Issue Date: September 27, 2004

Bush’s Air Guard stint started well, then faded into mystery

By William H. McMichael
Times Staff Writer


John F. Kerry’s service in Vietnam and his postwar testimonials have been targeted all summer by Republican-funded critics and veterans groups — so much so that for several months they have obscured George W. Bush’s much-criticized Vietnam-era service in the National Guard. A renewed interest in Bush’s service raised by a critical CBS News report exploded in controversy over whether some recently unearthed Bush documents were actually forgeries.
From most accounts, Bush appears to have received preferential treatment to get into the Air National Guard and avoid the draft after he graduated from Yale University in 1968. He was initially regarded as a good pilot, but his performance faded over his final two years in the Guard and he was suspended from flight status. He did not fly for the remaining 18 months he served in the Guard, though he was obligated to do so.

And for significant chunks of time, Bush did not report for duty at all. His superiors took no action, and he was honorably discharged in 1973, six months before he should have been.

In a 2002 interview with USA Today, Dean Roome, a former fighter pilot who lived with Bush in the early 1970s, said Bush was a model officer during the first part of his career. But overall, he said, Bush’s Air Guard career was erratic — the first three years solid, the last two troubled.

“You wonder if you know who George Bush is,” Roome said. “I think he digressed after a while. In the first half, he was gung-ho. Where George failed was to fulfill his obligation as a pilot. It was an irrational time in his life.”

Awaiting the draft

In June 1968, with his student deferment ready to expire when he graduated from Yale, Bush faced the draft, just like hundreds of thousands of other young Americans. The controversial Vietnam War was raging, and draftees often ended up in Vietnam’s jungles. Thirty-eight percent of the 1.73 million men drafted between 1965 and 1973 served in Vietnam, and draftees accounted for 30.4 percent of the war’s 58,245 combat deaths.

Bush did not get drafted. Instead, two weeks before graduation, he joined the Texas Air National Guard — a so-called “champagne unit” that included other sons of rich and influential Texans. He signed up for a six-year term. There was a waiting list, as was the case at most Guard and Reserve units throughout the country, because such service was generally considered a likely way to avoid combat (5,977 reservists and 101 guardsmen died in Vietnam). But according to one highly visible source, Bush didn’t have to wait.

Former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes told the CBS program “60 Minutes” on Sept. 8 that he’d used his political influence to jump the young Bush ahead of “hundreds” of others to get the Guard slot. He’d first said this publicly after testifying in a 1999 federal court deposition, saying he’d done the favor at the request of a Bush family friend. At the time Bush joined the Air Guard, his father, George H.W. Bush, was serving his first term as a congressman from Texas.

“I would describe it as preferential treatment,” Barnes, a Democrat who is supporting Kerry’s presidential bid, told CBS.

For its part, the Bush campaign stands behind the president’s service. “The president’s proud of his service,” said Reed Dickins, a Bush campaign spokesman. “The president served honorably, similarly to the thousands of National Guard (members) that are serving our country today. The attacks on this president’s service have been purely political.”

It may be difficult for younger readers to understand the volatility of this issue during the Vietnam era, particularly given the extensive involvement of today’s Guard and reserve in Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s 1995 book “My American Journey” put it eloquently:

“The policies — determining who would be drafted and who would be deferred, who would serve and who would escape, who would die and who would live — were an antidemocratic disgrace,” Powell wrote. “I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well placed … managed to wangle slots in reserve and National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country.”

‘Combat ready’

Bush graduated from flight school in 1969, was certified July 9, 1970, as “combat ready” in the F-102, and began winning praise for his flight and leadership skills. On his April 30, 1971, fitness report, covering 166 active-duty days over a period of 17 months, he earned high marks.

“Lt. Bush is an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot,” wrote his commanding officer in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in Houston, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. Bush “performed in an outstanding manner … a natural leader.”

But from there, Bush’s performance slipped. The descent began when Bush apparently did not follow an order to report for his annual flight physical in May 1972, which got him grounded.

The grounding was noted in one of the four documents unveiled by CBS — which were given to the White House, which released them to the rest of the media. It appears to be an order signed by Killian suspending Bush from flight status “due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination (flight) as ordered.”

Handwriting experts hired by many media organizations as well as other critics contend the document, and possibly all four, are forgeries. However, Killian’s order is confirmed by two documents that were not part of the CBS papers. The first is a White House-released letter from the commander of the 147th Fighter Group, Col. Bobby W. Hodges, to its Texas higher command dated Sept. 5, 1972, with a subject line of “Suspension From Flying Status.”

The letter documents the missed flight physical and the suspension, “effective 1 Aug 1972.” A Sept. 29 order from the National Guard Bureau further confirms the missed physical and the suspension.

On May 26, 1972, Bush asked in writing for reassignment to an Air Reserve squadron in Alabama so he could work on the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Winton “Red” Blount, a close friend of his influential father. That was rejected because Bush was obligated to serve as a Ready Reservist until May 26, 1974, and was ineligible for assignment to the Air Reserve. About three months later, on Sept. 5, Bush asked to perform “equivalent duty” with the Alabama unit from September to November. Killian approved the request a day later. The orders went through on Sept. 15, and while Bush had missed the Sept. 9-10 unit training assembly, the document noted he could make the next two. Bush’s Officer Military Record shows an Oct. 1, 1973, discharge from the Texas Air National Guard and transfer to the Alabama unit.

Another White House-released document shows a total of 56 points Bush apparently earned during this 12-month period, but it’s awarded in one lump sum rather than credited for each training period. But this document also contains an error, listing Bush’s status as “PLT On-Fly” — meaning he was on flight status — when he had not been for a year. This, said retired Army Lt. Col. Gerald A. Lechliter, who has done an in-depth analysis of Bush’s pay records (www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf), makes the form’s authenticity suspect.

There’s also the record of a Jan. 6, 1973, dental exam performed on Bush at Dannelly Air National Guard Base, Ala. There’s nothing that documents why Bush, who reportedly returned to Texas after the election, didn’t get this work done closer to home.

Bush’s attendance and participation in weekend drills had been meticulously recorded up through May 1972. But other than the points record and the dental exam record, the year following Bush’s request for reassignment to Alabama is a blank.

In a fitness report supplement released by the White House this year, an administrative officer wrote, “Not rated for the period 1 May 72 through 30 Apr 73. Report for this period not available for administrative reasons.”

In the remarks section, Killian wrote that Bush “has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. … He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status” with the Alabama unit. Bush, however, was only authorized to be gone from September to November.

‘Don’t remember seeing you’

The same day Barnes spoke with CBS, a new pro-Kerry group, Texans for Truth, announced it was launching a TV ad campaign that would attack Bush for failing to perform his duties while temporarily assigned to the Alabama unit. While it wasn’t a new accusation, the ad featured a member of that unit who said he’d never met the future president.

“I heard George Bush get up and say, ‘I served in the 187th Air National Guard in Montgomery, Alabama,’” retired Lt. Col. Robert Mintz said on camera. “Really? That was my unit. And I don’t remember seeing you there. …”

On Sept. 5, Bush formally asked Killian for a discharge from the Texas unit so he could attend Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Mass. Two weeks later, Hodges approved the request and honorably discharged Bush, administratively transferring him to Headquarters, Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver.

Two months earlier, on June 30, Bush signed a statement promising that if he left his Texas Ready Reserve unit, “it is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve Forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months.”

There is no record of Bush ever having signed on with a Massachusetts Reserve unit. In 1999, Dan Bartlett, working for the Bush campaign, told The Washington Post that Bush had completed his six-year commitment with a Boston unit. That didn’t happen, Bartlett recently told The Boston Globe. “I must have misspoke,” he said. The following March, Bush was redesignated as an “executive support officer.” In May, he was placed on inactive status. On Nov. 21 — apparently at Bush’s written request, according to an undated letter sent from Massachusetts and released by the White House in which he requests “to discharge from the standby reserve” — he received an honorable discharge “from all appointments in the United States Air Force.”

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Some are claiming a connection to the Kerry campaign, about as solid as the links to the Swift Boat vets with the Bush campaign.

"Joe Lockhart, who worked as a press secretary for former president Bill Clinton, on Tuesday confirmed reports that the CBS television network put him in contact with the source for its story about Mr Bush's service in the Texas National Guard."

Full story below -

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1a2c8078-0c07-11d9-8318-00000e2511c8.html

Also on MSNBC - "Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6063139/

 

[Hangar18]

If the documents are forgeries, then why would reasonable person give a second thought about what they say. A forged document with valid content is an oxymoron.

 

[wyomingtim]

The people who want to bring down President Bush will jump on any crumb to try to do that. Truth doesn't matter. Anything that will make Bush look bad will be used and it is up to the Bush administration to disprove it. This has been going on since the media started cartering toward the libs. As for the people on here, I think it is more that some people hate the President because he has made a few decisions that they don't agree with. What people fail to realize is that you should vote for/support the person that will do the best job for the country and not fight against the person you dislike.

I am sorry, but I also have a problem with voting for someone that has NO CHANCE at winning. I don't buy that "I am making a statement." What you are doing is making the statement "I want it my way and the rest of Amrica be damned."

 

[1_pointer]

tim- How do we show that a third party or a better 'level' of candidates are desired if we only vote for those that have a chance? Are you saying that you voted for Clinton during his re-election, as he was the only one with a 'chance' of winning?

 

[JoseCuervo]

The people who want to bring down Kerry will jump on any crumb to try to do that. Truth doesn't matter. Anything that will make Kerry look bad will be used and it is up to the Kerry campaign to disprove it. This has been going on since the media started cartering toward the conservatives in '94. As for the people on here, I think it is more that some people hate the Senator because he has made a few decisions that they don't agree with. What people fail to realize is that you should vote for/support the person that will do the best job for the country and not fight against the person you dislike.

 

[Toonces]

How did you get to be so clever EG?

 

[wyomingtim]

It is that way in politics at any level. Whether it be city, county, state or federal, people jump on the smallest little acorn and try to turn it into a huge oak overnight. If someone disagrees with a candidate they will find any excuse to try to drag that candidate down. I am not limiting it to either party. Each party, the big 2 or the other smaller ones, all are guilty of the same thing. I do not know when poitics became so negative, but it is a fact that the present political system is ripe with anger, contempt and outright hatred. It probably started becoming that way when people were allowed to be career politicians....too much money involved.

1pointer....no, I am not saying only vote for those that have a chance. But the off parties have to start at a smaller level and build their way up. It will take some time, but gradually they may contest the 2 major parties. It is easier to start at a local level when fewer people can have a greater impact on the elections. Once representatives start winning the different positions, it either forces the major parties to re-think their position on issues, or you get another party that threatens their control of the political system. The problem with voting off party at the presidential level is that in voting how you prefer may allow someone to become president that is the worst candidate. I do not think Gore would have been better than Bush, but when those people who voted Nader in 2000 they took votes away from Gore mainly. I would think that the majority of the Nader voters would have prefered Gore to Bush. I just think it is more important to vote for the guy that has the best chance at winning who has the same or similar beliefs, values, etc. or as close as you can find with a major candidate...rather than vote for someone who has my full support but has no chance to win.

As an example, I disagree with Bush on some things, but Kerry supports most things that I am strongly against. Although there may be an off party candidate out there that may fit my beliefs better than Bush, I will not vote for that person at the presidential level because he has no chance at winning, and it would take a vote away from Bush, and I think that Bush is infinitely better than Kerry when it comes to who more closely will represent the United States as I see it should be.

I know this is long, and rambles on a bit, but I hope it answers your questions to me.

 

[1_pointer]

tim- I see your point and agree with it to a degree. However, I live in UT and the election here is already decided; Bush will win UT in a landslide. Thus, I feel that voting for an 'off' party candidate shows what I feel the most, which is displeasure in the two 'main' choices. I do not feel comfortable with either candidate running the country.

 

[wyomingtim]

1pointer...i also see your point. I guess mainly it is a point for people in hotly contested states. There are some states that this would not be a problem, Utah, Wyoming, etc. But places like Florida, I would seriously think twice before I put down a vote for anyone other than a candidate from one of the 2 main parties (Bush in my case).

 

[cjcj]

Wyomingtim, i could not sleep well if i have to vote for someone i can`t live with, on what i consider the "most" important issue that effects all aspects of the "American way of life" so i am writing in [Tom Tancredo] of colorado, he has absolutly no chance, and isn`t even running! But its MY vote. and if i chose to send a "protest
" i will, I hope 1 of the big two loses by the amount of votes that a write in gets....

 

[Calif. Hunter]