"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...


Not at all. For example, in the example given, the "ee" in "three
months"
is clearly raised above the surrounding text (the entire characters,
including the tops and bottoms). That is typical of a heavily worn
typewriter, not a computer.


The Clue Train came and went and left Dwight behind.


http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm

"I am one of the pioneers of electronic typesetting"

" the placement is pixelwise identical to Microsoft's Times New Roman"

"Not only are these documents forgeries, they are incompetently done
forgeries:


Yes.

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

The Selectric Composer could do proportional font spacing, but it was a
high-quality, high-end, expensive unit used mostly by commercial
printing firms for producing camera ready type or firms needing
high-quality printing. And they were not easy to use or repair.


Even so, I'd think someone would have retyped the documents on such a
typewriter by now, just to prove that it they didn't have to have been done
MS Word.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

The Selectric Composer could do proportional font spacing, but it was a
high-quality, high-end, expensive unit used mostly by commercial
printing firms for producing camera ready type or firms needing
high-quality printing. And they were not easy to use or repair.



Even so, I'd think someone would have retyped the documents on such a
typewriter by now, just to prove that it they didn't have to have been done
MS Word.

Frank Dresser



They have.

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

CLIFTO,

General Say's '60 Minutes' Mislead Him and Documents are Fake [.]

As Reported by the Washington Post

"Major General Bobby Hodges

One of the main sources for the 60 Minutes report was Major
General Bobby W. Hodges, Lt. Col. Killian's superior. According
to the Washington Post, a senior CBS official called Hodges CBS's
"trump card."

However, according to a September 12 Washington Post story, Hodges
said he was "misled" by CBS and now believes the documents are
forgeries. "Now that I have had a chance to see them, I think
they are fake," Hodges told the Post.

Not surprisingly, Dan Rather didn't mention his trump card in his
report. However, Hodges is mentioned indirectly; he is one of the
"solid sources" upon which Rather relied for the original 60 Minutes
report."

SOURCE= http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle3784.html


+ New Doubt Cast on Guard Documents
Military Official now says CBS Records are Fake
- by Michael Rezendes and Walter V. Robinson, Globe Staff
- John 'ff' Kerry's home town newspaper the Boston Globe
- (The Boston Globe is 'owned-by' the New York Times)
- 12 SEPT 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/12/new_doubt_cast_on_guard_documents/


* Bush Papers Phony, says National Guard Official who had worked with
CBS
- by Ralph Blumenthal and Jim Rutenberg, New York Times
- September 12, 2004
- Minneapolis Star Tribune
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4976522.html


+ More Doubt Cast on Memos used in '60 Minutes' Report
- by Ralph Blumenthal, Jim Rutenberg, New York Times
- SF Chronical
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/12/MNG2S8NPHV1.DTL


So What's the Frequency {Now} Dan ?

Just the Facts ~ RHF
..
..
= = = clifto wrote in message
= = = ...
Dan wrote:
These things are such obvious fakes that, if CBS had *any* integrity
left at all, Dan Rather should be fired on the spot.

The lies continue and compound.

http://progresssivetrail.org/articles/040911Peralta.shtml says,
"1. Times New Roman Fonts did not exist in 1972.

"The Times New Roman font was developed in 1931 by Stanley Morison,
Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation who adapted the
font to the IBM selectric [sic] Typewriter in 1947."

The font *may* have been developed in 1931; Morison was NOT advisor to
Monotype Corporation, but to the Times (newspaper) of London. Victor
Lardent of the Times actually drew the original design.

The IBM Selectric [tm] Typewriter was introduced in 1961. To my knowledge,
there was never a proportional-space version of the Selectric. Certainly
the mechanics of the Selectric would have made proportional spacing
very difficult if not impossible.
..

"Mark S. Holden" wrote:

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

The Selectric Composer could do proportional font spacing, but it was a
high-quality, high-end, expensive unit used mostly by commercial
printing firms for producing camera ready type or firms needing
high-quality printing. And they were not easy to use or repair.



Even so, I'd think someone would have retyped the documents on such a
typewriter by now, just to prove that it they didn't have to have been done
MS Word.

Frank Dresser



They have.

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

I find it quite interesting that '60 Minutes' likes to focus on memo's from folks
who've been dead for 20 years, but refuses to spend time with 250+ fellows who
served with Kerry, and dispute his version of events.

Is Dan Rather hiding in his spider hole?

dxAce

"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
...

They have.


http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_s...ibm_selectr.ht
ml



That's very interesting, thanks! By the way, there's been alot of
speculation about MS Word. Just to widen the field a little, it seems
likely the IBM/Lotus word processor would also have whatever fonts the
selectric had.

Frank Dresser

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


"Mark S. Holden" wrote:

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

The Selectric Composer could do proportional font spacing, but
it was a
high-quality, high-end, expensive unit used mostly by commercial
printing firms for producing camera ready type or firms needing
high-quality printing. And they were not easy to use or repair.



Even so, I'd think someone would have retyped the documents on
such a
typewriter by now, just to prove that it they didn't have to
have been done
MS Word.

Frank Dresser



They have.


http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_s...9/the_ibm_sele
ctr.html

I find it quite interesting that '60 Minutes' likes to focus on
memo's from folks
who've been dead for 20 years, but refuses to spend time with 250+
fellows who
served with Kerry, and dispute his version of events.

Is Dan Rather hiding in his spider hole?

IMO, this is the -real- story of this whole controversy. We can argue
back and forth ad nauseam about whether the Nat Guard story should
have been done based on those documents. But one issue is
undeniable--when the Swift Boat Veterans spoke, big media in general
and CBS in particular -ignored- them. When they were covered, it
wasn't the substance of what they said that received coverage, it was
questions about their motivation and who was "behind" them.

However, as soon as we get a "story" with potentially negative
implications for Bush--and based on questionable documentation-CBS
runs with it without asking Barnes about the fact that he told a
different story under oath, without asking him about his ties to
Kerry, and apparently without doing due diligence on the documents.

Liberal media? What liberal media?

DS,

You are smart than this. With the 'right' Computer and Software
any "IMAGE" (Text Document) can be created for under $5K.

In the "Old Document" 're-manufacturing' business there are
Devise Emulator Programs that will give you IBM Selectric Composer,
an old Soviet Military Typewriter, or what ever is needed to
create the proper image.

The 'use' of a "Photo Copy" of a ?document? is the easiest way
of MASKING the mechanical impressions left by (or not left by)
a Typewriter; the type of Paper-Stock & Water-Marks; and the
Inks & Dyes in the 'base' {Fake} Document.

NOTE: The Black 'ghost' Image Marks produced by the Photo
Copier can act as a Finger Print to Identify the "Actual"
Photo-Copier used to make the ?documents? .

The QUESTION Becomes "Who" provided these 'manufactured'
?documents? for 60 Minutes.

60 Minutes needs to 'come clean' with the American People.

60 Minutes needs to Identify the "Source" of the Forged Documents.

60 Minutes is Stone Walling the Search for the Truth with a
so called 'investigation'. Some now call this "DOC-U-GATE".

Failing to do so simply means that 60 Minutes is part of this
Criminal Conspircy to present these Fake Documents as real.

WHY - Has 60 Minutes Not Acted to Tell the Truth ?


Just the Facts in Search of the Truth ~ RHF
..
..
= = = "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
= = = hlink.net...
"-=jd=-" wrote:

Where the misalignment occurs, the tops
of the characters seem to be consistent
where the bottom is truncated and
vice-versa. (snip)


Not at all. For example, in the example given, the "ee" in "three months"
is clearly raised above the surrounding text (the entire characters,
including the tops and bottoms). That is typical of a heavily worn
typewriter, not a computer.

Stewart
..

"RHF" wrote:

You are smarter than this. With the
'right' Computer and Software (snip)


Look, I don't know if the documents are fake or not. However, the
arguments used so far to suggest they are fake (line wrap, character
spacing, and a few superscript characters) are far less than convincing.
With only a photocopy available, chemical analysis of the paper would
probably be useless. And the person who sent photocopies of military
documents to the press is not likely to come forward now to point to the
original documents. So, at this point, the authenticity of the documents may
simply remain an open question.

Stewart

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
...

They have.


http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_s...ibm_selectr.ht
ml



That's very interesting, thanks! By the way, there's been alot of
speculation about MS Word. Just to widen the field a little, it seems
likely the IBM/Lotus word processor would also have whatever fonts the
selectric had.

Frank Dresser

ANY windoze word processor should have the same fonts, but I'm not sure the spacing and kerning would be the same.

I'm not an expert in type fonts, but different programs may use somewhat different kerning. I know PageMaker (A full featured desktop publishing program) uses different spacing algorithms than Word.

Everything on TV is fake.

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:49:50 -0400, "llortamai"
wrote:

http://www.drudgereport.com/

32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by CBSNEWS 60 MINS on Bush's guard
service may have been forged using a current word processing program.

typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a
superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program, Internet
reports claim... Developing...

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...
Gandalf Grey wrote:

Not really. We already know everything in the docs that's of any
material value.

Then why was CBS so anxious to build their whole case around these
documents?

CBS wasn't making "a case." They had a report. Part of that report was
documents. But the actual knowledge of Bush's military days predates the
CBS report and has nothing to do with the CBS documents.


We knew he got in via Barnes.

Barnes's daughter says differently.

That's a claim from a once removed source. Claims as such don't really hold
much water.



It's clear to me that they are when you look at an Selectric II created
document, a computer generated document and the suspect document the two
that line up the best is the computer generated and suspect. It's pretty
clear the suspect documents were created on a computer not a typewriter.


Not to the experts. And you're no expert.

Chemical analysis will prove it the documents are on paper from the
1970's. Bet CBS won't let the documents be submitted to such an analysis.

Now you're assuming what you're attempting to prove.

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...
Gandalf Grey wrote:



It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. The raised "e"'s
can't
be duplicated without a lot of effort in Word.


So you imply that it can be done, so if someone were going to all the
trouble to fake up a document using word, then why not go to the "lot of
effort" to make the raised e's so the document appears to be real?

It violates Occam's Razor. In the absence of extenuating circumstances, the
simplest explanation is the best. Also, the fact that something CAN be
done, is never evidence that it MUST have been done.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

..
.
In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:47:47p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:10:02p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 09:20:11p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 06:12:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"John" wrote in message
...
Isle Of The Dead wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake.


Dude, what part of "computer age"
do you NOT understand?



I USED TYPEWRITERS THAT COULD DO IT BACK IN THE EARLY
SEVENTIES DICKHEAD!

1. It's been established in the last 24 hours that
typewriters
of the time could do what we've seen.
2. Isle of the Dead is a known newsgroup psychotic.
Don't
waste your time.



It's only been established that some typewriters had the
type-font. What has not been established is if *any*
typewriters
of the time could be used to reproduce what someone
(according
to
NPR) has done: - Type the content of the suspect document
using
MS Word. - Print the MS-Word doc on a laser printer.
- Scan the MS-Word doc
- Scan a copy of the suspect document
- Superimpose the two over each other and marvel at how
they
line
up.

Maybe it's not outside the realm of infinite possibilities
that
a
chiefly mechanical device in the early seventies has the
same
typographical characteristics of a current software based
word-processing program to include type spacing, kerning,
justification, character registration, etc, etc, etc...

I wouldn't be so quick to declare it a definite or even
reasonable probability just yet...

Well, the raised "e" can only be accomplished in Word with
great
difficulty.

It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. NPR or
no
NPR.


Apparently the raised "e" can also be attributed to a defect
introduced by multiple-passes through a copier in an attempt
to
artificially "age" a document. If you've seen the pdf (I
downloaded
it from the Washington Post).

No. That wouldn't effect the "e"s alone.

Try again.


In the single position and no other "e" being affected, I would
think
it is an artifact from something other than the device that
originally
produced the document.

Now you're reaching.

No need to try again.

Wrong.


The new discoveries along with the Rovian character of the
first
criticism out make it clear that the docs are legitimate.


Opinions vary...

Rove doesn't. He's a sleazeball trickster and this is just his
style.



Besides that, the docs don't reveal anything that wasn't
already
known about Bush's desertion.



And there we have it. Who needs the docs, right? Enough said - I
think
I see where you're coming from.

Yeah. I'm coming from the truth. The existing documents without
Killian's documents already prove Bush wasn't where he was
supposed to
be. Then there are the missing documents and the picture put
together
by the AP. Bush was a technical deserter, Killian docs or no
Killian
docs. That was never really a question. The Killian docs are
interesting, but they don't change much of anything.




And Kerry received one or more of his decorations "technically". So
what?
Apparently, you come from "the truth" as only you can see it through
the
filter of your bias. Wherever Bush was, the ANG apparently did not
have
any problem with it, as can be determined by the honorable discharge
Bush
received. Or is that particular document "forged" and/or not up to
your
standards of truth?

I think it is a mistake to spend much time on Kerry's 4 months in
Vietnam since it's his word against others.

More like 3 plus years.

Excuse me, 4 months and 2 days.

Wrong.

"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
...



ANY windoze word processor should have the same fonts, but I'm not sure
the spacing and kerning would be the same.


Yep. The letters in any TrueType font should look the same.

I'm not an expert in type fonts, but different programs may use somewhat
different kerning. I know PageMaker (A full featured desktop publishing
program) uses different spacing algorithms than Word.

As long as were speculating, a word processor under OS/2 might do a pretty
fair IBM imatation.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:
That's very interesting, thanks! By the way, there's been alot of
speculation about MS Word. Just to widen the field a little, it seems
likely the IBM/Lotus word processor would also have whatever fonts the
selectric had.

But remember that they were made up of dots with only certain possible
positions in the former case, and solid metal in the latter.

Just as a side note, the early versions of Word did *very* bad
"typesetting". It took several versions over several years before they
could produce a decent-looking proportional-spaced document.

--
"The Democrats are all over this. Democratic strategists feel John Kerry's
war record means he can beat Bush. They say when it comes down to it, voters
will always vote for a war hero over someone who tried to get out of the war.
I'll be sure to mention that to Bob Dole when I see him." -- Jay Leno

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
...

They have.



http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_s...ibm_selectr.ht
ml



That's very interesting, thanks! By the way, there's been alot of
speculation about MS Word. Just to widen the field a little, it seems
likely the IBM/Lotus word processor would also have whatever fonts the
selectric had.

Frank Dresser


You must be kidding, you can get just about any font for a word processor.

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"RHF" wrote:


You are smarter than this. With the
'right' Computer and Software (snip)



Look, I don't know if the documents are fake or not. However, the
arguments used so far to suggest they are fake (line wrap, character
spacing, and a few superscript characters) are far less than convincing.
With only a photocopy available, chemical analysis of the paper would
probably be useless.

That is obvious to the most casual of observers, the analysis would have
to be done on the original documents. DUH.

And the person who sent photocopies of military
documents to the press is not likely to come forward now to point to the
original documents.

Why not? Do you think they might be afraid they would be made a fool of
if the originals were submitted to analysis?

Until someone can produce the original documents for scrutiny, then I
see no reason not to consider the documents that were distrubited as
possible fakes.

Gandalf Grey wrote:

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

Gandalf Grey wrote:


Not really. We already know everything in the docs that's of any
material value.

Then why was CBS so anxious to build their whole case around these
documents?


CBS wasn't making "a case." They had a report. Part of that report was
documents. But the actual knowledge of Bush's military days predates the
CBS report and has nothing to do with the CBS documents.

But CBS and Dan Blater were relying heavily on their forged documents to
support their claims in their report. Now they have egg all over their
faces.

We knew he got in via Barnes.

Barnes's daughter says differently.


That's a claim from a once removed source. Claims as such don't really hold
much water.



That is a claim directly from Barnes' daughter. I heard her on a radio
interview, she has been interview many times.


Chemical analysis will prove it the documents are on paper from the
1970's. Bet CBS won't let the documents be submitted to such an analysis.


Now you're assuming what you're attempting to prove.

Care to clarify that last statement?

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 12:50:34p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...
Gandalf Grey wrote:



It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. The raised
"e"'s
can't
be duplicated without a lot of effort in Word.


So you imply that it can be done, so if someone were going to all the
trouble to fake up a document using word, then why not go to the "lot
of effort" to make the raised e's so the document appears to be real?

It violates Occam's Razor. In the absence of extenuating circumstances,
the simplest explanation is the best. Also, the fact that something CAN
be done, is never evidence that it MUST have been done.



The simplest explanation is a forgery produced by MS-Word.

Not as you state it above.




-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...
Gandalf Grey wrote:

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

Gandalf Grey wrote:


Not really. We already know everything in the docs that's of any
material value.

Then why was CBS so anxious to build their whole case around these
documents?


CBS wasn't making "a case." They had a report. Part of that report was
documents. But the actual knowledge of Bush's military days predates
the
CBS report and has nothing to do with the CBS documents.

But CBS and Dan Blater were relying heavily on their forged documents to
support their claims in their report. Now they have egg all over their
faces.

We'll see.


We knew he got in via Barnes.

Barnes's daughter says differently.


That's a claim from a once removed source. Claims as such don't really
hold
much water.



That is a claim directly from Barnes' daughter. I heard her on a radio
interview, she has been interview many times.

So what? It's still a claim. I'll take Barne's word over what was going on
in Barne's mind before I'll take his daughter's on the same subject.



Chemical analysis will prove it the documents are on paper from the
1970's. Bet CBS won't let the documents be submitted to such an
analysis.


Now you're assuming what you're attempting to prove.

Care to clarify that last statement?

It's self-explanatory.

Mark S. Holden wrote:
Frank Dresser wrote:

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

The Selectric Composer could do proportional font spacing, but it was a
high-quality, high-end, expensive unit used mostly by commercial
printing firms for producing camera ready type or firms needing
high-quality printing. And they were not easy to use or repair.



Even so, I'd think someone would have retyped the documents on such a
typewriter by now, just to prove that it they didn't have to have been
done
MS Word.

Frank Dresser



They have.

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html



And the author says, "Typing "IBM Selectric Composer" into that search
site took me to the aptly named ibmcomposer.org, which describes itself
as "the only site on the Internet completely dedicated to the IBM
'Selectric' Composer line of typesetting machines." The site, which is
run by Gerry Kaplan, includes information, scanned user manuals, and
photographs of the only working IBM Selectric Composer I've been able to
find."

Notice that last sentence, "only working IBM Selectric Composer I've
been able to find."
Being high-end, high-dollor, machines designed mostly for the commercial
printing industry, these units were not found in abudance, especially in
clerical offices for cranking out memos and general correspondance. I
spent 27 years with IBM and never saw one of these units while
Selectrics were everywhere. My wife was a secretary at IBM, and she
never saw a Composer unit.
So what are the chances of a small Texas ANG unit having a Composer
unit?... slim to none with the emphasis on none.

"Gandalf Grey" wrote in message
m...

Doll? You mean Kerry? Yes, I have also heard that Kerry shot a boulder
or

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a nick on his
shin along with a purple heart.


Ahhhh, I see Rick Hanson has been reduced to
defending Kerry by likening him to Bob Dole.

Nice work, Mr. jd.

In article , dxAce
wrote:

"Mark S. Holden" wrote:

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

The Selectric Composer could do proportional font spacing, but it
was a high-quality, high-end, expensive unit used mostly by
commercial printing firms for producing camera ready type or
firms needing high-quality printing. And they were not easy to
use or repair.



Even so, I'd think someone would have retyped the documents on
such a typewriter by now, just to prove that it they didn't have
to have been done MS Word.

Frank Dresser



They have.

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_s.../09/the_ibm_se
lectr.ht ml

I find it quite interesting that '60 Minutes' likes to focus on
memo's from folks who've been dead for 20 years, but refuses to spend
time with 250+ fellows who served with Kerry, and dispute his version
of events.

Is Dan Rather hiding in his spider hole?

CBS is not looking like much of a news organization these days.

1. They decided not to air the conversations of several people that had
input on these faked documents. This was a deliberate attempt to present
only one side of the story; the only side Blather wanted shown.

2. They do not have the original documents only copies.

3. The copies conveniently came from the Kerry campaign.

Dan Blather is left holding the bag for the Kerry campaign.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:

On Sun 12 Sep 2004 10:48:05p, Hugh Sedditt wrote
in message :

In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 06:12:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"John" wrote in message
...
Isle Of The Dead wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake.


Dude, what part of "computer age"
do you NOT understand?



I USED TYPEWRITERS THAT COULD DO IT BACK IN THE EARLY SEVENTIES
DICKHEAD!

1. It's been established in the last 24 hours that typewriters of the
time could do what we've seen.
2. Isle of the Dead is a known newsgroup psychotic. Don't waste your
time.



It's only been established that some typewriters had the type-font.
What has not been established is if *any* typewriters of the time could
be used to reproduce what someone (according to NPR) has done:
- Type the content of the suspect document using MS Word.
- Print the MS-Word doc on a laser printer.
- Scan the MS-Word doc
- Scan a copy of the suspect document
- Superimpose the two over each other and marvel at how they line up.

Maybe it's not outside the realm of infinite possibilities that a
chiefly mechanical device in the early seventies has the same
typographical characteristics of a current software based
word-processing program to include type spacing, kerning,
justification, character registration, etc, etc, etc...

You have no clue how flexible Microsoft Word is, do you?
Bill Gates would HANG HIS HEAD IN SHAME and declare
a DAY OF ATONEMENT if you could not do that.

== The difference between information and understanding is thought. ==


But, I *do* know how flexible MS-Word is. The point you seem to miss is
that you can duplicate the (supposed) 30 year old typewriter produced
documents without "jonesing around" with *any* advanced features of MS-
Word; No MS-Word "wizardry" is required at all. If it were a spreadsheet
being compared to Excel, It would be as if all one would need to know how
to do is sum a column of numbers.

It doesn't work that way on my computer. There are differences in the
letter spacing. However, I agree the typefont is a close match.

== The difference between information and understanding is thought. ==

In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

..
.
In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:47:47p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:10:02p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 09:20:11p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 06:12:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"John" wrote in message
...
Isle Of The Dead wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake.


Dude, what part of "computer age"
do you NOT understand?



I USED TYPEWRITERS THAT COULD DO IT BACK IN THE EARLY
SEVENTIES DICKHEAD!

1. It's been established in the last 24 hours that
typewriters
of the time could do what we've seen.
2. Isle of the Dead is a known newsgroup psychotic.
Don't
waste your time.



It's only been established that some typewriters had the
type-font. What has not been established is if *any*
typewriters
of the time could be used to reproduce what someone
(according
to
NPR) has done: - Type the content of the suspect document
using
MS Word. - Print the MS-Word doc on a laser printer.
- Scan the MS-Word doc
- Scan a copy of the suspect document
- Superimpose the two over each other and marvel at how
they
line
up.

Maybe it's not outside the realm of infinite possibilities
that
a
chiefly mechanical device in the early seventies has the
same
typographical characteristics of a current software based
word-processing program to include type spacing, kerning,
justification, character registration, etc, etc, etc...

I wouldn't be so quick to declare it a definite or even
reasonable probability just yet...

Well, the raised "e" can only be accomplished in Word with
great
difficulty.

It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. NPR or
no
NPR.


Apparently the raised "e" can also be attributed to a defect
introduced by multiple-passes through a copier in an attempt
to
artificially "age" a document. If you've seen the pdf (I
downloaded
it from the Washington Post).

No. That wouldn't effect the "e"s alone.

Try again.


In the single position and no other "e" being affected, I would
think
it is an artifact from something other than the device that
originally
produced the document.

Now you're reaching.

No need to try again.

Wrong.


The new discoveries along with the Rovian character of the
first
criticism out make it clear that the docs are legitimate.


Opinions vary...

Rove doesn't. He's a sleazeball trickster and this is just his
style.



Besides that, the docs don't reveal anything that wasn't
already
known about Bush's desertion.



And there we have it. Who needs the docs, right? Enough said - I
think
I see where you're coming from.

Yeah. I'm coming from the truth. The existing documents without
Killian's documents already prove Bush wasn't where he was
supposed to
be. Then there are the missing documents and the picture put
together
by the AP. Bush was a technical deserter, Killian docs or no
Killian
docs. That was never really a question. The Killian docs are
interesting, but they don't change much of anything.




And Kerry received one or more of his decorations "technically". So
what?
Apparently, you come from "the truth" as only you can see it through
the
filter of your bias. Wherever Bush was, the ANG apparently did not
have
any problem with it, as can be determined by the honorable discharge
Bush
received. Or is that particular document "forged" and/or not up to
your
standards of truth?

I think it is a mistake to spend much time on Kerry's 4 months in
Vietnam since it's his word against others.

More like 3 plus years.

Excuse me, 4 months and 2 days.

Wrong.

Right. Check your facts. Buy a clue if you don't have one.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Wrong.

Right. Check your facts. Buy a clue if you don't have one.


Hanson, ahem, Gandalf, hasn't had a clue since
Clinton was elected.

If he hasn't bought a clue by now, he probably
doesn't have the spare cash to pay for one. :)

"Sir Cumference" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
And the person who sent photocopies
of military documents to the press is
not likely to come forward now to point
to the original documents.

Why not? Do you think they might be afraid
they would be made a fool of if the originals
were submitted to analysis? (snip)


Because the person very likely violated the law by releasing those
documents in the first place.

Stewart

"-=jd=-" wrote:

Neither of us are experts, (snip)


You're right. So I'll stick with my opinion and leave you to whatever
yours might be.

Stewart

= = = Sir Cumference wrote in message
= = = ...
Mark S. Holden wrote:
Frank Dresser wrote:

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

The Selectric Composer could do proportional font spacing, but it was a
high-quality, high-end, expensive unit used mostly by commercial
printing firms for producing camera ready type or firms needing
high-quality printing. And they were not easy to use or repair.



Even so, I'd think someone would have retyped the documents on such a
typewriter by now, just to prove that it they didn't have to have been
done
MS Word.

Frank Dresser



They have.

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html



And the author says, "Typing "IBM Selectric Composer" into that search
site took me to the aptly named ibmcomposer.org, which describes itself
as "the only site on the Internet completely dedicated to the IBM
'Selectric' Composer line of typesetting machines." The site, which is
run by Gerry Kaplan, includes information, scanned user manuals, and
photographs of the only working IBM Selectric Composer I've been able to
find."

Notice that last sentence, "only working IBM Selectric Composer I've
been able to find."
Being high-end, high-dollor, machines designed mostly for the commercial
printing industry, these units were not found in abudance, especially in
clerical offices for cranking out memos and general correspondance. I
spent 27 years with IBM and never saw one of these units while
Selectrics were everywhere. My wife was a secretary at IBM, and she
never saw a Composer unit.
So what are the chances of a small Texas ANG unit having a Composer
unit?... slim to none with the emphasis on none.

SC,

A "Lie" can be perpetrated when it is supported by a 'kernel-of-truth';
even though that 'kernel-of-truth' is unrelated to substance of the Lie.

ssi ~ RHF

..

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Just to widen the field a little, it seems
likely the IBM/Lotus word processor would also have whatever fonts the
selectric had.

Frank Dresser


You must be kidding, you can get just about any font for a word processor.


No, I'm not kidding.

I really think it seems likely that the IBM/Lotus word processors would have
the same fonts the selectric had. Why would you think I'm kidding? By the
way, I played with OS/2 for a while, and I'm almost certain it came with
it's own version of Times New Roman. I'm not sure if it's identical in
every detail to MS Times New Roman. I suppose I'm mildly curious, but I'm
not kidding. Well, I'm not particularly curious, either. I still have the
hard drive with OS/2 on it, and I'm not even going to bother digging it out.
I'm more lazy than curious on this one.

But I'm not kidding.

Frank Dresser

DS,

The QUESTION Still Remains . . .

"WHO" provided these 'manufactured' ?documents? for 60 Minutes.

60 Minutes needs to 'come clean' with the American People.

60 Minutes needs to Identify the "Source" of the Forged Documents.

60 Minutes is Stone Walling the Search for the Truth with a
so called 'investigation'. Some now call this "DOC-U-GATE".

Failing to do so simply means that 60 Minutes is part of this
Criminal Conspircy to present these Fake Documents as real.

WHAT - Did 60 Minutes Know ? {about the Forged Documents}

WHEN - Did Dan Rather Know It ? {about these Fake Documents}

HOW - Is 60 Minutes 'involvement' in/with these Forged Documents ?

WHY - Has 60 Minutes Not Acted to Tell the Truth ?
{about these Forged 'Fake' Documents}

So What's the Frequency {Now} Dan ?

Just the Facts in Search of the Truth ~ RHF
..
..
= = = "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
= = = k.net...
"Sir Cumference" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
And the person who sent photocopies
of military documents to the press is
not likely to come forward now to point
to the original documents.

Why not? Do you think they might be afraid
they would be made a fool of if the originals
were submitted to analysis? (snip)


Because the person very likely violated the law by releasing those
documents in the first place.

Stewart
..

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

..
.
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message


..
.
In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:47:47p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:10:02p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 09:20:11p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 06:12:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"John" wrote in message
...
Isle Of The Dead wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are
fake.


Dude, what part of "computer age"
do you NOT understand?



I USED TYPEWRITERS THAT COULD DO IT BACK IN THE
EARLY
SEVENTIES DICKHEAD!

1. It's been established in the last 24 hours that
typewriters
of the time could do what we've seen.
2. Isle of the Dead is a known newsgroup psychotic.
Don't
waste your time.



It's only been established that some typewriters had
the
type-font. What has not been established is if *any*
typewriters
of the time could be used to reproduce what someone
(according
to
NPR) has done: - Type the content of the suspect
document
using
MS Word. - Print the MS-Word doc on a laser printer.
- Scan the MS-Word doc
- Scan a copy of the suspect document
- Superimpose the two over each other and marvel at how
they
line
up.

Maybe it's not outside the realm of infinite
possibilities
that
a
chiefly mechanical device in the early seventies has
the
same
typographical characteristics of a current software
based
word-processing program to include type spacing,
kerning,
justification, character registration, etc, etc, etc...

I wouldn't be so quick to declare it a definite or even
reasonable probability just yet...

Well, the raised "e" can only be accomplished in Word
with
great
difficulty.

It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate.
NPR or
no
NPR.


Apparently the raised "e" can also be attributed to a
defect
introduced by multiple-passes through a copier in an
attempt
to
artificially "age" a document. If you've seen the pdf (I
downloaded
it from the Washington Post).

No. That wouldn't effect the "e"s alone.

Try again.


In the single position and no other "e" being affected, I
would
think
it is an artifact from something other than the device that
originally
produced the document.

Now you're reaching.

No need to try again.

Wrong.


The new discoveries along with the Rovian character of the
first
criticism out make it clear that the docs are legitimate.


Opinions vary...

Rove doesn't. He's a sleazeball trickster and this is just
his
style.



Besides that, the docs don't reveal anything that wasn't
already
known about Bush's desertion.



And there we have it. Who needs the docs, right? Enough
said - I
think
I see where you're coming from.

Yeah. I'm coming from the truth. The existing documents
without
Killian's documents already prove Bush wasn't where he was
supposed to
be. Then there are the missing documents and the picture put
together
by the AP. Bush was a technical deserter, Killian docs or no
Killian
docs. That was never really a question. The Killian docs are
interesting, but they don't change much of anything.




And Kerry received one or more of his decorations "technically".
So
what?
Apparently, you come from "the truth" as only you can see it
through
the
filter of your bias. Wherever Bush was, the ANG apparently did
not
have
any problem with it, as can be determined by the honorable
discharge
Bush
received. Or is that particular document "forged" and/or not up
to
your
standards of truth?

I think it is a mistake to spend much time on Kerry's 4 months in
Vietnam since it's his word against others.

More like 3 plus years.

Excuse me, 4 months and 2 days.

Wrong.

I can understand your problem. Your boy, Bush deserted during his service
in the guard, so you've got to find a way to attack the actual service of
Kerry, who did two tours in Vietnam.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


{snippage}

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a nick on
his shin along with a purple heart.



I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on one
side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear anyone
who has ever served honorably.

Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay!

Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing
hypocrite.



Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that someone
getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"?

Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's "Technical"
P.H.

That you somehow think Kerry's
"bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather
compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine!

To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled. Tough
****!

After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's
technique against Max Cleland.

I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry look like
Clinton in comparison.

You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat. Just so
you'll know.


You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the concept
of "Hero"

So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks "heroism" is
dressing up in a flight suit.

Gandalf Grey wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


{snippage}

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a nick on
his shin along with a purple heart.



I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on one
side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear anyone
who has ever served honorably.

Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay!

Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing
hypocrite.



Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that someone
getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"?

Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's "Technical"
P.H.

That you somehow think Kerry's
"bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather
compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine!

To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled. Tough
****!

After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's
technique against Max Cleland.

I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry look like
Clinton in comparison.

You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat. Just so
you'll know.


You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the concept
of "Hero"

So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks "heroism" is
dressing up in a flight suit.

And please explain how one dodges the draft by serving in the Texas Air National
Guard? If that's the case, then I'm relatively certain that there are thousands
of folks out there that would like to kick your sniveling liberal ass. Not that
there aren't already.

Do you have any evidence that would show that the president is a coke addict?

If you're going to use possibility that he used coke in the past, then you'd
better get on the case of Barak Obama, who is running for the Senate from
Illinois. Now there is an admitted coke-head. Oh yeah, wasn't he a featured
speaker at the Democratic Convention?

Damn... a coke-head at the convention...

dxAce

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Gandalf Grey wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


{snippage}

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a
nick on
his shin along with a purple heart.



I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on
one
side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear
anyone
who has ever served honorably.

Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay!

Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing
hypocrite.



Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that
someone
getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"?

Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's
"Technical"
P.H.

That you somehow think Kerry's
"bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather
compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine!

To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled.
Tough
****!

After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's
technique against Max Cleland.

I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry look
like
Clinton in comparison.

You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat. Just
so
you'll know.


You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the
concept
of "Hero"

So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks "heroism"
is
dressing up in a flight suit.

And please explain how one dodges the draft by serving in the Texas Air
National
Guard?

By refusing direct orders and deserting your post.


Do you have any evidence that would show that the president is a coke
addict?

There's quite a bit of it out there, including his own unwillingness to even
answer the question.

Pull your head out, rightie.

Gandalf Grey wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Gandalf Grey wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


{snippage}

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a
nick on
his shin along with a purple heart.



I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on
one
side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear
anyone
who has ever served honorably.

Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay!

Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing
hypocrite.



Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that
someone
getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"?

Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's
"Technical"
P.H.

That you somehow think Kerry's
"bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather
compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine!

To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled.
Tough
****!

After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's
technique against Max Cleland.

I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry look
like
Clinton in comparison.

You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat. Just
so
you'll know.


You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the
concept
of "Hero"

So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks "heroism"
is
dressing up in a flight suit.

And please explain how one dodges the draft by serving in the Texas Air
National
Guard?

By refusing direct orders and deserting your post.

WRONG. That's not dodging the draft.

When did he desert? Where were the direct orders? In some fake documents?

He put in his time, and he was honourably discharged. What don't you understand
about that?

You just haven't a clue as to how the National Guard operated, none, zero.

You lose.

dxAce

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Gandalf Grey wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Gandalf Grey wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


{snippage}

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a
nick on
his shin along with a purple heart.



I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled
on
one
side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear
anyone
who has ever served honorably.

Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay!

Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing
hypocrite.



Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that
someone
getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"?

Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's
"Technical"
P.H.

That you somehow think Kerry's
"bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a
rather
compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine!

To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled.
Tough
****!

After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's
technique against Max Cleland.

I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry
look
like
Clinton in comparison.

You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat.
Just
so
you'll know.


You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the
concept
of "Hero"

So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks
"heroism"
is
dressing up in a flight suit.

And please explain how one dodges the draft by serving in the Texas
Air
National
Guard?

By refusing direct orders and deserting your post.

WRONG. That's not dodging the draft.

When did he desert?

Somewhere where they weren't giving flight physicals.

Give us a break, rightie. The facts are out there. Bush was REQUIRED to
take a physical and he didn't report.


He put in his time

Apparently not. We're still waiting for some documentation that he actually
did put in his time.

Still waiting.

"Crickets.wav"

You lose, rightie.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Tue 14 Sep 2004 07:06:09p, "Gandalf Grey"

wrote in message m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


{snippage}

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a nick
on
his shin along with a purple heart.



I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on
one
side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear
anyone
who has ever served honorably.

Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay!

Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing
hypocrite.



Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that someone
getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"?

Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's
"Technical"
P.H.

That you somehow think Kerry's
"bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather
compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine!

To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled.
Tough
****!

After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's
technique against Max Cleland.


Where did I say that getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay", eh chuckles?

So you're on record that Dole didn't deserve his purple heart?


Again, you exaggerate and re-word my post into something it is not.

So far, your "post" isn't anything except a collection of weasel words.

That you
can't defend your own assertion without doing so is now a matter of
record.

My assertion is that Kerry deserved his purple heart as much as Dole
deserved his.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...


Bush's National Guard years
Before you fall for Dems' spin, here are the facts

More Questions than facts.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...ws/20guard.htm

The service question
A review of President Bush's Guard years raises issues about the time he
served
By Kit R. Roane

Last February, White House spokesman Scott McClellan held aloft sections of
President Bush's military record, declaring to the waiting press that the
files "clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National
Guard." Case closed, he said.

But last week the controversy reared up once again, as several news outlets,
including U.S. News, disclosed new information casting doubt on White House
claims.

A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the
Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less
stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty.
Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was
required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal
year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of
that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only
12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service
should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date
in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force
obligation standard.

Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he
attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated
sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method,
which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows
that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed
to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50
points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.

The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his
obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a
time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made
up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the
administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last
week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."

Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable
discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the
Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had
not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."

Bush signed his commitment to the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968,
shortly after becoming eligible for the draft. In his "statement of
understanding," he acknowledged that "satisfactory participation" included
attending "48 scheduled inactive-duty training periods" each year. He also
acknowledged that he could be ordered to active duty if he failed to meet
these requirements.

Slump. Bush's records show that he did his duty for much of the first four
years of his commitment. But as the Vietnam War wound down, his performance
slumped, and his attendance at required drills fell off markedly. He did no
drills for one five-month period in 1972. He also missed his flight
physical. By May 2, 1973, his superiors said they could not evaluate his
performance because he "has not been observed."

Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a retired Air Force colonel who originally certified
the White House position that Bush had completed his military obligation,
stood by his analysis. After a reporter cited pertinent Air Force
regulations from the period, he complained that if the entire unit were
judged by such standards, "90 percent of the people in the Guard would not
have made satisfactory participation."

Some other experts disagree. "There is no 'sometimes we have compliance and
sometimes we don't,' " says Scott Silliman, a retired Air Force colonel and
Duke University law professor. "That is a nonsensical statement and an
insult to the Guard to suggest it."

The regulations must be followed, adds James Currie, a retired colonel and
author of an official history of the Army Reserve. "Clearly, if you were the
average poor boy who got drafted and sent into the active force," he says,
"they weren't going to let you out before you had completed your
obligation."


--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we."
--George Bush. Aug. 5th., 2004

"Because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about
expressing our power and influence."
---George Bush, 3/4/01