"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ...
Dwight Stewart wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote:

Convincing anyone is none of my concern,
but I do reserve the right to wonder aloud
how a reasonable and prudent person
would ignore the mounting list of indicators
pointing to obvious forgeries. (snip)

Then I trust you won't mind if I reserve the right to wonder aloud why you
are so determined to establish, and publically declare, these documents to
be forgeries.


Possibly because they are fake?

Would you like voters to rely on forged documents when deciding who to vote for?

I think the fact someone apparently faked them is more significant than what they say.

The allegations about GWB are old - people have had close to 4 years to evaluate how he performs as President. You may or may not like what he's done, but it has more to do with how he will perform if he is re elected than what he may or may not have
done over 30 years ago.


What's new about these memos is that state that Bush's superior
officers were aware that Bush was performing unsatisfactorily, that
they were being pressured to let Bush slide through and that they were
expected to falsify Bush's records.

Those who worked with the memos' author, Killian, are saying that
while the memos may not be authentic, what they say is accurate.
Killian's secretary is saying that she did type memos for Killian that
said the same things that these memos are saying. Killian's immediate
superior officer has said that Killian expressed the same thoughts to
him that are in the memos.

I think that's the story. Why were they being pressured? Who was
pressuring them? We know from the memos that Lt. Colonel Staudt was
pressuring them. Was anybody pressuring Staudt? What do we know,
what isn't disputed, of Bush's stint in the TANG?

Staudt, as Bush's unit commander in 1968 staged a special ceremony for
the press so he could have his picture taken administering the oath
(after the official oath had been given by a Guard captain earlier.)
Staudt was excited about his VIP recruit, this direct appointment,
because at his staged ceremony, Bush's father, the congressman, was
standing prominently in the background.

The 147th, Col. Staudt's Texas unit, was infamous as a way out of
Vietnam combat for the politically well connected and celebrity draft
avoiders: Both of Sid Adger's sons, Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen's
son, Republican Senator John Tower's son, and at least seven players
for the Dallas Cowboys had been signed into the unit.

What made Bush's unfair, favored Guard appointment doubly
reprehensible was his total lack of qualifications. Rapid selection
into the Guard was reserved for applicants with exceptional experience
or skills such as prior Air Force ROTC training, or special
engineering, medical, or aviation skills.

Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, had reviewed
the Guard's records on Bush for a special exhibit on his service after
Bush became governor. Asked about Bush's direct appointment without
special skills, Hail said, "I've never heard of that. Generally they
did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight
surgeons."

Charles Shoemaker, an Air Force veteran who later joined the Texas Air
National Guard and retired as a full colonel, said that direct
appointments were rare and hard to get, and required extensive
credentials. Asked about Bush, he said, "His name didn't hurt,
obviously. But it was a commander's decision in those days."

When Bush completed basic training, his commander approved him for a
"direct appointment." That made him a 2nd Lieutenant without having to
go through the usual (very difficult) Officer Candidate School. This
special procedure also got Bush into flight school, despite his very
low scores on aptitude tests: 25% on a pilot aptitude test (the
absolute lowest acceptable grade) and 50% for navigator aptitude. Bush
did score 95% on the easier and subjectively graded officer quality
test, but the class average is generally 88%.

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/m...icle&sid= 861

In 1968, Bush's father was a newly minted Congressman with a highly
coveted seat on the House Ways & Means Committee. Very unusual for
such an inexperienced congressman to get on that committee. Very
powerful.

Just as a reference point, at the time of those memos (1973), Bush had
left Congress and was named by Nixon to the Chairmanship of the RNC.
This was during the trial for the Watergate plumbers – Deep Throat had
just told Woodward that "lives were in danger."

Staudt retired around 1972 with the rank of Brigadier General. That's
a hefty promotion (2 grades) in such a short time. It's not unheard
of, but it is unusual. It's more likely to happen during wartime, on
the battlefield. Google Staudt - what he was doing right after he
left the Guard raises an eyebrow:

"NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Walter B. Staudt is Executive Director of the Neighborhood Development
Program, which is In the process of completing a huge drainage project
for the western part of Beeville during the latter part of May this
year (1973). Forty-two city blocks of property are being drained with
storm sewers during heavy rains under this project, and the streets
will be paved after the sewer pipes have been laid.

The NDP also has started building and repairing houses in a plan to
eliminate shacks from the area. One new residence has been completed
and six others have been started at the time of this writing.

This is a Federal Agency, and the total expenditure on the drainage,
paving, and housing program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973,
is $1.250,000."

This, and a whole lot more. Read all about it at:

http://www.beeville.net/TheHistorica.../Chapter16.htm

Immediately after leaving the National Guard, Buck Staudt was running
a company that was receiving federal funds to develop an oil and gas
town in Texas.

Was Bucky Staudt laying a retirement nest egg by saving politicians'
sons from having to go to Viet Nam, letting them hide out in his
"Champagne Unit," in exchange for federal funding contracts?

Why else would he be so excited to have Congressman Bush's son in his
unit? This wasn't a rock star. Did he stage redundant swearing in
ceremonies for all of his VIPs' sons? Staudt didn't take in these
VIPs sons, save their asses from having to go to Viet Nam, for
nothing. There's more to this story.

"Isle Of The Dead" wrote:

(snip) seeing as you're all of twenty or twenty-
five years old and know everything.... but
Kerry discredited *himself* by committing
treason (snip)


Well, clearly unlike you, I'm at least old enough to know the legal
definition of the word "treason." Mere words, in a country with a right to
free speech, is never treason. Perhaps you would like to change that, but
that is the law at the moment.

Stewart

"Dan" wrote:

The difference is, Bush is not running
around saying that he is a war hero.


And exactly where did Kerry himself say he is a war hero? I watched the
DNC, just as I watched the RNC, and I don't remember Kerry ever saying the
words "war hero." Of course, perhaps that's just your impression of the show
during the DNC, just as it is my impression of Bush landing on an aircraft
carrier last year with a number of cameras available to film the event for
the evening television news (and his constant efforts to be seen with
military personnel behind him wherever he speaks).


Also, Bush is not running on his Vietnam
record. It was Kerry who tried to make
his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his
campaign, (snip)


Kerry offered his service as a feature of the DNC. However, I don't see
that, his Vietnam service, anywhere on his web site or elsewhere as the
centerpiece of his campaign.


because his Senate record is so bad over
the last 20 years. (snip)


So you don't agree with his Senate record either. Certainly no real
surprise there.

Stewart

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


Well, clearly unlike you, I'm at least old enough to know the legal
definition of the word "treason." Mere words, in a country with a right to
free speech, is never treason. Perhaps you would like to change that, but
that is the law at the moment.


Perhaps you'd like to acknowledge that Kerry met with
Vietnamese officials in the Paris peace negotiations.

Oh, yeah, right, you're old enough to know the words,
but not the facts. :)

"Isle Of The Dead" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
Well, clearly unlike you, I'm at least old
enough to know the legal definition of the
word "treason." Mere words, in a country
with a right to free speech, is never treason.
Perhaps you would like to change that, but
that is the law at the moment.


Perhaps you'd like to acknowledge that Kerry
met with Vietnamese officials in the Paris peace
negotiations. (snip)


Okay. While on a trip to Paris, Kerry briefly met with some of the
participants of the peace talks at a meeting which included members of the
delegations from both North and South Vietnam. Now that I've acknowleged it,
perhaps you can explain how that constitutes treason. At the very most,
meetings like this might be twisted to fit a violation of U.S. Code 18 U.S.C
953 (correspondence with foreign governments), but the FBI, which maintained
surveillance on Kerry at the time (along with so many other Americans),
obviously found no foundation for such charges.

Stewart

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:59:07 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:


"Mark S. Holden" wrote:

The allegations about GWB are old -
people (snip)


I doubt we would even be talking about Bush's military service today if
there had not been almost fanatical attempts to discredit Kerry's
military
service prior to that. But, once those attempts were made to discredit
Kerry's service, there were obviously going to be attempts to look more
closely at Bush's military service during that same time period. And I
think
even you would agree that Bush's military service was rather lackluster.

The difference is, Bush is not running around saying that he is a war
hero. Real war heros are known by everyone - you don't have to run
around claiming to be a "war hero".

But Bush DID lie in his "autobiography" about the facts concerning his guard
service and DID lie when he said he was in the "Air Force." And Bush also
made his service relevant when he called on the Smearboat vets to go after
Kerry.


Kerry is going down, and he's taking Dan Blather with him.

Kerry's going to be elected president and I don't really care what happens
to Dan Rather, although I'm fairly certain that when the dust clears we'll
find Karl Rove's fingerprints all over the documents.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:17:14 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:

Kerry's going to be elected president and I don't really care what
happens
to Dan Rather, although I'm fairly certain that when the dust clears
we'll
find Karl Rove's fingerprints all over the documents.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Saved for November 3rd. Will come back to eat your crow?

Noted. And learn to form complete sentences, tard.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:18:37 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:

Saved for November 3rd. Will come back to eat your crow?

Noted. And learn to form complete sentences, tard.

Ah, attacking the messenger.

The messenger needs to learn how to form a complete message.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:26:00 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:


"Dan" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:18:37 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:

Saved for November 3rd. Will come back to eat your crow?

Noted. And learn to form complete sentences, tard.

Ah, attacking the messenger.

The messenger needs to learn how to form a complete message.

They are complete sentences, even if the second is missing a "you".
At least as complete as "Noted".

"Will come back to eat your crow?" is NOT a grammatically correct sentence,
tard.

Man, that homeschooling you righties subject yourselves to is pathetic.

On 17 Sep 2004 18:38:47 -0500, Dan wrote:

Ah, attacking the messenger. The sure sign that you've lost the
battle.

It's OK - I understand.

Dan


You just described your buddy dxAce. Watch out!

On 17 Sep 2004 23:06:58 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


1. Bush more than likely benefitted from preferential treatment in the ANG 30
years ago.


Wow JD - really going out on a limb there. You're so brave.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:01:46 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:

They are complete sentences, even if the second is missing a "you".
At least as complete as "Noted".

"Will come back to eat your crow?" is NOT a grammatically correct
sentence,
tard.

Jesus man, learn to read. I know I left a "you" out.

Wow! A big discovery on your part.

"-=jd=-" wrote:

(snip) I just have to wonder why
you work so hard at ignoring the
obvious? (snip)


I've already stated, several times, my reasons for doubting the claims
that the documents are fake. So, since we're just walking over ground we've
already covered, I'll let those earlier statements stand without additional
repetition.

Stewart

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?

But if they were going to go through all that trouble of raising the
"e," why screw up other points in the document (superior "st" or "nd")
which people lept on to claim it was a Word document to begin with? It
would take a lot less effort to tell the computer not to make those
combinations superior than it would to make every "e" raised up just
the right way.

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

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

"Telamon" wrote in message

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

"-=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.

Try again yourself. The "a" letters in several words were affected the
same way.

That still wouldn't be explained by multiple passes.

Try again.


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

You believe what you want. They match up all to well.

No, as a matter of fact they don't.

If you go to other sites in the links you can see what the best of
the IBM typewriter of the time can do reproducing the memo's and
you can see for yourself that they match up far worse than the
suspect documents and their computer generated brethren with the
character misalignments I expected to find.

Not to mention that nobody in their right mind would go through the
gymnastics need to create the superscript of just a few characters
in the document. The "th" would have been just regular typed
letters.

You obviously never used a Selectric II.

No but others have. Follow the links it's obvious that a Selectric II
could not create those documents.

It's already been established that IBMf and OTHER typewriters had both
superscript and proportional spacing.

Try again.



If you were writing a math paper where the superscript was part of
a formula you might but not in a memo such as this.

That's absurd. You're reaching.

Your the one reaching.

Actually, I'm not. Since there are now printed document experts who are
saying that it's quite possible for the docs to have been turned out on
typewriters of the period, the burden of proof now falls on the doubters.
Plus, since superscript on even so cheesy an IBM model as the Selectric II
was no more than a flipped lever away, and since even when I was learning
how to type [1964] that lever flipping was taught to be almost instinctual,
you ARE in fact reaching.

No you are reaching. I did not say it's not possible just unlikely.

But isn't it far more unlikely that someone would go to the time and
effort to match pre computer typewriter fonts, but miss superscript
charcters?




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

These "docs" do portray Bush in a more negative light.

Not really. We already know everything in the docs that's of any
material value. We knew he got in via Barnes. We knew he got jumped
ahead of his capabilities. We knew he wasn't where he was supposed
to be. We knew he failed to show for the physical, etc., etc.

I don't care if they are real but I do care if they are fake
because then someone is trying to smear the President.

If.


It's pretty clear that they are forgeries.

No it's not.

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.

The opinion of the experts are not in yet.

You are no expert either.

Since we will have to wait I'll believe my eye's over your bias any day.

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 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.

Barnes' daughter is a once removed source. That's what he was trying to say.



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?

Ya right!


"llortamai" wrote in message
...
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...