2004-09-09 02:48:10 PM KazamaSmokers

The military has a habit of blacking out personal information, addresses, locations, all sorts of stuff.

In any event, why would a CBS producer censor the document, if he managed to get his hands on an uncensored military document?

If the White House wanted him too, they'd do it themselves.

autopen or stamp on a personal memo? I mean.

2004-09-09 02:55:16 PM kethares


gophergas,

The real Killian signature is on Bush's discharge and the ????? is the signature on the CBS memo.

KazamaSmokers,
Why would a Lt Col use an autopen on a personal memo?
======================
Hmmm.. yeah, good point.

2004-09-09 02:56:18 PM m00
2004-09-09 02:48:10 PM KazamaSmokers
In any event, why would a CBS producer censor the document, if he managed to get his hands on an uncensored military document?
=========================
because someone else lives there now.

Farker_Taint, you're welcome.

I agree totally with your observations. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican.

I think the Democrats have a lot to answer for, mainly for not standing up to Bush. I will be voting for Kerry however because I despise many of the things Bush has done. I don't think highly of either party, I just think the Democrats will be less destructive in the long run.

2004-09-09 02:58:40 PM KazamaSmokers

Don't you think he'd do a good job? I mean, it's not like censoring is a new technology. I can't see a producer saying "Here let me sharpie this document before it airs."

They'd blur it out, or use a standard black box. They wouldn't just get some magic marker and run it over sensitive data. At least I hope not.

While I agree that nobody needs more reasons to dump Bush, I do find it amusing how far the right will go to back a loser. Hopefully all their suicidal Bush-backing will ease their fall as well.

Oh yeah and all the "God told me" stuff freaks me out. People who think God tells them to do stuff never examine either complexity or their own motives. That is NOT a good trait in a politician.

2004-09-09 03:01:19 PM m00


2004-09-09 02:58:40 PM KazamaSmokers

Don't you think he'd do a good job? I mean, it's not like censoring is a new technology. I can't see a producer saying "Here let me sharpie this document before it airs."

They'd blur it out, or use a standard black box. They wouldn't just get some magic marker and run it over sensitive data. At least I hope not.
========================
No. They'd just grab a sharpie and scribble across it. I speak from 20 years of network newsroom experience.

KarmicHoax
My point is not that the Iraqi army should have been retained intact, just that releasing half a million men from their jobs and then causing through your policies large layoffs in other sectors of the economy is just asking for a revolt.
I do not believe that an army as demoralized as Saddam's could have possibly been 100% filled with Baathist loyalists. Many were in the army simply to feed their families.
There were two schools of thought in Iraq. One, the Year Zero approach that you espouse (wipe everything clean and start over) and, two, the realist approach (work with exisitng institutions as much as possible to keep continuity and try to reform). The Year Zero approach was what won out --and we can see the result.
I would contend that the Year Zero approach won out because of the idealistic nature of this administration--in spite of the on-ground realities of post-war Iraq. Bremer and the occupational authority turned a blind eye to the risks of what they were doing and plowed ahead anyway--thus alienating the people we were supposed to be 'liberating'.
Add to this home-grown resentment of our occupation* the influence of terrorist groups who are now much more free to act in the chaos of Iraq and you have one HUGE political and strategic blunder.

* Sorry, Zell Miller

why are we so busy giving a crap about a war that happened 30 years ago when 20 miles from where I live 3000 Americans were incinerated for the simple act of going to work?

here's me giving two shiats about either Kerry or Bush's service. at that rate, Audy Murphy should have been president at some point.

Lets get to the real fight over what these dick-cheese MFer's are going to do to make sure that this crap doesn't happen again, no what they did or didn't do in another era.

...what happened to typewriters having that typewriter font? I like that font. I guess all the font makers made up that typewriter font.

I believe it is all a conspiracy masterminded by Big Blue and IBM to restore interest in their typewriters.

Okay... so in order to put this to rest, we're looking for

A) An independently authenticated TexANG memo from 1972 or 1973 that uses the exact same fonts and spacing as the ones in question.

B) A reasonable explanation as to why Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian's signature varies so wildly between these documents and the ones that were provided as evidence several years ago.

That about sum it up?

Wait. Which records are false, according to this blogger? It doesn't matter, Bush is still pretty farked.

2004-09-09 03:08:47 PM gophergas


Okay... so in order to put this to rest, we're looking for

B) A reasonable explanation as to why Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian's signature varies so wildly between these documents and the ones that were provided as evidence several years ago.

===================
Eh. Does it vary THAT wildly?

KazaaSmokers

Silence is golden...you choose to quibble about type font and signatures.

Why can't all of Kerry's records be released?

tforchsa

Heres to hoping...but the key to your post is "suicidal". Bush and most of the extreme right-wing conservatives would rather go to the grave than see moderate thinking or cooler heads prevail.

I_is_Here

I agree wholeheartedly with you. The Democratic Party has its faults and John Kerry as well, but at the very least there is still room for diverse opinions within the party. A lot of the flak that Kerry is taking right now is wrong and dirty, but some of it he set himself up for. Kerry is handling it, not forcefully enough, but he is responding. Contrast that to Bush where you will get a bunch of "Ummm's" and deer in the headlight looks until you end up with a non-answer, at which point you will undoubtebly be labelled as a "liberal" and "hating America".

I think we should have saw this coming when John Edwards was announced as Kerry's running mate. Karl Rove and the NeoCon spin machine said that he was not expierenced enough to be VP despite having served a full term as a Senator and served on several committees. 4 years earlier, Rove & Co. said it was wrong to question whether Bush was expierenced because he had been Governor of Texas.

Yes America, you can say that you support your troops and disagree with the war and the reasons they were sent. Dont let anyone tell you otherwise!

m00
You were in the military, you tell me: do military censors on base use any old random ink, or special government ink that holds when archived, when stuff gets blacked out?

That's something I have no personal knowledge of.

We never released anything classified. Superseded stuff was put into a special lockable bag, and destroyed by incineration, I think. That activity was compartmentalized and performed by people who had no idea about exactly what they were destroying, and the powers that be didn't look kindly on someone who worked with the stuff getting too curious about how it was destroyed.

Although I handled classified stuff, I never had to prepare anything for declassification.

Your point on ink for censoring being archival certainly seems to be valid, but then again, the old method for censoring involved the mechanical removal of the information by actually cutting it out of the page, so I'm not sure they would have given consideration to the archival quality of ink at that time, but again, I just don't know.

There is the point of classification. There would have been stamps on the documents (Confidential, if nothing else) had that been required. The lack of such stamps would suggest to me that no requirement for formal classification existed, and that any procedures for blacking out information were local ones for that squadron or wing.

Skleenar Okay, but I have to take exception to something else then. And this isn't just you, I've seen it many, many times.

Saying we see what the "result" is. That's a rather final statement. The Iraq situation is far from over. The "result" won't be seen for years, perhaps decades.

It took about 10 years and 50 billion dollars to rebuild Europe after WWII. And that is a crapload of money in the late 40's/early 50's.

Point being that Iraq will not be built in a day. It's not over, nowhere near finished, and now is not the time to give up. (Not that you're saying give up.)

Also, that "occupier" vs. "liberator" thing is just semantics to me. Just out of curiosity, do people call us "occupiers" for having a base in Germany and never leaving? Though I do think that someday we will leave Iraq, and I wonder if then people stuck on the "occupier" thing will say, "oops! my bad!"

2004-09-09 03:13:05 PM Thor's Hammer


KazaaSmokers

Silence is golden...you choose to quibble about type font and signatures.

Why can't all of Kerry's records be released?
=========================
Good question. Why can't all of Bush's?

Farker_Taint You do a disservice, implying that the Republican party doesn't have diverse opinions and that only the Democrats do. John McCain is far different than say, Jesse Helms...

Mission Accomplished!

Now watch this drive!

Karmic - you know as well as I do that any Republican with a stance that differs from the Bush wing has been exiled to political Siberia. The GOP has two women senators from Maine who they should be showcasing at every opportunity to demonstrate their inclusiveness, but they have effectively buried them because they come from the old Rockefeller wing of the party.

2004-09-09 03:04:05 PM KazamaSmokers

That's really terrible -- some guy living at 5000 longmont is going to get harrassed, if true.

I still don't buy it though, because all other military documents I've seen blacked out addresses.

If this were a forgery, it may or may not be blacked out at the source, because the creators obviously aren't that bright. Or maybe they are intentionally stupid because they want it to look like a forgery. In any event, it's still a forgery, even if I'm wrong on the blackout because it was the addition of a CBS producer and not part of the original (as I assumed).

Although it's sort of underhanded: Kazama, in your newsroom experience when a producer censors something that's an official government document, do they say who censored it? The problem is government documents are always being blacked out. One of the important facts is who blacked what out, because that can be very telling. Is it the policy of newsrooms to state when THEY blacked something out, as opposed to receiving the document in that condition?

In any event, if it wasn't a forgery I'd presume Bush's address most certainly would have been blacked out, in which case the blackout wasn't added by a producer, in which case it was a forgery.

Although, that works on the assumption that Bush's address was blacked out. I think this is reasonable because other military documents do it.


However, I still would like to have that fact --

Any way I can determine whether the document came to CBS with that blackout, or did the producers add it?

Also, did CBS receive the documents electronically or did they get paper copies?

/wishes newsrooms would give the important details that allowed reads to decide for themselves.

What additional records can he provide?

Again, has Kerry provided all of his military records with respect to his service?

The answer is no.

And with respect to your comment about political siberia the same thing is happening on the left. Where was Joe Biden at the convention? Instead they provide the country with the paranoid ramblings of Michael Moore and Al Gore

2004-09-09 03:12:47 PM KazamaSmokers

Eh. Does it vary THAT wildly?
===============
Ummm... yeah, it does. There's going to be some variance between any two signatures from the same person. However, the general style is going to remain consistent. For example, I can look at things I signed 25 years ago, and the style is pretty much identical to what it is today. The two Killian signatures are completely different in everything but the spelling.

If this is a fake (and it looks like it to me), it was so poorly executed that one wonders whether it was intended to be exposed as such.

2004-09-09 03:14:26 PM Vet_Curm

Well, one would think internal memos-to-file would be classified. I'm basing this on contract work I've done for the government, where EVERYTHING was classified. I mean, the minesweeper habits (or whatever) of the directors where classified.

Any insight on this?

LOL!

It's on Drudge now.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

2004-09-09 03:23:51 PM m00
2004-09-09 03:04:05 PM KazamaSmokers

That's really terrible -- some guy living at 5000 longmont is going to get harrassed, if true.
=========================================
You know what? Most people in newsrooms are underpaid and overworked and they do things maily to stop nutcases from calling them on the phone.

KarmicHoax

You make some very good points, most of which I personally believe myself.

I agree with you that we will leave Iraq someday, but not under the current strategy that the Bush administration is taking. How can Bush tell us that things are going so well in Iraq, yet we are actually LOSING areas of the country to insurgents, are troops are stretched thin, we have no clear exit strategy and further, I would submit that we have no clear plan on what we are doing right now regardless of the talk of "freedom".

I know several soldier who have been to Iraq and back, we have 6 in our company that have been called up and sent. They have all said they support their mission, which is commendable, but they also say that most of their guys feel like they are not making any progress and feel at a loss to explain their overall mission aside from individual assignments (patrol, protect, etc).Thats pretty damning in my opinion. We have to face the facts that there is no strategy to making the Iraq situation into something that can be handled, whether that be of our own fault or that of the Iraqis/Insurgents. There is no clear direction we are heading and the only answers we get out of our government is backtracking and excuses. Bush cant tell us what our strategy is aside from fear tactics and proclaiming "we will win in Iraq". Thats great and all but tell me, how are you going to do that?

2004-09-09 03:26:03 PM Thor's Hammer
What additional records can he provide?
====================
I think this thread answers that.
How about his arrest records? You're saying you're curious about Kerrys military service, but have no desire to learn why Bush was compelled to perform community service at that same point in time?

So some think that Kerry was only grazed, huh?

He still has shrapnel in his body, that is not a graze.

Vote for Bush, morons. cause he has done such GREAT things... like...uh... well... im sure there is something. maybe...

KazamaSmokers You're kidding, yes? Did you miss who the speakers were at the convention? Arnold? Rudy Giuliani? Hardly right-wing Bushies & hardly exiled. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

KarmicHoax
I do not think that it is misleading to refer to the current situation in Iraq as the 'result' of our policies there. I did not say that this is the 'final result' and I do expect that the situation will change.
However, honestly, which way do you personally think things are going? Especially compared to the reconstructions of Europe and Japan--Neither of which experienced armed insurrections of anything near the scale in Iraq.
Doesn't the fact that the appointed government of Iraq has to conduct business behind blast walls say anything about how things are going there? (Blast walls which are reportedly imported at 10 times the cost they could be obtained locally...)

2004-09-09 03:37:14 PM KarmicHoax

KazamaSmokers You're kidding, yes? Did you miss who the speakers were at the convention? Arnold? Rudy Giuliani? Hardly right-wing Bushies & hardly exiled. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
==================================
You'll notice they have nothing to do with the day-to-day machinations of the GOP. They were window-dressing. Put out there to convince people the party is not as extreme as it really is.

KarmicHoax

I was typing my last letter when you posted the comment about John McCain.

I do no disservice to the GOP that the GOP hasnt done to itself. McCain knows all too well what the Bush-wing of the Republican party has done to moderates. They bashed him at every opportunity, called his "sanity" into question and difused his Vietnam service as no big deal. The GOP disowned him (Remember Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity railing against McCain from 1999 until 2003?) now they are parading him around like an icon. Its so fake, I dont see how he stands for it.

Its simple, if you dont tow the party line they hate you and label you a "closet lib", but they are more than happy to pat your back and give you exposure when its helps them get moderate votes that they have no intention of supporting afterwards.

And regarding Bush's service... oh, and why won't farkface release ALL of his service documents by signing a form 180 (like the President HAS done?)

http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx


Bushs National Guard years
Before you fall for Dems spin, here are the facts

What do you really know about George W. Bushs time in the Air National Guard?
That he didnt show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

News coverage of the presidents years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

That brings the story to May 1972 the time that has been the focus of so many news reports when Bush deserted (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went AWOL (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that werent unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots, Campenni says. The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In 72 or 73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

A 1970 evaluation said Bush clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot and was a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.

A 1971 evaluation called Bush an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot who continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further. And a 1972 evaluation called Bush an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.

Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bushs service in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerrys record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And, as it is with Kerry, its reasonable to look at a candidates entire record, including his military service or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether its important or not in November.

The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bushs service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerrys.

In April before the Swift boat veterans had said a word Kerry said Bush has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty. Earlier, Kerry said, Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.

Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

Thats fine. We should know as much as we can.

And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.

I would also submit that Rudy Guilliani had better enjoy his back-rubbing from the GOP while it lasts. I dont see the Neo-Cons or Evangelical Conservatives supporting him in 2008, unless they are willing to take a bite out of the hipocrisy apple, since Guilliani supports abortion rights and gay marriage, two of the main issues that they use against Kerry and Edwards.

2004-09-09 03:26:15 PM gophergas

Vet_curm might be interested in this post too...


If this is a fake (and it looks like it to me), it was so poorly executed that one wonders whether it was intended to be exposed as such.

Something just occurred to me. Bear with me while I walk through this.

1) The White House is demanded to release incriminating military reports

2) They take the reports and "retype them" word-for-word adding obvious clues that this was done, but similar enough that it's passable on the surface. If caught, they can always claim they released copies with the same information and that is just as good. What, you don't trust the White House? This proves we're honest! Har Har!

3) Then everybody starts talking about how the documents are fake, instead of taking their contents as truth. Remember that the White House released these puppies. But the obvious conclusion is that any forgeries are done by Democrats, because the contents don't look good for Bush.

4) The discussion becomes fake/not fake documents, instead of discussion on the original point that prompted the request to release those documents in the first place. A bonus is being able to make the Democrats look bad.

5) And it doesn't matter that the contents look bad for Bush, because anybody looking for the clues can prove they are fakes and Democrats look silly trying to prove the documents are authentic. Anyone trying to accuse the White House of what I just typed is told to put on their tinfoil hat. And if ever it comes out the White House DID fake the documents, they can say "yeah we just copied the originals for [insert reason]... what's the deal? They say the same thing."

6) Note that 5 will be buried on the back pages and end up highly underreported.


This is absolutely brilliant. I think I'm going to write a book about it.

Farker_Taint Problem with that is that Kerry hasn't produced a plan either. All he says is that he would do it different, and get NATO etc. involved. But he doesn't say how.

As for not feeling, individually, that they have accomplished anything beyond patrols and such, I will say this: Maybe, just maybe, they don't see the big picture. Maybe they aren't informed of the big picture. Military personnel aren't supposed to know anything beyond their patrols. That's what they do. I also think it's possible that modern mindset of the current American is too influenced by "everything NOW" mentality. Microwaves, instant 2-way radios, e-mail, information at your fingertips, news delivered as it happens, etc... So to anyone who feels they didn't accomplish anything, I say "just wait, be patient".

/sorry for the above, I know portions are somewhat harsh

Drink the Koolaid, sloluva.

"And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bushs service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerrys."

Kerry, whether or not he got a bronze star or a silver one, 2 purple hearts or 3... the point is, the guy really was in Vietnam and really did get shot at and risk his life, when we was rich enough and could've gotten a BS deferment.

Bush, and I can't say I blame him, but used his connections and got into the National Guard (but c'mon, who during 'Nam really wouldn't have tried to do the same thing, so I don't hold that against him). But not only is it questionable what he did while in the National Guard (not to mention leaving 2 months early during a war, something I'm sure current National Guardsman in Iraq would love to do)... BUT he goes around calling himself a veteran and saying he served his country. He feels his military credentials are EQUAL to Kerry's.

Just like Clinton didn't decide to make any deal out of Bush Sr. or Dole's war records. Bush shouldn't be making a deal out of Kerry's. It's hard (and being an extreme douchebag), to dishonor a man for serving his country in a time of war when you hid from it.

/of course what happened 30 years ago has NOTHING to do with the election in 2004. Why is it a big deal, who knows, who cares.

I think I may have found the original...

RIGHT THERE

Can you spot the telltale sign?

2004-09-09 11:53:52 AM mathmatix

i love how blogs are making it to fark as news.....

It's not news, it's Fark.

Skleenar It tells me we're fighting a very different kind of war and that all the old "rules" have gone out the window. Not every choice is going to be perfect or "right" and either party is going to be feeling around in the dark on this one. It's all new territory. Still doesn't make me believe that in the end, Iraq won't be better off.

KazamaSmokers As opposed to the endless amount of influential Democrats running the day to day operations who spoke at the Democratic Convention, such as Al Sharpton & Carol Moseley-Braun?

Farker_Taint They aren't going to back Rudy Guliani. They are going to back McCain. That's why McCain has been all over every TV show and at every party. This is what I predict for 2008: John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton. (If Kerry loses, if not, McCain vs. Kerry.)

Umm... can someone show me any source that shows the White House released these documents? CBS isn't even admitting where they came from -- aside from saying that they came from Killian's files.