RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Newest Bush National Gaurd records: fake?

Quote:

---

The records the government recently released show he didn't fulfill his obligation to the guard. There is more unflattering evidence from eyewitness accounts too. Perhaps it is time for the President to address this issue in some detail?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Yes, in a trial, all evidence in considered...well, except for evidence that was deemed inadmissible, prejudicial, improperly obtained, or, as in this case, "improperly authenticated."

In fact, to continue the "trial" analogy, were forged documents entered into evidence, as in this case, any "conviction" obtained would be thrown out and the accused declared "not guilty."

So, in other words, to continue our analogy, right now you're demanding that the President answer, and building your case on, inadmissible evidence.

Which, the last time I looked, was a violation of someone's rights.

Better call the ACLU.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Now, MEM, let me ask you seriously, because you've been honest about some of these things in the past. if Fox news produced memos suposedly defaming Kerry and it was said that they were probobly forgeries and they kept insisting that they were authentic dispite mounting evidence to the contrary and even some of thier own experts said publically that they told Fox News that they may be fraudulent and they ran the story anyway and in the end they produced the person who would have typed the memos and they say "Well the documents are fake, but I believe that if they had been made the info would be the same, oh I would also like to add that I'm a registered Republican AND I think the Clintons killed Vince Foster"... Can you honestly say that you would except that as legitimate?

---

Quote:

---

She was saying that she did type up documents with the same info.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Yes, in a trial, all evidence in considered...well, except for evidence that was deemed inadmissible, prejudicial, improperly obtained, or, as in this case, "improperly authenticated."

In fact, to continue the "trial" analogy, were forged documents entered into evidence, as in this case, any "conviction" obtained would be thrown out and the accused declared "not guilty."

So, in other words, to continue our analogy, right now you're demanding that the President answer, and building your case on, inadmissible evidence.

Which, the last time I looked, was a violation of someone's rights.

Better call the ACLU.

---

"Demanding" is your terminology. I just have noticed that he gives vague answers when dealling with questions about his military time. It would just be nice to hear our leader reasure the nation by answering a couple of simple questions.

Quote:

---

Well then why dosn't she put it to rest and produce said memos? Why should we take "her" word for it?

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
Just copy and paste the text, I don't wanna havta join Washington Post to view the article.

---

Sorry, I didn't realise they were gonna do that.... Now I can't cut and paste without becoming a member

Quote:

---

Steve T said:
I think "I typed up documents containing this information" by his secretary is probably more reliable then "my daddy would never have typed this up"

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well then why dosn't she put it to rest and produce said memos? Why should we take "her" word for it?

---

Is there something I missed that makes that even a vaguely realistic possibilty? Does she have a huge stockpile of peperwork to be pulled out in case anyone she comes into contact with becomes president?

---

Quote:

---

Steve T said:
Sounds pretty consistant with modern political debate to me!

His son may know him better but I doubt well enough to guess his every movement. She is at least a witness.

---

Quote:

---

CBS CONCERN OVER VIEWERSHIP PLUNGE; RATHER RATINGS FADE IN MAJOR MARKETS

CBS executives on both coasts have become concerned in recent days that Dan Rather's EVENING NEWS broadcast has plunged in the ratings since the anchor presented questionable documents about Bush's National Guard service.

NIELSEN numbers released this week show Rather fading and trailing his rivals in every Top 10 city, other than San Francisco, with audience margins in some cities running more than 6 to 1 against CBS!

Executives fear many voters inclined to vote for Bush are now switching off Rather.

"The audience appears to [be] polarized," a top CBS source said from LOS ANGELES on Thursday. "Rightly or wrongly, we're being perceived as 'anti-Bush,' which I do not think is fair to Dan, who is a fine journalist... of course we do not like to see the ratings coming back the way they are this week."

In Philadelphia, the nation's #4 market, Rather pulled a 2.6 rating/5 share on Tuesday night against ABC's 13.3 rating/23 share and NBC's 4.0/7.

In Chicago, Rather hit a 2.3/5 to ABC's 9.2/20.

CBS trailed ABC by more than 2 to 1 in Los Angeles.

And in the nation's top market, New York, Rather finished not only behind NBC NIGHTLY NEWS and ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT -- but also pulled less audience than reruns of the SIMPSONS, WILL & GRACE and KING OF QUEENS.

Rather finished dead last in New York during the 6:30 pm timeslot among all broadcast channels tracked by NIELSEN on Tuesday.

---

Blow to Credibility #1: She admits to being a democrat and that she doesn't like the President. She has, parroted the extremely partisan lines that he is "selected not elected" and "unfit for office." That indicates a bias.

Blow to Credibility #2: Her story has changed. She originally told the Houston Chronicle that "she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time with the Texas Air National Guard, although she did recall a culture of special treatment for the sons of prominent people." She now claims that she knows facts that back up the allegations in the [admittedly] forged memos. As we sometimes say in court, "was she lying then, or is she lying now? either way, she's a liar."

Blow to Credibility #3: Her story does not make sense. She says the documents are forgeries. She says that her boss did not type. She says that she was the only person who ever typed for him and that she never typed these. But THEN she goes on to say the information is "accurate"? How can she vouch for accuracy of something that she had no first hand knowledge of, that was not prepared by her and that she has no knowledge of who created?

Quote:

---

Steve T said:
It's irrelevant really whether she is telling the truth or not, or whether the accusations are true or not, the fake letter has blown away any credibility anyway.

---

Quote:

---

CBS curmudgeon Andy Rooney indicated yesterday he believes the controversial documents on President Bush's National Guard service are fake and said it could cost Dan Rather down the road.

"I'm surprised at their reluctance to concede they're wrong," Rooney said, referring to CBS brass.

Despite praising Rather as "a good, honest newsman," Rooney added, "I'm unsure if they're whistling in the dark instead of apologizing."

---

"Recently the credibility of news organizations has been tarnished by the abuses of a few reporters who, while claiming to rely on anonymous sources, were fabricating stories. Quite reasonably, these incidents have led to discussion by the public and journalists of the practice of using anonymous sources."

It goes on to a section on page 37B headed "Standards and Procedures," which says, in part: "Anonymous sources should be used only when it is determined (1) that there is no other practicable way to obtain and report the information; (2) that the information is factual and of sufficient newsworthiness to warrant its use despite the fact that we cannot disclose its source; and (3) that the source and his information are highly reliable in the particular instance."

Where the use of an anonymous source is necessary, as much information as possible about the nature [underlined] of the source should be provided to the audience, assuming, of course, that this information would not lead to disclosure of the source. Where the source may have a vested interest in the matter to be reported, it is especially important that information be provided as to the nature and/or motivation of the source."

There is no section on the use of fraudulent documents; there were things that were understood to be such obvious firing offenses that no mention of them was needed.

The man cited in media reports as having allegedly pressured others in the Texas Air National Guard to help George W. Bush is speaking out, telling ABC News in an exclusive interview that he never sought special treatment for Bush.

Retired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush's unit in Texas, interviewed Bush for the Guard position and retired in March 1972. He was mentioned in one of the memos allegedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian as having pressured Killian to assist Bush, though Bush supposedly was not meeting Guard standards.

"I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to," Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public.

The memo stated that "Staudt is pushing to sugar coat" a review of Bush's performance.

Staudt said he decided to come forward because he saw erroneous reports on television. CBS News first reported on the memos, which have come under scrutiny by document experts who question whether they are authentic. Killian, the purported author of the documents, died in 1984.

Staudt insisted Bush did not use connections to avoid being sent to Vietnam.

"He didn't use political influence to get into the Air National Guard," Staudt said, adding, "I don't know how they would know that, because I was the one who did it and I was the one who was there and I didn't talk to any of them."

During his time in charge of the unit, Staudt decided whether to accept those who applied for pilot training. He recalled Bush as a standout candidate.

"He was highly qualified," he said. "He passed all the scrutiny and tests he was given."

Staudt said he never tried to influence Killian or other Guardsmen, and added that he never came under any pressure himself to accept Bush. "No one called me about taking George Bush into the Air National Guard," he said. "It was my decision. I swore him in. I never heard anything from anybody."

When he interviewed for the job, Bush was eager to join the pilot program, which Staudt said often was a hard sell. "He was a well-educated, bright-eyed young man, just the kind of guy we were looking for."

He added that Bush more than met the requirements for pilot training. "He presented himself well. I'd say he was in the upper 10 percent or 5 percent or whatever we ever talked to about going to pilot training. We were pretty particular because when he came back [from training], we had to fly with him."

Bush has repeatedly said he completed all of his Guard commitments.

Staudt retired from the Guard in March 1972 and said he was never contacted about Bush's performance.

"There was no contact between me and George Bush … he certainly never asked for help," Staudt said. "He didn't need any help as far as I knew."

He added that after retiring he was not involved in Air National Guard affairs. "I didn't check in with anybody — I had no reason to," he said. "I was busy with my civilian endeavors, and they were busy with their military options. I had no reason to talk to them, and I didn't."

Staudt said he continues to support Bush now that he is president.

CBS News will admit it was duped when it broadcast memos that purportedly charged President Bush received favorable treatment in the National Guard 30 years ago, The Washington Post reported today.
The paper said the network would issue a statement, possibly as early as today, saying the documents it aired on "60 Minutes" were fakes.

It was uncertain last night whether the network - or its anchor Dan Rather, who has been under fire since his report first aired - would apologize.

According to The Post, Rather traveled to Texas this weekend to meet with a retired lieutenant colonel who many suspect helped provide the documents. Bill Burkett, who retired from the Austin headquarters of the National Guard in 1998, would not comment in an E-mail on whether he provided Rather with the controversial memos, the paper said.

In its initial report, Rather said CBS had obtained National Guard memos that said the President ignored an order to get a physical and received preferential treatment when he was in the Guard in the early 1970s.

The memos were quickly challenged by document experts, conservative bloggers and mainstream media organizations. At issue was whether the documents were produced by a 1970s-era typewriter or a modern-day computer.

CBS and Rather initially rejected the challenges, but later retreated.

CBS President Andrew Heyward would not confirm that a retraction was coming, The Post said.

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
From what I've read, President Bush has till this Friday to release all his military records. Could be some interesting reading.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
From what I've read, President Bush has till this Friday to release all his military records. Could be some interesting reading.

---

I think it'll be more interesting to watch y'all make alot of something out of nothing.

---

Naw, it will be much more interesting seeing those that want to crucify CBS & Rather for their mistake hold the leader of this country to a lower standard.

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Yea, because you've seeen these documents?

Oh and when Kerry releases his military records we'll find out he acctually fought along side the North Vietnamese. How do I know this? well he's Kerry and I don't like him so nya

---

It's a bit like the housewife who walks in on her husband, who is on the floor on top of his secretary. He says he snagged his shoe on the carpet. The housewife (that would be you & fellow Republicans) want to believe the story instead of what is clearly the case. You may not want to watch the news this Friday

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Yea, because you've seeen these documents?

Oh and when Kerry releases his military records we'll find out he acctually fought along side the North Vietnamese. How do I know this? well he's Kerry and I don't like him so nya

---

It's a bit like the housewife who walks in on her husband, who is on the floor on top of his secretary. He says he snagged his shoe on the carpet. The housewife (that would be you & fellow Republicans) want to believe the story instead of what is clearly the case. You may not want to watch the news this Friday

---

Ugh, you're right it's just like that. . I guess for lack of proof we'll settle for confusing annolgies. Well frankly I think you and your fellow Democrats are alot like a rabbit who eats alot of carrots, but when the gopher askes where the carrots went the rabbit starts to hop on one foot.

Quote:

---

DRUDGE REPORT MON SEPT 20, 2004 20:02:09 ET

BUSH OFFICIALS WANT CBSNEWS MODERATOR OFF DEBATE


Just hours after CBSNEWS admitted it cannot prove the authenticity of documents used in a 60 MINUTES story about President Bush's National Guard service, top Bush advisers are recommending a CBS reporter be removed as moderator of a planned presidential debate, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

At question is the approved Oct. 13 debate at Arizona State University in Tempe with Bob Schieffer, chief Washington correspondent for CBSNEWS, moderating.

"Considering the circumstances, we should definitely ask that Schieffer be replaced," a top Bush adviser told the president on Monday, according to a well-placed source.

The well-placed source continued: "Who can trust these CBS people to play it straight [during the debate]? I suspect they will be out for revenge."

The president is said to have not made any decision whether to seek a removal of the planned CBSNEWS moderator.

Developing...

---

Quote:

---

"Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said, 'George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling. ... George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated.'" (Terence Hunt, "Questions Raised About Bush Guard Service," The Associated Press, 9/9/04)

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
WBAM, your GOP story neglects to mention that the President released more of his "lost" military records like a day before the story broke.

---

Yes, but it does site that many of teh points made were referanced in the FORGED doccuments not the ones Bush released, but nice try. Also you're characterization of Bush releasing some of his "lost" docs is flawed too, because the Whitehouse ordered the Pentagon to relase all documents and the pentagon has been recieving some heat for releasing them in spurts, oh and where are the 100s of missing pages from Kerry's records?


and oh, yea....

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
WBAM, your GOP story neglects to mention that the President released more of his "lost" military records like a day before the story broke.

---

Yes, but it does site that many of teh points made were referanced in the FORGED doccuments not the ones Bush released, but nice try. Also you're characterization of Bush releasing some of his "lost" docs is flawed too, because the Whitehouse ordered the Pentagon to relase all documents and the pentagon has been recieving some heat for releasing them in spurts, oh and where are the 100s of missing pages from Kerry's records?


and oh, yea....

---

I was bringing up the release of more military records because while your article details everything a Dem ever said during that week, it leaves out the fact that every time President Bush releases more records (after saying they have all been released) usually results with Dems responding. So not really all that weird that Dems were commenting about Bush's military records at that time.

The AP had to sue to try to get Bush's records. Unfortunately the microfiche records (the ones that are a bit harder to alter) were destroyed in an unreported restoration attempt.

Kerry actually has records available. I also recently posted a link with the Navy backing Kerry up.

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Yea, and the Natl gaurd backs Bush up and he has records available too.

---

John Kerry's biographer today called on the presidential candidate to release his military records.

In the past, Kerry has said he could not release some documents because of contractual obligations to Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty." Brinkley said he has no contractual claims to any of the papers.

Clearly some of these military records should be made available to the press," he said on Steve Malzberg's WABC New York radio show today.