Pre-warned, came across this on my daily travails to the extremes of Salon and FrontPageMag (interesting companions eh ?)..


Memos: Bush refused order while in Guard

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Pete Yost

printe-mail

Sept. 9, 2004 | Washington -- Addressing questions that have lingered for years, newly unearthed memos state that George W. Bush failed to meet standards of the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war, that he refused a direct order and that his superiors were in a state of turmoil over how to evaluate his performance after he was suspended from flying.

One military official "is pushing to sugar coat it," one memo says of a proposed evaluation of Bush.

"On this date I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination ... as ordered," says an Aug. 1, 1972 memo by a superior officer, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who is now dead. Killian said in the memo that he wanted a formal inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the flight suspension. No records have surfaced that one was ever conducted.

"I conveyed my verbal orders to commander," Killian's memo stated.




Mind Your E-mail Manners



____
____




Today's Day Pass sponsored by Sony

click here



____

The same memo notes that Bush was trying to transfer to non-flying status out of state and recommends that the Texas unit fill his flying slot "with a more seasoned pilot from the list of qualified Vietnam pilots that have rotated."

The Vietnam-era documents add details to the bare-bones explanation of Bush's aides over the years that he was suspended simply because he decided to skip his flight physical.

The White House said in February that it had released all records of Bush's service, but one of Killian's memos stated it was "for record" and another directing Bush to take the physical exam stated that it was "for 1st Lt. George W. Bush."

"I can't explain why that wouldn't be in his record, but they were found in Jerry Killian's personal records," White House communications director Dan Bartlett told CBS's "60 Minutes II," which first obtained the memos.

Bartlett said Bush's superiors granted permission to train in Alabama in a non-flying status and that "many of the documents you have here affirm just that."

"These are the same old recycled attacks that we see every time that the president is up for re-election," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday. McClellan called the latest disclosures a "coordinated effort by Democrats to attack the president" at a time when "Kerry has fallen behind in the polls."

A memo dated May 19, 1972, five days after Bush was supposed to have completed his physical, summarizes a telephone discussion with Bush about how he "can get out of coming to drill from now through November." It says Bush was "told he could do ET for three months or transfer." ET referred to equivalent training, a procedure for meeting training requirements without attending regularly scheduled drills.

The same memo says "we talked abut him getting his flight physical situation fixed" and quotes Bush as saying he would "do that in Alabama if he stays in a flight status." It also says, "I advised him of our investment in him and his commitment."

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"'

Bartlett told CBS, "As it says in your own documents, President Bush talked to the commanders about the fact that he'd be transferring to a unit ... in Alabama that didn't fly that plane," the F-102, the type Bush was trained in.

Using only last names, one of the newly disclosed documents points to sharp disagreement among Bush's superiors in Texas over how to evaluate his performance for the period from mid-1972 through mid-1973.

"Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush," Killian wrote on Aug. 18, 1973. "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job -- Harris gave me a message today from Grp regarding Bush's OETR and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it. Bush wasn't here during rating period and I don't have any comments from 187th in Alabama. I will not rate." Grp refers to a military unit and OETR stands for officer efficiency training report.

The memo concludes: "Harris took the call from Grp today. I'll backdate but won't rate. Harris agrees."

At the time, Walter B. Staudt was commander of the Texas National Guard; Lt. Col. Bobby Hodges was one of Bush's superiors in Texas who two years earlier had rated Bush an outstanding young pilot; and Lt. Col. William D. Harris Jr. was another superior of Bush's.

Records released this year when Bush's military service re-emerged as a campaign issue contain no evidence that he showed up for duty at all for five months in mid-1972 and document only a few occasions later that year.

Asked about Killian's statement in a memo about the military's investment in Bush, Bartlett told CBS: "For anybody to try to interpret or presume they know what somebody who is now dead was thinking in any of these memos, I think is very difficult to do."

printe-mail



Associated Press

More wire stories





Thoughts ? I honestly dont know much about this and dont really have an opinion yet, but it seems that those memos could be an important piece of evidence, yes ?

please get this election over with

In other breaking news, I have a 15mm wang...

In other breaking news, I have a 15mm wang...

is it automatic or semi-automatic?

is it automatic or semi-automatic?

It shoots blanks only...

On an unrelated topic, Jennifer Flowers was a pretty girl in the 80's.

dola - Bah, I meant the girl that Gary Hart was with - she was cute.

I just took a big shit on the print out of this story.

I'm not sure if I'm old enough to vote in this election since it seems to be based on stuff from 1972...

Complaining about Bush's military record is like complaining about the Yankee's buying chmapionships. Everyone knows it, no one likes it, yet no one really cares anymore.

Yawn.

There is a reason why there is an age limit for running for the presidency. People make mistakes when they are young. Big deal. You won't find a president who hasn't done something they regretted. People (Republicans, Democrats, Independents, whoever else) who bring up stuff from over 30 years ago are pretty pathetic.

IMHO, you should base who you vote for on whose vision for America you like and agree with the most.

I did coke with GW Bush in the 70s woooooo!

I did Pepsi. What's your point?

Does it REALLY matter whether or not he served, missed a physical, whatever? Is that REALLY what this election should be about? I am not going to vote based on the military records of either candidate, I don't care how many purple hearts Kerry has, or whether or not W asked his daddy to pull strings so he wouldn't have to serve. It doesn't matter. Post an article about their economic policy, explain HOW they are going to live up to the campaign promises they are making about new jobs, military plans, deficit spending, etc...that is what is going to determine who I vote for.

Does it REALLY matter whether or not he served, missed a physical, whatever? Is that REALLY what this election should be about? I am not going to vote based on the military records of either candidate, I don't care how many purple hearts Kerry has, or whether or not W asked his daddy to pull strings so he wouldn't have to serve. It doesn't matter. Post an article about their economic policy, explain HOW they are going to live up to the campaign promises they are making about new jobs, military plans, deficit spending, etc...that is what is going to determine who I vote for.


We ALL know women vote by who is better looking, has the best hair, and/or is tallest...

If Brad Pitt were running for President, then yes, that might be true...but seeing as we have W, whose looks are ordinary at best, and John "I have the longest face in the world" Kerry as options...I will be voting based on who I think would do a better job leading this country for the next 4 years.

actually, this story is getting pretty interesting. So far there are least four forensic experts (three interviewed by cnsnews.com and one by indcjournal.com) that say this could be a forgery.

A couple of things are apparently in question: the font used in the memos and the superscript in one of the memos.

A Dr. Phillip Bouffard (quoting from indcjournal.com "Dr. Bouffard has a PhD in Chemistry from the University of Michigan, but got involved in forensic examination of typefaces after working in “graphics” with NCR until 1973 and taking a two-year Certification Program in Document Examination at Georgetown University. After completing the program, he became specifically interested in typewriter classification and went to work for a prosecutor’s crime lab in Lake County, Ohio." ) says he's 90% certain the documents are forged.

If so, that's huge egg on the face for CBS News, and quite frankly, will probably end the Bush AWOL story (at least in the major media).

Hey, I said I didnt know much about it - Should be interesting to see what happens.

from talkingpointsmemo.com

The conservative blog Powerline has a roiling debate or series of charges that the documents published by CBS last night are forgeries.

The basis of the claim is that the sort of proportional font spacing evidenced in the memoranda wasn't available at the time in question. It only came later with word processors and computers and laser printers. Basically, they say, all people had back then were old fashioned block-type typewriters.

On the face of it, that sounds logical to me. But the editor of the site has now posted the comments of at least one reader who says such machines were actually widely available at the time.

It seems worth noting that the White House accepted the documents as genuine and even began releasing them to other journalists yesterday evening -- though it's not clear to me whether they were releasing their own copies or simply passing on what CBS had given them.

The deeper point is that CBS reported that they had handwriting experts scrutinize these documents to ascertain their authenticity. It seems hard to imagine they'd go to such lengths to have experts analyze them and not check out something so obvious as seeing if they'd been written by a typewriter that was in existence at time. (Hard to imagine or, if true, unimaginably stupid.)

One way or another, I doubt we'll have to speculate about this for very long. This question about what sort of typesets were available in 1973 should be easy enough to settle.

The specific memo in question (the one that claims pressure from higher-ups), in addition to the superscript (all but impossible on typewriters), proportional spacing (only available on a few expensive machines unlikely to be used by the military) and signature that appears vastly different from others of Killian's, matches up exactly with one done with the default MS word set-up (hxxp://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged) as well as at least 1 of the other 3 matching up as well. Now maybe there is an explanation for all this, but there seems to be strong indications they are (very amateurish) forgeries, which begs the question of how could CBS, the Boston Globe, etc. messed up this badly?

yeah, it's about more than the proportional spacing. Basically you'd have to find a proportionally spacing typewriter than used that type of font and was able to superscript the "th".

It shouldn't be too hard to track down what kind of typewriters the TANG was using back in the time in question. Someone in Austin just needs to file the right FOIA request.

which begs the question of how could CBS, the Boston Globe, etc. messed up this badly?

Umm ... I don't really think there'd be any question about that.

Well, it looks like the Associate Press' lawsuit opened up some files for smearing the President, but of any value? Doubtful.

Umm ... I don't really think there'd be any question about that.I'm not the biggest fan of the media either, but the fact that there are 3 things wrong that I think anyone who used typewriters often would notice (the superscript, proportional spacing and kerning, also not possible on a typewriter) would mean that even checking the documents with one "expert" in the field should quickly point out the problems. Up to this point, I doubted that for a story as potentially huge as this one, CBS/60 Minutes wouldn't even attempt to cover its own ass by making sure they were real. Apparently they're already backtracking and claiming that the words in the memos are consistent with the thoughts of Killian according to others who knew him at the time. Yet another blow to media credibility.

We get it already, you don't like Bush :rolleyes:.

actually, this story is getting pretty interesting. So far there are least four forensic experts (three interviewed by cnsnews.com and one by indcjournal.com) that say this could be a forgery.

A couple of things are apparently in question: the font used in the memos and the superscript in one of the memos.

A Dr. Phillip Bouffard (quoting from indcjournal.com "Dr. Bouffard has a PhD in Chemistry from the University of Michigan, but got involved in forensic examination of typefaces after working in “graphics” with NCR until 1973 and taking a two-year Certification Program in Document Examination at Georgetown University. After completing the program, he became specifically interested in typewriter classification and went to work for a prosecutor’s crime lab in Lake County, Ohio." ) says he's 90% certain the documents are forged.

If so, that's huge egg on the face for CBS News, and quite frankly, will probably end the Bush AWOL story (at least in the major media).
Damn! I'm late to the party. My first reaction when I heard about this from a co-worker was that it sounded too good to be true, and that I'd bet they were fakes.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/breaking_news/9623049.htm

Son of Late Officer Questions Bush Memos

BOBBY ROSS JR.

Associated Press

DALLAS - The authenticity of newly unearthed memos stating that George W. Bush failed to meet standards of the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War was questioned Thursday by the son of the late officer who reportedly wrote the memos.

"I am upset because I think it is a mixture of truth and fiction here," said Gary Killian, son of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

Another officer who served with Killian and a document expert also said Thursday the documents appear to be forgeries.

Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said one of the memos, signed by his father, appeared legitimate. But he doubted his father would have written another, unsigned memo that said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things. ... No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

News reports have said the memos, first obtained by CBS's "60 Minutes," were found in Jerry Killian's personal records. Gary Killian said his father wasn't in the habit of bringing his work home with him, and that the documents didn't come from the family.

The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake.

"They looked to me like forgeries," Rufus Martin said. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years."

so far CBS is standing by it's story and it's unnamed forensic expert. Meanwhile a few more named experts are chiming in.

AP reports Sandra Ramsey Lines, an independent document examiner, says the memos look like they were produced on a computer using Microsoft Word.

Weekly Standard reports William Flynn, regarded as the nation's top analyst of computer-generated documents, says "These sure look like forgeries". He also said ""I would say it looks very likely that these documents could not have existed" in the early 1970s, when they were allegedly written."

Actually, let me just quote a bit from the Weekly Standard piece.

Several other experts agree. "They look mighty suspicious," says a veteran forensic document expert who asked not to be quoted by name. Richard Polt, a Xavier University philosophy professor who operates a website dedicated to typewriters, says that while he is not an expert on typesetting, the documents "look like typical word-processed documents."

So can we say with absolute certainty that the documents were forged? Not yet. Xavier University's Polt, in an email, offers two possible scenarios. "Either these are later transcriptions of earlier documents (which may have been handwritten or typed on a typewriter), or they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but I won't let that cloud my objective judgment: I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."

Also, the forensic expert I mentioned earlier, Dr. Broussard, is a registered Democrat who says he plans on voting for Kerry. Just wanted people to know that these are professionals, not partisans saying this.

I think CBS is screwed, and since Killian's son says CBS didn't get the documents from the family, and CBS says they came from Killian's personal files... methinks CBS needs to tell us about the chain of custody for these papers.

I think CBS is screwed, and since Killian's son says CBS didn't get the documents from the family, and CBS says they came from Killian's personal files... methinks CBS needs to tell us about the chain of custody for these papers.
they should, but they don't have to. the whole "nameless source" thing and all...

they should, but they don't have to. the whole "nameless source" thing and all...

yes, by "need" I referring more to their credibility, not any legal standard.

What's important here is that, thankfully, GW never served in combat.

I mean its good to have a president that has no idea what "Killed in Action" means!!!!




:eek:

What's important here is that, thankfully, GW never served in combat.

I mean its good to have a president that has no idea what "Killed in Action" means!!!!




:eek:

no offense, but that's the one of the dumbest damn things I've heard recently. How much combat did Franklin Delano Roosevelt see? Or John Adams? Or Bill Clinton? LBJ? Ronald Reagan?

In fact, of all our presidents only 15 ever served in combat.

no offense, but that's the one of the dumbest damn things I've heard recently. How much combat did Franklin Delano Roosevelt see? Or John Adams? Or Bill Clinton? LBJ? Ronald Reagan?

In fact, of all our presidents only 15 ever served in combat.
Agreed. Serving in the military or seeing combat does not make you a better candidate for President.

Agreed. Serving in the military or seeing combat does not make you a better candidate for President.I dunno. I think it certainly makes for a better candidate. I do agree that it doesn't necessarily make for a better President.

A Dr. Phillip Bouffard . . . says he's 90% certain the documents are forged.


I am not passing judgment one way or the other, but I just love claims like this (whether in politics or whatever). The guy can never be proven wrong under this standard, whether they are forgeries or not. You are either certain or uncertain, not 50, 60, or 80% certain.

That is common language to mean "very confident" vs. "somewhat confident".

no offense, but that's the one of the dumbest damn things I've heard recently. How much combat did Franklin Delano Roosevelt see? Or John Adams? Or Bill Clinton? LBJ? Ronald Reagan?

In fact, of all our presidents only 15 ever served in combat.




Once again you missed the point, who ever is president needs to respect and understand what happens in war. War is not a god damn game on a computer, people die every day in Iraq because of the poor decisions and planning this administration has made.

The fact is I would vote for Bush if for once in his life he admitted that he can make mistakes, like on Iraq....or for that matter anything. Letting our Prime Minister DICK Cheney decide how this country should be run is not a wise decision by George W. The most intelligent thing Bush could have done is was replace Cheney and Rumsfield, but that will never happen.

So there is my response. You can now go ahead and perform your good little republican act and cut me down, slam me for debating your point of views, and most of all make yourself feel better by thinking you are right.

:D

non-issue....doesnt matter to me.

It's really sad how the Dems have screwed up this campaign. There were a number of people, me included, who hoped a moderate Dem (a Dem Repubs could vote for) would get the nomination. He would have been a slam dunk to win the election. Instead we get a flaming liberal, who does not have control over his own campaign. It's sad to see how far the Democratic Party has fallen.

It's really sad how the Dems have screwed up this campaign. There were a number of people, me included, who hoped a moderate Dem (a Dem Repubs could vote for) would get the nomination. He would have been a slam dunk to win the election. Instead we get a flaming liberal, who does not have control over his own campaign. It's sad to see how far the Democratic Party has fallen.

I agree theyve gotten outflanked so far and run a pretty poor campaign in general, but there's a ways to go and Kerry is notorious for being a weak starter, strong closer. That Demo. Convention love fest was a huge mistake, they should have just been attacking the current admin. record and pointing out what they would do different.

They clearly need to make this a referendum on the failed (IMO) presidency of Bush, instead they have let the Repubs paint Kerry as a flip flopping liberal. Everyone who has a brain knows that Kerry really won't change things that much anyway -- he's been in Washington for 20 years and is a Skull N Bones Yale rich guy.

Demo. Convention love fest was a huge mistake, they should have just been attacking the current admin. record and pointing out what they would do different
If Kerry would ever do that and have coherant plan on what specific steps he would have A) done differently in Iraq and B) his new plan for Iraq for the future, he would do more much more help to his image as a war president than any old recap of Vietnam.

That is common language to mean "very confident" vs. "somewhat confident".

Well, I know that. I was just thinking of it more in terms of the literal sense of the words. It would have been better to say 90% probability. Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine. This was interesting though:

"Some analysts outside CBS News say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.

But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style told CBS News that it has been available since 1931.

Saturday's issue of the Boston Globe reports that one document expert, Phillip Broussard, who had expressed suspicions about the documents, said "he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time."

From:hxxp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

I guess maybe the guy is only 20% certain, now??? Or 90% certain it is not a forgery???? ;) Totally hilarious.

Saturday's issue of the Boston Globe reports that one document expert, Phillip Broussard, who had expressed suspicions about the documents, said "he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time."

From:hxxp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

I guess maybe the guy is only 20% certain, now??? Or 90% certain it is not a forgery???? ;) Totally hilarious.
You missed the other thread where it's mentioned that Broussard is very upset with the Globe as they're claiming he reached conclusions that he did not reach.