I think I just heard the recess bell ringing.
I actually heard that term on the C-linton N-ews N-etwork yesterday.
Yesterday - General Hodges recanted the story he made against Bush's Guard service on C-entral B-ull S-hit's show "59-Minutes".
Now known as "FORGERY-GATE"
He says he was never asked about the documents or their authenticity.
Tonight "59-Minutes" runs "Kitty" Kelly for her turn at bat for their regularly scheduled Bush bash and hate fest.
C-entral B-ull S-hit SWEARS by her tesimony to be absolute fact becuse, they said, she "crossed her heart & hoped to die". For CBS this passes as ABSOLUTE proof.
"Shoot Me Now - SHOOT ME NOW!!"
I think I just heard the recess bell ringing.
Someone should make a "Sounds of the Republicans" sample library.
"So what if some parts of life are a crap shoot? Get out there and shoot the crap." -- Neil Peart
He's not the only one invovled who's disputed CBS's "opinions" of this.
Stuadt, the gen who's mentioned in the CYA memo as the one putting pressure on Killian to "sugar coat" Bush's record, retired from Gaurd 18 months before the memo was written. Ooops.
CBS's "Kreskin" mind reading dept, says, that doesn't prove anything, because their opinion is that he stayed actively involved behind the scenes.
The Globe backs them up. The same people who said the SBVT charges didnt' amount to 1rst grade journalism because the allegations they made could be contridicted by the records, and other witnesses and despite them having "some" evidence that it was possible and there were descrepancies that might support some of their charges, that they had not definitvely proved them and in journalism circles...that's not enough. That is, of course, unless it's something about Bush. Then, even mind reading is enough.
This is about the same level journalism as UFO/Tabloid reporting. There is nothing wrong with anybody bringing this story out. But, this denial and insistence that these documents are "authentic" and their verson of what's in the memos's..what it meant, and their drawn conclusions based on that are irrefutable...is just nonesense and hurting CBS/Rather's credibility as a reliable news source. Even ABC, MSNBC, etc..are throwing this up in the air, ie..it remains unproven allegations. At this point, there is WAY more evidence to dispute this than there are to prove it. As long as that's reported as "allegations"...it's fine. But, saying this is definitive, irrefutable, and passing off all the questions about their conclusions, including from some of their OWN sources they based their findings on, as not credible, "ie..we believe they told the truth the first time"..etc..is just unforgiveable.
In all fairness, I would say that nothing has been defintively proven yet, and CBS had every right to at least bring these allegations forth. But, the way they have done it and their positions in defending after all these problems have come out, are just ludicrous..given the circumstances. They've serverly misquoted people, who are all up in arms about it, in defending this. They've made false claims that people have authenticated the documents, when it wasn't the case..and those people are up in arms about it. The only person who isn't here to defend himself is Killian who died 20 years ago. For him, they have resorted to "mind reading" and placing intent into the lang of the memo he allegedly wrote ..that is at odds with the people who "knew" him..including one of their main witness they intervieed over the phone, who had never seen the documents, thought they were referring to hand written notes (reportedly that's what CBS told him or inferred to him)..which he said was consistent with the way Killian did things (he didn't type).
It's just laughable. Even some of the experts they claim have backed them up, are saying they've misquoted their findings. Basically, CBS is saying..we can't prove it's true, but we hold that it's true, until somebody else can prove it false. That's basic UFO/Tabloid reporting...such as the Inquirer would use. And I'll just point out, FAR below the "jounalistic" standards they have insisted should dismiss all SBVT allegations.
If all it takes, is an "opinion" and having someone agree with you, to make a story true, or dispute findings otherwise enough to run a story as "true" and not an allegation....CBS is now a tabloid with a Kreskin dept. I think, none of this is really going to be a factor in the campaign. But, it's going to really hurt CBS and D Rather. I would guess, at this point, given their positions on this, they don't have much choice but to ride it out. But, everydday they do, it's going to cost them more credibiltiy until this just blows over.
The only people this is really going to hurt, is CBS. And their credibility. Even other MSM are piling on them right now. Even the NYT's is reporting that this is up in the air..as CBS stands unmoving to reveal sources, provide originals, etc..etc. Because of that, CBS has now become the story. And other media are picking at them..are in Texas right now and other places piecing together what CBS won't divulldge, etc. And everyday, another chip is flying off their block. So, I'll finish by saying this, there is "no" conclusive proof one way or another about those documents yet. And that could never be assertained until the "originals" are released for indpependent analysis. (which they won't do). But, I would say, as MANY MSM orgs are saying now, the evidence is piling up...in the other direction. There is more evidence against them than for them right now. There are more questions than there are answers. And CBS credibility is on the line, which makes this a bigger story than the allegations themselves. I'd be very surprised if CBS can weather this, without a MAJOR loss of credibility "and" sponsors /money. But, we shall see.
You gotta stop getting all of your information from GOP tabloids.
But IF you insist -- this from USNews & World Report -- not exactly a left wing publication:
Nation & World
The service question
A review of President Bush's Guard years raises issues about the time he served
By Kit R. Roane
Last February, White House spokesman Scott McClellan held aloft sections of President Bush's military record, declaring to the waiting press that the files "clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National Guard." Case closed, he said.
But last week the controversy reared up once again, as several news outlets, including U.S. News, disclosed new information casting doubt on White House claims.
A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.
For More: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...ws/20guard.htm
You can find EVERY range of stories. Some of them following lock step with CBS even reprinting their copy. But, the majority of MSM are reporting both sides of this. They'd be remiss not to given the circumstances.
As far as Bush's military record, if you want to use that standard to judge someone's service then Kerry didn't complete his obligations. He served only 4 months of his 12 month tour, and he missed ALL the missions, etc and requirements for those remaining 8 months. hahahaha. It's ridiculous. Of course, he got out early for being wounded 3 times and applied to leave on that basis and it was granted. He then applied for early discharge from the service and that was granted to. He never fufilled the time/duty requirement either if you want to use that basis to go by. Bush also requested, just like Kerry did after he got back, to leave the service early. In his case, to go to law school. In both cases that was granted and both of them were given honorable discharges.
The Guard system isn't based on a drill requirement. It's based on Points. You are required to make 50 points for each year of service. At 6 years, that's 300 points minimum. Bush had over 900 points when left the service. That's from all the training, drills, missions, etc..and days he served. The last 2 years were the lowest, obviously, since he was on 'non-flight" status in AL and no longer flying. He made 56 points each of those last 2 years. Last I looked that's 6 more points than were required to meet his obligations. He was granted early release and honorable discharge having met all his obligations otherwise.
The idea of counting drills that occured during that time and saying he missed 15 of them., and therefore was AWOL and didn't complete his duty..etc..is about as stupid as saying Kerry missed xx mission in Vietnam when he left after 4 months..and calling him AWOL and that he didn't complete his obligations. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Oh, and just to be clear again, Air Guard duty is based on "points" not "drills". btw, factcheck.org is where I got the info from
And just so I'm not remise here:
Here's Kerry's "actual" service record:
His draft lot came up. He applied for a deferment, and it was denied. So, he joined the Naval "Reserves". His unit got activated. (just like some in Bushs Guard unit did.) He ended up off the coast of Vietnam on a frigate. He requested transfer to swift boats, which at the time, were just doing coastal runs (not interwaterways). It was non hazerdous duty at that time, you get your own boat, and some experience.
Same thing happend again..the swiftboats mission was redefined to a more aggressive combat role patrolling inland waterways right after Kerry joined the unit. Bad luck I guess. But, not somethng he volunteered for (hazardous duty). He racked up 3 purple hearts in 4 months (along with bronze stars with combat Vs and siliver star) and requested a transfer out early..on the basis of having been wounded thrice. That was granted. He was assigned to an Admiral in Brooklyn NY, and requested to be discharged early to pursue a career in politics. That also was granted.
He never fully served his "first" tour , 1 year, in Vietnam having requested a transfer to Swiftboats before his time was up. He never finished his "2nd tour" having transfered out early for betting wounded 3 times. He never finished his full time having requested to be released early to persue a political carreer.
When you make a request for a transfer or leave and it's granted, you aren't awol..nor do the things you miss from not being there count against you somehow as not fulling your duty. I think even common sense tells you that. And where you are obligated, it's based on the military requirements to meet them. Not the CBS standard.
ROFL. I can't believe you're even TRYING to compare Kerry's record to Bush's. Not just in the military, but from then until now. The differences in character between the two men is VAST. And Kerry comes out on top every time -- no matter how you slice it, spin it, dice it, lie about it.
But if we want to stick with the military b.s., it's simple: No matter how short his tour was, no matter how insignificant his wounds MAY have been, Kerry went into combat when he could have used his money/influence to get out of it. Bush didn't go, and didn't even show up for duty here in the U.S. when he was supposed to -- and daddy bailed him out. The only fighting he did was over who could have the coke straw.
THAT'S the bottom line.