Where Was W Waldo?

From Where was George? (click)

---

Thursday, September 9, 2004
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

​

In times of war, especially controversial war, it is legitimate to examine the military bona fides of the commander in chief and anyone who would be commander in chief.

​

Sen. John Kerry has learned that the hard way as his service in Vietnam has been questioned in response to his "reporting for duty" approach at the Democratic convention.

​

And with more than 1,000 U.S. dead in Iraq, the controversy over President Bush's service -- or lack thereof -- in the Texas Air National Guard will not go away.

​

The Boston Globe reported yesterday that an analysis of military records shows that Bush "fell well short of meeting his military obligation" in the late '60s and early '70s and he did not face the prescribed punishments for doing so.

​

The allegations, first raised by The Globe in 2000, have returned with new fervor. And the exposure of a Bush campaign connection to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attack on Kerry naturally spurs new interest in Bush's National Guard record and renews questions of strings being pulled to help a privileged son avoid Vietnam through a coveted slot in the Guard.

​

If it's fair game to question whether Kerry earned the medals he was awarded for his tour of duty in the Vietnam War, it's fair game, too, to question whether Bush earned what amounted to his deferment from that war.

---

But that is not all of the story yet: CBS obtained four documents from the personal files of Col. Jerry Killian, Mr. Bush's squadron commander at the texas ANG base.From Bush's Guard Duty Under Microscope (click for full article)

---

The first memo is a direct order to take "an annual physical examination" - a requirement for all pilots.

​

Another memo refers to a phone call from the lieutenant in which he and his commander "discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November." And that due to other commitments "he may not have time."

​

On August 1, 1972, Col. Killian grounded Lt. Bush for failure to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards and for failure to take his annual physical as ordered.

​

A year after Lt. Bush's suspension from flying, Killian was asked to write another assessment.

​

Killian's memo, titled 'CYA' reads he is being pressured by higher-ups to give the young pilot a favorable yearly evaluation; to, in effect, sugarcoat his review. He refuses, saying, "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job."

---

(bold italic underline my emphasis)That last from a commander that was so impressed with young George when he joined that he arranged a special photo-op of him swearing in young George.here's more (same source):

---

It's not just the newly discovered memos causing trouble. There are new questions as to why, when he moved to Massachusetts to attend Harvard Business School, Mr. Bush did not sign up with a reserve unit there, as he promised in a letter when he left the Texas National Guard

​

And why, with his erratic attendance record, he was subject to neither discipline nor active duty call-up as provided for in his contract with the Guard.

​

Larry Korb, an assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan has reviewed the Mr. Bush's record and believes he did not fulfill his contract.

​

"Essentially, Bush gamed the system to avoid serving his country the way that most of his contemporaries had to," Korb said.

---

There are no documents certifying shrubs completion of the service training requirements that would be necessary for him to get an honorable discharge.Something is missing ... and it appears to be some service that was due this country.EnjoyThis message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 21:02 AMThis message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 21:05 AMEdited by RAZD, : Changed email notification, updated sig

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Ahhhhhh, ya beat me to it damn ye.But I got some additional details. Of course let me make sure and say that I have no way of corroborating that this is true, just that if true is pretty awful. I think this warrants a bit of investigation, namely because the White House is not only not fessing up, but obviously trying to spin the emerging documents. All following quotes from this newspage at Yahoo.Killian actually used the word "sugar coat" in his letter.

quote:

---

"Stuart has obviously pressured Hedges 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 Grip (a headquarters unit) regarding Bush's OETR (officer efficiency training report) and Stuart 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."

---

And if that isn't bad enough...

quote:

---

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

---

Which essentially says that under pressure he was willing to change dates to create the appearance Bush was active, when he might not have been (and according to this person's impression there was no evidence for).While I was reading this news I was wondering how on earth the White House was going to try and play this: say the documents were forgeries, say Killian was a bogus military man like Kerry who your just can't trust?Eh, no...

quote:

---

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."

---

You know what's wonderful about WRITTEN human language? It allows us to tell others our thoughts in a way that can last past our physical deaths.It's not like that report of Killian's was a poem or something. It was pretty straightforward.Unless "pressure", "sugarcoat", "push", "backdate", "having trouble running interference and doing my job", "Bush wasn't here", and "I will not rate" are code phrases for something else I do not see what OTHER interpretation this letter can have.Really, can we force the White House to try and give us an alternate interpretation. That would have to be hilarious.This message has been edited by holmes, 09-09-2004 04:58 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, I heard that in the interview, but the site I found didn't quote the document, so I had to go with what it said.Now from CNN News (netscape online, click for full article): (bold and yellow for emphasis)Gee, could the documents be missing from shrubs records because his file had been purged when he ran for Governor of Texas?What is clear to me is that his superior officer went from a high opinion of shrub, giving him high marks, to a low opinion of shrub, suspending him from duty and refusing to cover for him, in just a couple of years -- now that shows leadership ability, eh?Then there is the question of just what did lil-Georgie do for that campaign that was so important? Half days, missed days, people covering to do his job?Wonder how many kids in Nam would have liked that opportunity?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I'm becoming less impressed with the reality of the memos. I thought that these came from the latest batch of papers to be released though the FOIA request.I had not realized they were only papers "secretly" given to Rather by "unknown sources". And what's worse it apears the only authentications by experts turn out to be nonauthentications, and indeed questions raised (though that doesn't mean they aren't authentic), except by some "unkown expert".What the hell?And now that questions are being raised he OUGHT to come forward with his sources so that it can be verified. Otherwise it will look like garbage no matter what.Of course this is not without its irony.I am willing to doubt the veracity of these memos, as I am sure most proBushies are. Yet who among them are dealing with and admitting the proven falsehoods of the allegations made against Kerry by the swiftboat jerks?Indeed, one can't even find consistency in the White House. When this was happening to Kerry, Laura Bush ended up defending the right for people to speak and even if things weren't totally accurate. maybe completely false, it was important to keep them in mind as questions which might be legitimate. Same went for the press sec, and almost all the Republicans in congress.Now that its her husband and their man, this is a travesty and apparently an important issue (important to disbelieve) because it is meant to influence a presidential election in a time of war????Of course what I really want to see is this... one of the mantras of the proBush crowd was if the Swift Boat guys were lying, why doesn't Kerry sue? Ahem, if these memos are lies and all the people saying Bush wasn't there are lying, why doesn't Bush sue?Will there be any consistency?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If I were machiavelian I would think that the neocons released them so that the whole issue would be discredited.What impresses me is that there was no categorical denial from the white house of the details in the documents.If they were hoaxes, then that would have been the proper course.conclusions:(1) they are factual even if the sources are questionable OR(2) the truth is worse, and proving them wrong would be to show the truth.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Not to mention that the commander of the author has stated that the author expressed such sentiments to him several times.Ralph Nader: A tireless advocate for, and dedicated champion of, Ralph Nader.This message has been edited by Rei, 09-15-2004 01:08 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This reveals much about your mindset. To put it as mildly as I can, it bespeaks a high susceptiblility to confirmation bias of assertions that tend to reflect poorly on political candidates you don't like.This is hardly consistent with critical thinking and skepticism. Why should there be ? The burden of evidence is on CBS to demonstrate that the documents themselves are valid, and the assertions therein are valid. Are we to accept argumentum ad verecundiam of the form "Dan Rather says so, therefore it must be true" ?By your line of argument, the fact that Kerry was slow to deny the claims of the Swifties suggests there is some truth to those claims.Not that I agree with that. I am merely demonstrating that your reasoning is as poor as those who make such claims.

Two words:Push Polls.{Bare link - Forum rule violation - I'll add a quotation of the beginning part of the article - Adminnemooseus}

quote:

---

The anatomy of a smear campaign

​

By Richard H. Davis, 3/21/2004

​

Every presidential campaign has its share of hard-ball political tactics, but nothing is more discomforting than a smear campaign. The deeply personal, usually anonymous allegations that make up a smear campaign are aimed at a candidate's most precious asset: his reputation. The reason this blackest of the dark arts is likely to continue is simple: It often works.

​

The premise of any smear campaign rests on a central truth of politics: Most of us will vote for a candidate we like and respect, even if we don't agree with him on every issue. But if you can cripple a voter's basic trust in a candidate, you can probably turn his vote. The idea is to find some piece of personal information that is tawdry enough to raise doubts, repelling a candidate's natural supporters.

---

{The article goes on from there to discuss polling methodology, including the following - Adminnemooseus}

quote:

---

In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

---

{My apologies - there may well also be some minnemooseus in this action. But doing such seemed better than issuing a forum guideline violation message - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-16-2004 02:20 PMFrom Rei:Actually, the point of note is this:

quote:

---

In South Carolina, Bush Republicans were facing an opponent who was popular for his straight talk and Vietnam war record. They knew that if McCain won in South Carolina, he would likely win the nomination. With few substantive differences between Bush and McCain, the campaign was bound to turn personal. The situation was ripe for a smear.

​

It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

​

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

​

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

​

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"

---

This message has been edited by Rei, 09-17-2004 01:15 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

He said "if".That is consistent with both critical thinking AND skepticism.If the thought this could be what happened did not occur to you, or you believe that there is no way that it could have happened (despite no evidence one way or the other), then you are lacking in one or the other.In addition, this does show that RAZD is capable of writing popular novels, or conspiracy theory tracts for the gullible. I agree with you 100% on this. However one must point out that the WHITE HOUSE ADMINISTRATION IS MAKING SUCH CLAIMS.The attacks on Kerry were allowed to continue without serious question and Bush, Laura Bush, Rice, Cheney, Lynn Cheney and even Republicans outside the government like Dole kept intimating that the attacks should not be doubted and even if some things fall by the wayside it "raises issues".Indeed Laura Bush, Dole, and Lynn Cheney all used the "well if it's wrong Kerry should be defending himself (in court if need be)". Leaving the idea that since he is not, most of it must be right.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

looks like you got it covered in my absencemaybe novels is the way to go. at least then I could get some money for it. to add on to the machiavelian comment, I wouldn't put it past the neocons to be that devious, but I don't think they are that creative.It is typical of a lack of imagination in the group. Bush sees things in black and white, and all the neocons think this is good. problem is the world is in color (has been since the invention of color in the 50's) so when he only has two choices of action, most likely both are wrong.hehThis message has been edited by RAZD, 09-16-2004 06:24 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

It is within the range of possibility that some pro-Bush group did the forgeries. However it's not the most likely option, for a number of reasons:1) There is no evidence of it AFAIK, present some if you know otherwise.2) The more straightforward tactic of attacking Kerry's record seems effective enough, so why a Byzantine scheme such as this ?3) The party most discredited if, as seems likely by the preponderance of the evidence, the documents are forgeries is CBS News, regardless of who did the forgeries.CBS News failed to detect that the documents were forged, evidence of sloppy journalism, and jumped on the documents like a hungry shark, (admittedly weaker) evidence of an eagerness to discredit Bush.

I think you took my statement too strongly. Skepticism would certainly allow you to believe that it is unlikely they were planted forgeries. I doubt that they were planted forgeries.My point was that if you thought that there is NO WAY it could have happened (when wholly lacking evidence) then your skepticism would be less than skeptical.I agreed with everything you wrote.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

At the "Is the media hurting the war?" topic, things are sometimes getting diverted into discussion the George W. Bush military record. That topic is currently at message 141.This topic is a far better place for such discussion.Adminnemooseus

---

The problem with this as a rebuttal is that we were talking about the payroll report, which means we were talking in terms of pay purposes; so even including Inactive Reserve service, Bush only met 5 years and 4 months of his 6 year committment.Yes, Inactive Reserve service counts. Even including that, Bush failed to meet his commitment by 8 months. You still haven't supported your claim that Bush met his service committment. The fact that desertion papers were never filed against the son of a war hero and Senator, and future President of the United States, is irrelevant. They should have been filed, but they were not because of the political influence of the Bush family.

Tal writes:

quote:

---

Inactive Reserve time counts. For instance: When I first joined the Army in 96 I signed a 3 year contract to serve in the Infantry. In the Army, you sign on to serve 8 years, nomatter what your active duty contract says. When you finish your active duty obligation you are discharged and placed into the Inactive Reserve component. In my case, I could be called back to Active Duty at anytime in the next 5 years. I went back to Active Duty 3 years later. My time in service was then 6 years, even though 3 had been spent off active duty. So for pay purposes I was paid for having 6 years time in service instead of 3. The down side to that is I have to serve 23 years to retire, or 20 years Active Federal Service.

---

Hmmmmm, much of this doesn't sound right to me. I was in the IRR but only a few months ago. When you sign up for four years, you are actually obligated, by contractual agreement, to serve eight. However, after your initial four years as an active duty member or as a reservist, you can get out.In the IRR you live life like a civilian in every way. However, until your contract ends, they can activate you dependent upon the need. In fact, I was activated by the Navy, however, unbeknownst to my command, they had signed a conditional release to allow me to join active duty USCG and, therefore, didn't belong to the USN any longer.But you get no money or no benefits while in the IRR, nor does that remaining four year time accrue towards retirement should you decide to come back. I know because I was out of the military for three years and decided to come back.I lost two ranks and none of that time in the IRR applies on my DD-214. (Mind you, I'm 30 now and retirement is 15 years away. Doh!) As stated above, IRR time does not count as military time. Its only there as a contractual agreement, in the event, type deal... I really haven't been following the argument, so I can't really speak on the matter too much. But I know this. Just being alive and in the IRR ensures that you meet the required time. If you joined February 28, 2000-- you have to serve as a regular reservist or active duty member until February 28, 2004. However, you are still under contractual agreement until February 28, 2008. The thing is, you don't have to do anything except respond to an email so they have your contact info updated. I don't see how Bush could not have met his contractual agreement simply because he was alive.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add for further clarification

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias