Where Was W Waldo?

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)

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)

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)

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)