It Doesn't Matter if the Memos were Forged.. You're Missing the Point..
Barney Lyon
It's what's IN the memos that's the issue, and what's in them has been
confirmed. But what hasn't happened, what the GOP is desperate to
conceal and obscure is something else.
What's new about these memos, forged or not, is that they state that
Bush's superior officers were aware that Bush was performing
unsatisfactorily, that they were being pressured to let Bush slide
through and that they were expected to falsify Bush's records.
Those who worked with the memos' author, Killian, are saying that
while the memos may not be authentic, what they say is accurate.
Killian's secretary is saying that she did type memos for Killian that
said the same things that these memos are saying. Killian's immediate
superior officer has said that Killian expressed the same thoughts to
him that are in the memos. The TANG officer whose desk was next to
Killian's say that that is true, as do several other TANG officers.
I think that's the story. Why were they being pressured? Who was
pressuring them? We know from the memos that Lt. Colonel Staudt was
pressuring them. Was anybody pressuring Staudt? Since this story
broke, Staudt has taken a powder - the press has left messages at his
home, but he won't talk to anybody.
What do we know, what isn't in dispute, of Bush's stint in the TANG?:
Staudt, as Bush's unit commander in 1968 staged a special ceremony for
the press so he could have his picture taken administering the oath
(after the official oath had been given by a Guard captain earlier.)
Staudt was excited about his VIP recruit, this direct appointment,
because at his staged ceremony, Bush's father, the congressman, was
standing prominently in the background.
The 147th, Col. Staudt's Texas unit, was infamous as a way out of
Vietnam combat for the politically well connected and celebrity draft
avoiders: Both of Sid Adger's sons, Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen's
son, Republican Senator John Tower's son, and at least seven players
for the Dallas Cowboys had been signed into the unit.
What made Bush's unfair, favored Guard appointment doubly
reprehensible was his total lack of qualifications. Rapid selection
into the Guard was reserved for applicants with exceptional experience
or skills such as prior Air Force ROTC training, or special
engineering, medical, or aviation skills.
Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, had reviewed
the Guard's records on Bush for a special exhibit on his service after
Bush became governor. Asked about Bush's direct appointment without
special skills, Hail said, "I've never heard of that. Generally they
did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight
surgeons."
Charles Shoemaker, an Air Force veteran who later joined the Texas Air
National Guard and retired as a full colonel, said that direct
appointments were rare and hard to get, and required extensive
credentials. Asked about Bush, he said, "His name didn't hurt,
obviously. But it was a commander's decision in those days."
When Bush completed basic training, his commander approved him for a
"direct appointment." That made him a 2nd Lieutenant without having to
go through the usual (very difficult) Officer Candidate School. This
special procedure also got Bush into flight school, despite his very
low scores on aptitude tests: 25% on a pilot aptitude test (the
absolute lowest acceptable grade) and 50% for navigator aptitude. Bush
did score 95% on the easier and subjectively graded officer quality
test, but the class average is generally 88%.
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=861
In 1968, Bush's father was a newly minted Congressman with a highly
coveted seat on the House Ways & Means Committee. Very unusual for
such an inexperienced congressman to get on that committee. Very
powerful.
Just as a reference point, at the time of those memos (1973), Bush had
left Congress and was named by Nixon to the Chairmanship of the RNC.
This was during the trial for the Watergate plumbers – Deep Throat had
just told Woodward that "lives were in danger."
Staudt retired around 1972 with the rank of Brigadier General. That's
a hefty promotion (2 grades) in such a short time. It's not unheard
of, but it is unusual. It's more likely to happen during wartime, on
the battlefield. Google Staudt - what he was doing right after he
left the Guard raises an eyebrow:
"NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Walter B. Staudt is Executive Director of the Neighborhood Development
Program, which is In the process of completing a huge drainage project
for the western part of Beeville during the latter part of May this
year (1973). Forty-two city blocks of property are being drained with
storm sewers during heavy rains under this project, and the streets
will be paved after the sewer pipes have been laid.
The NDP also has started building and repairing houses in a plan to
eliminate shacks from the area. One new residence has been completed
and six others have been started at the time of this writing.
This is a Federal Agency, and the total expenditure on the drainage,
paving, and housing program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973,
is $1.250,000."
This, and a whole lot more. Read all about it at:
http://www.beeville.net/TheHistoricalStoryofBeeCountyTexas/Chapter16.htm
So, immediately after leaving the National Guard, Buck Staudt was
running a company that was receiving federal funds to develop an oil
and gas town in Texas.
Was Bucky Staudt laying a retirement nest egg by saving politicians'
sons from having to go to Viet Nam, letting them hide out in his
"Champagne Unit," in exchange for federal funding contracts?
Why else would he be so excited to have Congressman Bush's son in his
unit? This wasn't a rock star. Did he stage redundant swearing in
ceremonies for all of his VIPs' sons? Staudt didn't take in these
VIPs sons, save their asses from having to go to Viet Nam, for
nothing.
There's more to this story than memos.
Byron Canfield
news:881a53f6.04091...@posting.google.com...
"Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain!" -- The Great Oz :)
--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield
La Tonsha
really really wanting the Earth to be flat, it is still round.
This is why people hate liberals so much.
"Barney Lyon" <founta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:881a53f6.04091...@posting.google.com...
> This was during the trial for the Watergate plumbers - Deep Throat had
Karl R.
wrote:
>It Doesn't Matter if the Memos were Forged.. You're Missing the Point..
The point is to miss the point.
You apparently haven't seen Rove's instructions to the automatons.
Cosmo
Bush did not attend a military accademy and graduate a commisoned officer.
He was not ROTC.
He did not attend any type of OCS. <officers candidate school>
He certainly did not receive a Battlefield commison.
There are only a few ways of getting a commision, and I listed them above.
So, how did civilian bush, become Lt. Bush overnight?
He could not have been Warrent Officer, not with the LT. Bars on his
shoulders.
So did the Officer faily descend and make him an officer? Nope.
It only leaves a one possiblity, preferential treatment to the extreme.
I was in the Army in those days, and the guys who got commisions, by and
large earned them through hard work and dedication, and folowing the ruls,
like SHOWING UP FOR PHYSICAL EXAMS!
OCS was no picnic. You had to apply, and then be screened, take gruleing
physical and written exams. Then came the training.
So, he was... OH! WAIT! There would have been another way. A Congressional
Appointment! A direct Commision from a congressmn or senator, now who can
have done that for him, Let's think a moment. Must have been his Daddy. His
mommy told Daddy to make little Georgie an officer. Wow, if only service
life could have been that easy for real Soldiers, Sailors and Marines. I can
think of over 58,000 dead guys, and about a quarter of a million wounded
guys from the Vietnam era who would have liked Georgies situation. I guess
John Kerry really had it made, compared to Georgies struggle.
Cosmo
"La Tonsha" <tash...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:V3W2d.388583$OB3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> It is FALSE,
Like Bush's Claims of WMD huh?
fake,
Like Bush's Claims of Serimg Gas?
forgery,
Like trumpted up calims of how Bush decrease terror attacks?
incorrect,
Like the decision of the Supreme court when we had to settle for apointed
prez, we rejected, instead of the one the people elected.
forged,
Like the fake intell reports when Ridge politicizes terror alerts?
fraud,
Like Bush's claims that Saddam was linked to 9-11
wrong.
Like all of you assholes who support a fake war. When people die for
nothing, what could be more wrong?
Despite you
> really really wanting the Earth to be flat,
No, we don't want the Eaath to be flat, we just want to know why bush could
not complete a creme puff assignment, while his contemporaries were dying in
Vietnam
it is still round.
No shit, pretty observant for a blind idiot
>
> This is why people hate liberals so much.
Really? Because you think, we think, the earth is flat. What a quaint reason
to hate someone. Sounds like you need therapy.
Byron Canfield
news:V3W2d.388583$OB3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> really really wanting the Earth to be flat, it is still round.
>
> This is why people hate liberals so much.
That's where you have the cognitive disconnect. "Forged" does not equate to
"false". The authenticity, or lack thereof, of a document has no bearing on
the accuracy of its content.
--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
-----------------------------
"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
-- Ambrose Bierce
--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
-----------------------------
"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
-- Ambrose Bierce
La Tonsha
"Cosmo" <Co...@cosmo2010.com> wrote in message
news:oh13d.1930$CQ3....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Cosmo
"Ron Miller" <RonM...@bellsouth.org> wrote in message
news:Zsf3d.852$as2...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Cosmo wrote:
>
>>
>> "La Tonsha" <tash...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>> news:V3W2d.388583$OB3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>> It is FALSE,
>> Like Bush's Claims of WMD huh?
>>
>> fake,
>> Like Bush's Claims of Serimg Gas?
>>
>>
>> forgery,
>> Like trumpted up calims of how Bush decrease terror attacks?
>>
>>
>> incorrect,
>> Like the decision of the Supreme court when we had to settle for apointed
>> prez, we rejected, instead of the one the people elected.
>>
>> forged,
>> Like the fake intell reports when Ridge politicizes terror alerts?
>>
>>
>> fraud,
>> Like Bush's claims that Saddam was linked to 9-11
>>
>> wrong.
>> Like all of you assholes who support a fake war. When people die for
>> nothing, what could be more wrong?
>>
>>
>
>
>
> off to Iraq regardless of age or sex.
I agree, but you won't see it happen. America has become a population of
cheerleaders, who will never put their ass where their pom poms are.
The older ones should be used for
> cannon fodder first 'cause these assholes should know better than to
> support a $#)^)&%^&* nazi at the helm of our government.
They would make nice cannon fodder, and then they could die serving a
purpose insterad of tying yellow ribbons a waving flags.
>
>
>
>
>
vonroach
wrote:
>It doesn't matter if the memos were forged or not.
You wish. Pard, forgery of government documents are a felony in Texas.
vonroach
<barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain!" -- The Great Oz :)
>
The little men behind the curtain are Rather, Cleland, a democrat
activist sleaze merchant from Abilene , and his democrat activist
attorney. Sock puppets for John Fraud Kerry.
vonroach
>Like Bush's Claims of WMD huh?
>
You must mean the statement (left in context) that there was a threat
of Sadaam developing weapons and the risk was too high, so preemptive
action was necessary - a position agreed with by allies, the UN, and
incidentally at the time by old flip-flop Kerry.
vonroach
wrote:
>Serimg gas?
It wasn't specifically mentioned but the plans for development were
found. Sadaam had previously used lethal gas attacks against the
Iranians and the Kurds.
vonroach
<RonM...@bellsouth.org> wrote:
>These "war" supporters should be put in uniform,
Ronnie's going to throw his phony medals away and run for congress.
vonroach
<barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>That's where you have the cognitive disconnect. "Forged" does not equate to
>"false". The authenticity, or lack thereof, of a document has no bearing on
>the accuracy of its content.
Is that the best your cognitive activity, if any, can come up with?
Forgery indicates a phony document with no credibility whatsoever.
Plus it is a felony in the State of Texas. A forged document is
absolutely false and without any standing in a matter. And you are a
moron.
vonroach
I suppose you have some proof of this slander, so I suggest you
produce it. Otherwise you are just a typical Algore loony consumed by
hate, jealousy, and lies.
vonroach
>I was in the Army in those days, and the guys who got commisions, by and
>large earned them through hard work
You offer no proof of this, It would have excluded you from becoming
an officer. Did you ever hear about the National Guard or the Air
National Guard. Incidentally, George's current rank is Commander in
Chief, a rank to which he was elected.
Have you ever delved into Kerry's reserve service record after his
brief visit to Vietnam?
Roy Blankenship
"vonroach" <hadr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p3esk05kth33hljmt...@4ax.com...
You are on the wrong path, roach-boy. Cosmo is a solid veteran and doesn't
spout bullshit. Your condescending attitude is noted.
George Washington Hayduke
>On 17 Sep 2004 18:56:28 -0700, founta...@hotmail.com (Barney Lyon)
>wrote:
>>It doesn't matter if the memos were forged or not.
>You wish.
Eye witnesses report that the Killian Memos' contents are factual.
You lose. Again.
+--+
|Rathergate explosive: Yep, Killian Memos' Contents are verified:
| http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/11/MNGO68NEKR1.DTL
| http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/11/politics/campaign/11guard.html
| http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf
| http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml
| http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/14/bush_service/index.html
| http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/18/stifgnusa02001.html
| http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=5508&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported
|Hezbollah endorses George W. Bush: http://www.hezbollah.ws/
+--+
Cosmo
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:55:48 GMT, "Cosmo" <Co...@cosmo2010.com> wrote:
>
>>Like Bush's Claims of WMD huh?
>>
> of Sadaam developing weapons and the risk was too high, so preemptive
> action was necessary - a position agreed with by allies, the UN, and
> incidentally at the time by old flip-flop Kerry.
I guess you just woke up from a 3 year nap. All the wishing, hoping and
spinning will not place WMD where they were not.
I will get you up to speed. A Man named Hans Blix told the world that Saddam
had no WMD.
Bush did not belive Dr. Blix, so he sent his own man, named David Kay, and
guess what, Bush's own man, Mr Kay came back with the same report. Nothing,
no weapons, and then, it was proven, that all the reports submitted by the
US and the UK were forged. The UN security council did not unamimouly vote
for the invasion, you are dead wrong on that. Major member states, like
Russia, France and Germany protested then and they still do, and they did
not attend Bushs war, much to his chagrin and embarrasment.
John Kerry did not vote for the war as it is being prosecuted. He voted for
the war, under the conditions that a world wide coalition, including major
member states must be involved. He used as the model, the coalition Mr
Bush's father assembled for the Gulf war. Or are you to young to remember
that?
Just last thursday, and another went on behalf of Bush, and told the same
story, no WMD, and no facilities to build any. No Serin Gas, no Drones, no
Nigerian Plutonium, and no tubes to reconstititute uranium.
Your statement is an absolute flasehood. You do not know anything about
this, and pretending you do makes you a complete fool. There was no threat
of saddam making weapons, that was lie, and stands as a lie, before the
whole world. You and about a dozen other people still hang on to that
bullshit.
There was also, never any connection between Saddam and Alqueada. Saddam
lived his whole life keeping radical muslim clerics away from his doorstep.
Saudi Arabia is the culprit, but Bush can't attack them because they are his
best friends and oil partners. Your argument has no grounds and no teeth. It
was debunked months ago. Bush has been proven a lair and a fraud, and a war
criminal. Because, when you say the UN agreed, you need to catch up, the UN
just announced the Iraq war is Illegal. Go back to sleep.
Cosmo
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:39:42 GMT, "Cosmo" <Co...@cosmo2010.com> wrote:
>
>>I was in the Army in those days, and the guys who got commisions, by and
>>large earned them through hard work
>
> You offer no proof of this, It would have excluded you from becoming
> an officer.
I did not say I was an officer, but that does not mean I dont know how the
military makes officers. The Army is full of them.
Proof? You show me proff of how Bush became an officer without going to
OCS, ROTC, or any other miliraty SOP and I will show you preferential
treatment. His old man got him a congressional appointmet.
The way the military works, is, there are only a few ways of becoming an
officer, and Bush did not do any. He received a commision for no reason.
Check with any military officer. If you know any, I doubt you do, most do
not associate with morons.
Did you ever hear about the National Guard or the Air
> National Guard.
Yes, I have heard of them Why? They are still the military. The miliraty is
operated on procedure, policy and SOP. You just dont join up, and they put
LT bars on your shoulder. You're a very ignorant person.
Incidentally, George's current rank is Commander in
> Chief, a rank to which he was elected
Wrong again kid. CIC is not a military rank. CIC is a title. Never to be
confused with military men.
Here's why, most presidents are not great military minds. They rely on real
soldiers to presecute wars. It would also denote a dictator. Is that what
you want son, for george to be dictator? It wont happen, He'll be lucky if
he dont spend the rest of his life in jail.
The current highest Rank in the military is general, 4 stars. The highest of
them, is the COTJCOF. The current Chair is Richard Myers, before him, it was
Henry Sheldon, and before him it was Colin Powell.
At one time, there was a 5 Star general. He was called the "General of the
Army." But, they retired that when he died, his name was Omar Bradley.
Check it out loser. Godamn, don't you know anything.
> Have you ever delved into Kerry's reserve service record after his
> brief visit to Vietnam?
His brief visit to Vietnam. Tell me about your time in Vietnam? When were
you there? Who did you serve with? What was your MOS? and How long your time
were over there. The we can discuss Kerry's service. Don't lie kid, I am a
24 month vet, I can spot a liar a long way off.
Cosmo
"Roy Blankenship" <point...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cXq3d.7092$n16....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
ever hear of the National Guard?" What is this clown, like about a ten year
old playing with daddy's computer? He thinks CIC is an actual military rank?
Man, you gott'a love this sport.
Dave Simpson
> It doesn't matter if the memos were forged or not.
Not to crooks and scum and their fellow-traveler lefties, but to
people of quality, it matters greatly and is the heart of the issue
now.
> It's what's IN the memos that's the issue
Do you expect to be taken seriously when referring to FAKE memos
that way?
Dave Simpson
George Washington Hayduke
>"vonroach" <hadr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:m7dsk09ud9snm0s09...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:55:48 GMT, "Cosmo" <Co...@cosmo2010.com> wrote:
>>>Like Bush's Claims of WMD huh?
>> You must mean the statement (left in context) that there was a threat war
>> of Sadaam developing weapons and the risk was too high, so preemptive
>> action was necessary - a position agreed with by allies, the UN, and
>> incidentally at the time by old flip-flop Kerry.
>I guess you just woke up from a 3 year nap. All the wishing, hoping and
>spinning will not place WMD where they were not.
>I will get you up to speed. A Man named Hans Blix told the world that Saddam
>had no WMD.
>Bush did not belive Dr. Blix, so he sent his own man, named David Kay, and
>guess what, Bush's own man, Mr Kay came back with the same report.
Don't forget Ritter and the fascist regime's own CIA. Everyone told these
fucking rightards that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, even
Powell who later was forced to commit treason.
+--+
Steveo
Dave Simpson wrote:
Do you expect to be taken seriously when your middle name is "Dachau?"
>
>
> Dave Simpson
Byron Canfield
news:23e7f86e.0409...@posting.google.com...
That's where you have the cognitive disconnect. "Forged" does not equate to
"false". The authenticity, or lack thereof, of a document has no bearing on
the accuracy of its content.
I'd like to know why the originals were destroyed.
Barney Lyon
If the memos existed in limbo, without any human eyewitnesses to
confirm or deny what's in them, you would have a point. But there
are, at minimum FOUR people who were in a position to know, and they
all say the same thing - "What's in the memos is true."
Let's look at what we know to be true and how we know it:
Killian's secretary Marian Carr Knox says such memos existed and that
they accurately reflect the thoughts of the commander, Lt. Col. Jerry
B. Killian, and other memorandums she typed for him about Mr. Bush.
Knox told the Morning News that she did all of the typing for Lt. Col.
Jerry Killian, Bush's commander.
Marian Carr Knox told the Dallas Morning News after viewing copies of
the disputed memos, "These are not real," and that "the information in
here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones." She
declined to be interviewed late Tuesday, but her son, Pat Carr,
confirmed her comments.
The newspaper said that Knox, 86, had precise recollection about
dates, people and events. She was critical of Bush, whom she called
"unfit for office."
"The information in them is correct," the woman, Marian Carr Knox, now
86, said in an interview at her home here. "But I doubt," she said,
pausing, "it's not anything that I wrote because there are terms in
there that are not used by Guards, the format wasn't the way we did
it.
"It looks like someone may have read the originals and put that
together."
The memos were critical of Bush's performance as a pilot. They say he
sought special treatment to get out of required drills and failed to
get a required physical exam, and that there was pressure from his
commander's superiors to "sugar coat" his personnel evaluation.
"We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was
concerned about," Mrs. Knox said. "I think he was writing the memos
so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on
and what he had done." But, she said, words like "billets," which
appear in the memorandums, were not standard Guard terms.
Mrs. Knox, who was the secretary for the squadron at Ellington Air
Force Base from 1957 to 1979, said she recalled Mr. Bush's case and
the criticism of him because his record was so unusual. Mr. Killian
had her type memorandums recording the problems, she said, and he kept
them in a private file under lock and key.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15guard.html
In 1999, Ben Barnes said the same thing he said on "60 Minutes," in
sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury.
Former Texas National Guard officer Richard Via says the content of
the memos reflects real discussions:
Another former Texas National Guard officer, Richard Via, also said
that the documents were fakes but that their content reflected
questions about Bush that were discussed at the time in the hangar at
Ellington Air Force Base, where he had a desk next to Killian's.
Via said he and others he worked with "remember the physical, and him
going to Alabama was an issue." He said Killian "made notes and put
them in his files about things like that."
Killian kept the files because "he was trying to cover his ass," Via
said. "He was always worried something would come back on him."
He said Killian's secretary "would type them up, and he'd put it in
his desk drawer and lock it."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-14-memos-forgeries_x.htm
Robert Strong, who worked in the Texas Air National Guard
administrative office, offers support:
"He was trying to deal with a volatile political situation, in dealing
with the son of an ambassador and former congressman," says Strong.
"He was trying to deal with at least one superior officer, Gen.
Staudt, who was closely connected to the Houston political
establishment. And I just see an impossible situation. I feel very,
very sorry, because he was between a rock and a hard place."
http://news4colorado.com/topstories/topstories_story_253080125.html
Even Bobby Hodges, who is mentioned in some of the memos and who has
very publicly arrived at the conclusion that they are fakes, said that
the content is accurate:
Rather agreed that the quotes were read to Hodges.
"We wanted to take the documents to him and do an interview, and he
declined to do that," he said, calling Hodges' statements at the time
"impressive" support of the documents' authenticity.
"The colonel said that the documents were - quote - familiar to him,
and that Killian did indeed feel the way that the documents
expressed."
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election20
04/9640726.htm
About Lt. Colonel (Brigadier General) Walter B. Staudt who is said (in
the memos) to be pressuring Killian and Hodges - he denies it.
I wouldn't expect Staudt to admit to pressuring anybody in the Guard
(to either accept Bush into the Guard or to give Bush good
evaluations) if he had pressured them, would you?
Staudt's good words about Bush fall kind of flat, since Bush was
suspended from flying for failing to follow an order. He was referred
to a disciplinary unit, and had 6 months (in the ARF unit) added on to
his time.
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif
http://www.awolbush.com/index.html
http://www.bushwatch.com/awol.htm
http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=327
There's more to this story than memos, and it's not CBS, it's not Dan
Rather, it's not Burkett, it's not Joe Lockhart, and it's not John
Kerry or anybody connected to his campaign.
The media is going to milk this story until it churns into butter,
because the real story here requires effort to research and tell.
The story that Bush and the GOP are trying desperately to obscure is
what at least 4 people (who had first-hand knowledge) agree on: Bush's
superior officers were aware that Bush was performing unsatisfactorily
and they were being pressured to let Bush slide through and were
expected to falsify Bush's records.
The real questions then come up after that sinks in:
Why were they being pressured? Why was Lt. Colonel Staudt pressuring
them?
What do we know for sure, what ISN'T being disputed about Bush's time
in the TANG?
When Bush was sworn into TANG in 1968, Staudt (Bush's unit commander)
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=861
This was during the trial for the Watergate plumbers – Deep Throat had
just told Woodward that "lives were in danger."
Staudt retired around 1972 with the rank of Brigadier General. That's
a hefty promotion (2 grades) in such a short time. It's not unheard
of, but it is unusual. It's more likely to happen during wartime, on
the battlefield. Google Staudt - what he was doing right after he
left the Guard raises an eyebrow:
"NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Walter B. Staudt is Executive Director of the Neighborhood Development
Program, which is In the process of completing a huge drainage project
for the western part of Beeville during the latter part of May this
year (1973). Forty-two city blocks of property are being drained with
storm sewers during heavy rains under this project, and the streets
will be paved after the sewer pipes have been laid.
The NDP also has started building and repairing houses in a plan to
eliminate shacks from the area. One new residence has been completed
and six others have been started at the time of this writing.
This is a Federal Agency, and the total expenditure on the drainage,
paving, and housing program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973,
is $1,250,000."
This, and a whole lot more. Read all about it at:
http://www.beeville.net/TheHistoricalStoryofBeeCountyTexas/Chapter16.htm
So, immediately after leaving the Guard, Buck Staudt was running a
company that was receiving federal funds to develop an oil and gas
town in Texas.
Was Bucky Staudt laying a retirement nest egg by saving politicians'
sons from having to go to Viet Nam, letting them hide out in his
"Champagne Unit," in exchange for federal funding contracts?
Why else would he be so excited to have Congressman Bush's son in his
unit? This wasn't a rock star. Did he stage redundant swearing in
ceremonies for all of his VIPs' sons? Staudt didn't take in these
VIPs sons, save their asses from having to go to Viet Nam, for
nothing.
Can somebody explain to me HOW:
Within a year of retirement, a man (Colonel/Brigadier General Walter
B. Staudt) who spent his entire career in the military (flying
planes), lands contracts for federal funds to develop the
infrastructure of an oil and gas town in Texas?
It simply doesn't compute.
Mark S. Holden
>
> "Dave Simpson" <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:23e7f86e.0409...@posting.google.com...
> > Barney Lyon wrote:
> >
> > > It doesn't matter if the memos were forged or not.
> >
> > Not to crooks and scum and their fellow-traveler lefties, but to
> > people of quality, it matters greatly and is the heart of the issue
> > now.
> >
> >
> > > It's what's IN the memos that's the issue
> >
> > Do you expect to be taken seriously when referring to FAKE memos
> > that way?
>
> That's where you have the cognitive disconnect. "Forged" does not equate to
> "false". The authenticity, or lack thereof, of a document has no bearing on
> the accuracy of its content.
>
> I'd like to know why the originals were destroyed.
>
> --
Burkett basically said he destroyed the "original" documents he got to protect his source.
Byron Canfield
news:41503322...@bmas.org...
No, I don't mean the "originals" Burkett got -- the originals (probably in
triplicate) in the original files. Why did the government destroy records?
John Tibbs
>
> confirmed. But what hasn't happened, what the GOP is desperate to
> conceal and obscure is something else.
Nothing of the sort has been confirmed!
--
*******************************************
If you want inconsistancies,
forged documents,
empty promises,
Dead people voting,
loud oratory,
subservience to the UN,
cops instead of the Army
chasing Al Qaeda then:
Vote Democrat.
If you like consistency and someone
who puts country first over politics,
Vote Republican.
jt
John Tibbs
Let's not forget Joe Lockhart, devoted Clintonista!
Mark S. Holden
They're forgeries.
Nobody has positively identified a typewriter that could type those documents - people have speculated certain ones could, but nobody has been able to prove a typewriter existed with all those capabilities.
And they won't. The documents used kerned text. Kerning is much more complicated than proportional spacing - with some letter pairs, parts of two letters can be sharing the same vertical space. (For example with Fr, the top right of the letter F can be
above the vertical line of the r. So the letter r is actually tucked under the F. )
I doubt they were done in triplicate, but perhaps "Lucy Ramirez" (The person Bill Burkett says he got them from) can print out a fresh original for you if you can track her down.
vonroach
> you need to catch up, the UN
>just announced the Iraq war is Illegal. Go back to sleep.
No I'll let Kofi Annan and his band of thieves snooze on at the UN,
the most useless bureaucracy on earth.
vonroach
<point...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Have you ever delved into Kerry's reserve service record after his
>> brief visit to Vietnam?
>
>You are on the wrong path, roach-boy. Cosmo is a solid veteran and doesn't
>spout bullshit. Your condescending attitude is noted.
Then he surely must know that Kerry went into the gutter riot business
after his 3 month tour, threw `his medals' away, and turned on the US
Armed Forces. He never bothered to show up for his obligated duty in
reserves.
vonroach
Washington Hayduke) wrote:
>Eye witnesses
Sorry old timer, there weren't any. Burkett has admitted participating
in a hoax executed by Kerry, democrats, Viacom (CBS) and Rather the
reader. The cover-up began when they tumbled to the fact that they
had committed a felony in Texas. Forgery of government documents is a
felony in Texas.
vonroach
<barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
> "Forged"
BC, what part of the word `forged' don't you understand?
vonroach
wrote:
>If the memos existed in limbo, without any human eyewitnesses to
>confirm or deny what's in them, you would have a point. But there
>are, at minimum FOUR people who were in a position to know, and they
>all say the same thing
Yes they all maintain that they are fakes, forgeries, and untrue.
Steve
You are following a red herring.
The authenticity of the documents is not important.
The character of G W Bush is.
His actions then and now suggest it s severely lacking.
Remember this man is responsible for the well being and security
of the US and the rest of the world.
He has his finger on real nuclear weapons and WMD.
Imagine if he had been President at the time of the Cuba Crisis.
Not a happy thought !!
If you want an informed article from a relatively politically neutral
source go to
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-AIRPAPER-357916.php
Copied here in the public interest:
Issue Date: September 27, 2004
Bush's Air Guard stint started well, then faded into mystery
By William H. McMichael
Times Staff Writer
John F. Kerry's service in Vietnam and his postwar testimonials have
been targeted all summer by Republican-funded critics and veterans
groups — so much so that for several months they have obscured George
W. Bush's much-criticized Vietnam-era service in the National Guard. A
renewed interest in Bush's service raised by a critical CBS News
report exploded in controversy over whether some recently unearthed
Bush documents were actually forgeries.
From most accounts, Bush appears to have received preferential
treatment to get into the Air National Guard and avoid the draft after
he graduated from Yale University in 1968. He was initially regarded
as a good pilot, but his performance faded over his final two years in
the Guard and he was suspended from flight status. He did not fly for
the remaining 18 months he served in the Guard, though he was
obligated to do so.
And for significant chunks of time, Bush did not report for duty at
all. His superiors took no action, and he was honorably discharged in
1973, six months before he should have been.
In a 202 interview with USA Today, Dean Roome, a former fighter pilot
who lived with Bush in the early 1970s, said Bush was a model officer
during the first part of his career. But overall, he said, Bush's Air
Guard career was erratic — the first three years solid, the last two
troubled.
"You wonder if you know who George Bush is," Roome said. "I think he
digressed after a while. In the first half, he was gung-ho. Where
George failed was to fulfill his obligation as a pilot. It was an
irrational time in his life."
Awaiting the draft
In June 1968, with his student deferment ready to expire when he
graduated from Yale, Bush faced the draft, just like hundreds of
thousands of other young Americans. The controversial Vietnam War was
raging, and draftees often ended up in Vietnam's jungles. Thirty-eight
percent of the 1.73 million men drafted between 1965 and 1973 served
in Vietnam, and draftees accounted for 30.4 percent of the war's
58,245 combat deaths.
Bush did not get drafted. Instead, two weeks before graduation, he
joined the Texas Air National Guard — a so-called "champagne unit"
that included other sons of rich and influential Texans. He signed up
for a six-year term. There was a waiting list, as was the case at most
Guard and Reserve units throughout the country, because such service
was generally considered a likely way to avoid combat (5,977
reservists and 101 guardsmen died in Vietnam). But according to one
highly visible source, Bush didn't have to wait.
Former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes told the CBS program "60 Minutes" on
Sept. 8 that he'd used his political influence to jump the young Bush
ahead of "hundreds" of others to get the Guard slot. He'd first said
this publicly after testifying in a 1999 federal court deposition,
saying he'd done the favor at the request of a Bush family friend. At
the time Bush joined the Air Guard, his father, George H.W. Bush, was
serving his first term as a congressman from Texas.
"I would describe it as preferential treatment," Barnes, a Democrat
who is supporting Kerry's presidential bid, told CBS.
For its part, the Bush campaign stands behind the president's service.
"The president's proud of his service," said Reed Dickins, a Bush
campaign spokesman. "The president served honorably, similarly to the
thousands of National Guard (members) that are serving our country
today. The attacks on this president's service have been purely
political."
It may be difficult for younger readers to understand the volatility
of this issue during the Vietnam era, particularly given the extensive
involvement of today's Guard and reserve in Iraq. Secretary of State
Colin Powell's 1995 book "My American Journey" put it eloquently:
"The policies — determining who would be drafted and who would be
deferred, who would serve and who would escape, who would die and who
would live — were an antidemocratic disgrace," Powell wrote. "I am
angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well placed …
managed to wangle slots in reserve and National Guard units. Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as
the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
‘Combat ready'
Bush graduated from flight school in 1969, was certified July 9, 1970,
as "combat ready" in the F-102, and began winning praise for his
flight and leadership skills. On his April 30, 1971, fitness report,
covering 166 active-duty days over a period of 17 months, he earned
high marks.
"Lt. Bush is an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot," wrote his
commanding officer in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in
Houston, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. Bush "performed in an outstanding
manner … a natural leader."
But from there, Bush's performance slipped. The descent began when
Bush apparently did not follow an order to report for his annual
flight physical in May 1972, which got him grounded.
The grounding was noted in one of the four documents unveiled by CBS —
which were given to the White House, which released them to the rest
of the media. It appears to be an order signed by Killian suspending
Bush from flight status "due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG
standards and failure to meet annual physical examination (flight) as
ordered."
Handwriting experts hired by many media organizations as well as other
critics contend the document, and possibly all four, are forgeries.
However, Killian's order is confirmed by two documents that were not
part of the CBS papers. The first is a White House-released letter
from the commander of the 147th Fighter Group, Col. Bobby W. Hodges,
to its Texas higher command dated Sept. 5, 1972, with a subject line
of "Suspension From Flying Status."
The letter documents the missed flight physical and the suspension,
"effective 1 Aug 1972." A Sept. 29 order from the National Guard
Bureau further confirms the missed physical and the suspension.
On May 26, 1972, Bush asked in writing for reassignment to an Air
Reserve squadron in Alabama so he could work on the U.S. Senate
campaign of Republican Winton "Red" Blount, a close friend of his
influential father. That was rejected because Bush was obligated to
serve as a Ready Reservist until May 26, 1974, and was ineligible for
assignment to the Air Reserve. About three months later, on Sept. 5,
Bush asked to perform "equivalent duty" with the Alabama unit from
September to November. Killian approved the request a day later. The
orders went through on Sept. 15, and while Bush had missed the Sept.
9-10 unit training assembly, the document noted he could make the next
two. Bush's Officer Military Record shows an Oct. 1, 1973, discharge
from the Texas Air National Guard and transfer to the Alabama unit.
Another White House-released document shows a total of 56 points Bush
apparently earned during this 12-month period, but it's awarded in one
lump sum rather than credited for each training period. But this
document also contains an error, listing Bush's status as "PLT On-Fly"
— meaning he was on flight status — when he had not been for a year.
This, said retired Army Lt. Col. Gerald A. Lechliter, who has done an
in-depth analysis of Bush's pay records
(www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf), makes the form's
authenticity suspect.
There's also the record of a Jan. 6, 1973, dental exam performed on
Bush at Dannelly Air National Guard Base, Ala. There's nothing that
documents why Bush, who reportedly returned to Texas after the
election, didn't get this work done closer to home.
Bush's attendance and participation in weekend drills had been
meticulously recorded up through May 1972. But other than the points
record and the dental exam record, the year following Bush's request
for reassignment to Alabama is a blank.
In a fitness report supplement released by the White House this year,
an administrative officer wrote, "Not rated for the period 1 May 72
through 30 Apr 73. Report for this period not available for
administrative reasons."
In the remarks section, Killian wrote that Bush "has not been observed
at this unit during the period of report. … He cleared this base on 15
May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying
status" with the Alabama unit. Bush, however, was only authorized to
be gone from September to November.
‘Don't remember seeing you'
The same day Barnes spoke with CBS, a new pro-Kerry group, Texans for
Truth, announced it was launching a TV ad campaign that would attack
Bush for failing to perform his duties while temporarily assigned to
the Alabama unit. While it wasn't a new accusation, the ad featured a
member of that unit who said he'd never met the future president.
"I heard George Bush get up and say, ‘I served in the 187th Air
National Guard in Montgomery, Alabama,'" retired Lt. Col. Robert Mintz
said on camera. "Really? That was my unit. And I don't remember seeing
you there. …"
On Sept. 5, Bush formally asked Killian for a discharge from the Texas
unit so he could attend Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Mass.
Two weeks later, Hodges approved the request and honorably discharged
Bush, administratively transferring him to Headquarters, Air Reserve
Personnel Center in Denver.
Two months earlier, on June 30, Bush signed a statement promising that
if he left his Texas Ready Reserve unit, "it is my responsibility to
locate and be assigned to another Reserve Forces unit or mobilization
augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary
order to active duty for up to 24 months."
There is no record of Bush ever having signed on with a Massachusetts
Reserve unit. In 1999, Dan Bartlett, working for the Bush campaign,
told The Washington Post that Bush had completed his six-year
commitment with a Boston unit. That didn't happen, Bartlett recently
told The Boston Globe. "I must have misspoke," he said. The following
March, Bush was redesignated as an "executive support officer." In
May, he was placed on inactive status. On Nov. 21 — apparently at
Bush's written request, according to an undated letter sent from
Massachusetts and released by the White House in which he requests "to
discharge from the standby reserve" — he received an honorable
discharge "from all appointments in the United States Air Force."
Documents in question
The renewed examination of the Bush record, however, has been somewhat
obscured by the explosion of media interest in the documents CBS
displayed on the same program featuring Barnes.
In a matter of minutes, Internet "bloggers" were raising questions
about the authenticity of the documents, claiming that that era's
typewriters could not have produced some of the typographical elements
in the memos and that they were computer-generated forgeries. They
also said that Killian's signature was either forged or copied from
actual documents.
Killian's former secretary, Marian Carr Knox, 86, of Houston, has said
she believed the memos were fake but their content accurately
reflected Killian's opinions.
"I know that I didn't type them," she said in an interview with CBS.
"However, the information in those is correct."
As of Sept. 16, CBS continued to stand by its reporting.
End
Stevel
jovo
Bob LeChevalier
We're still waiting for the cite on those Kerry logs, liar.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Byron Canfield
No, as I said before, I'm not talking about Burkett's documents. I'm talking
about the documents that were originally created by the government at the
time of Bush's service -- THE originals, that could prove or disprove the
veracity of the statements in the allegedly forged documents. Why were THEY
destroyed -- THE originals?
Steveo
Wrong.
www.warblogging.com/archives/000921.php
"I did not type these particular memos. I typed memos like these. I
typed memos that had this information in them, but I did not type these
memos."
vonroach
>You are following a red herring.
>The authenticity of the documents is not important.
Say if you got a minute, let me get you to cash this check for me.
Bwahahahah
vonroach
<barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>No, as I said before, I'm not talking about Burkett's documents. I'm talking
>about the documents that were originally created by the government at the
>time of Bush's service
Gee Byron were they forging documents way back then?
Sparky
and they were an obvious plant. The Repugs play very dirty.
LeMod Pol
Barney Lyon wrote:
> It doesn't matter if the memos were forged or not.
> It's what's IN the memos that's the issue, and what's in them has been
> confirmed. But what hasn't happened, what the GOP is desperate to
> conceal and obscure is something else.
You have no idea of what the "point" or issue is nor is
any part of your long rant based in reality.
> What's new about these memos, forged or not, is that they state that
> Bush's superior officers were aware that Bush was performing
> unsatisfactorily, that they were being pressured to let Bush slide
> through and that they were expected to falsify Bush's records.
How can you say the "forged or not", and then claim
that the "contents are still true"? That is like
saying the serial numbers on a forged $100 bill are
still valid.
The contents were never true and I defy you to prove otherwise.
You may wish they are true, but unless you are smoking
funny stuff, you have to face reality. Those docs are
as fictitious as Mark Twain's or Kitty Kelley's books
or Superman comics.
--
LP
FLASH: Nov. 3, 2004 - Fugitive broadcast Newsman Dan
Rather has surfaced in Rio where he will become the
C-BS correspondent until his contract expires in 2006.
John Tibbs
"Sparky" <ne...@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
news:v6B4d.2801$6X1.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> What's all the fuss over the documents? No one questions the *content*
> and they were an obvious plant. The Repugs play very dirty.
Yeah, that Dan Rather and Mary Mapes and Joe Lockhart and Max Cleleand
really are the Republicans behind the "fake it if you don't have it" News(?)
network.
vonroach
>What's all the fuss over the documents? No one questions the *content*
>and they were an obvious plant. The Repugs play very dirty.
Rather and his fellow democrats at CBS lied and said they were not
forgeries. They lied. The documents were phony and Rather carries on
as a known damn liar.
vonroach
wrote:
>
>"Sparky" <ne...@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
>news:v6B4d.2801$6X1.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>> What's all the fuss over the documents? No one questions the *content*
>> and they were an obvious plant. The Repugs play very dirty.
>
>Yeah, that Dan Rather and Mary Mapes and Joe Lockhart and Max Cleleand
>really are the Republicans behind the "fake it if you don't have it" News(?)
>network.
Don't forget old Ichabod Burkett the phony `sage' of Abilene.
False Document
news:ufk6l09h6cdibvo83...@4ax.com:
Hey - what's good for the goose and all. Smear Vets lied and Dan Rather
lied. So what's that? 200 to 1?
--
Bush/Cheney '04
Vote For Us or Die!
.impervious
vonroach attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:
in other news, Bush and his fellow neoconservatives at the White House
lied and said that there were WMD in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein was
an imminent threat. they lied. the WMD were not there, and Saddam
presented no threat, and Bush carries on as a known damn liar.
--
"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans -- unless they
have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be
too much of a good thing."
-- Karl Rove
LeMod Pol
Barney Lyon wrote:
> It doesn't matter if the memos were forged or not.
> It's what's IN the memos that's the issue, and what's in them has been
Byron Canfield
news:415408C8...@igs.net...
Not at all. It is like saying that the likeness of the president is accurate
on a forged bill. Yes, the bill is forged, but it has nothing to do with how
accurately the content is forged.
>
> The contents were never true and I defy you to prove otherwise.
The content has already been admitted as true by those who generated the
originals and who decried the documents as forged, your defiance
notwithstanding.
John Tibbs
"False Document" <bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns956DC01022BFAbi...@130.133.1.4...
Not even Kerry has directly called the SBVets liars. Where do you get off
doing it?
John Tibbs
".impervious" <thats***disgu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aJ4d.12099$464.11109@trnddc01...
> In news:ufk6l09h6cdibvo83...@4ax.com,
> vonroach attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:
>
> : On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:30:51 GMT, Sparky <ne...@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
> :
> :: What's all the fuss over the documents? No one questions the
> :: *content* and they were an obvious plant. The Repugs play very dirty.
> : Rather and his fellow democrats at CBS lied and said they were not
> : forgeries. They lied. The documents were phony and Rather carries on
> : as a known damn liar.
>
> in other news, Bush and his fellow neoconservatives at the White House
> lied and said that there were WMD in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein was
> an imminent threat. they lied. the WMD were not there, and Saddam
> presented no threat, and Bush carries on as a known damn liar.
I smell a Bush landslide!
John Tibbs
I think he is just being used as a stooge and the 'docs' were faked at
DNC/CBS!
John Tibbs
"Byron Canfield" <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message
news:JPX4d.251420$Fg5.237488@attbi_s53...
If you know who 'generated' the original that is an undisclosed location
please let us in on it. Even CBS perps claim they don't know.
False Document
news:DA_4d.361$Ki1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> "False Document" <bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns956DC01022BFAbi...@130.133.1.4...
>> vonroach <hadr...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:ufk6l09h6cdibvo83...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:30:51 GMT, Sparky <ne...@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >>What's all the fuss over the documents? No one questions the
>> >>*content* and they were an obvious plant. The Repugs play very
>> >>dirty.
>> > Rather and his fellow democrats at CBS lied and said they were not
>> > forgeries. They lied. The documents were phony and Rather carries
>> > on as a known damn liar.
>> >
>>
>> Hey - what's good for the goose and all. Smear Vets lied and Dan
>> Rather lied. So what's that? 200 to 1?
>
> Not even Kerry has directly called the SBVets liars. Where do you get
> off doing it?
> --
Well let's see. Official military documents show that the vast majority
of them were not in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry but they go on TV
and say "I served with John Kerry." That's a lie so they are liars. And
then there is Van Odell, who received a bronze star for the same incident
that John Kerry received a bronze star. Odell's citation refers to "enemy
fire" but Odell claims that there was no enemy fire the day Kerry earned
his bronze star. But Odell's bronze star citation for the same incident
says "enemy fire." Odell has not returned his bronze star and he has not
so much as repudiated the citation he received with it. So either he is a
liar when he says there was no enemy fire or he is a liar when he does
not return his ill-booten gotty. And of course John O'Neill, the ring
leader, claims to have served with Kerry, claims to have seen Kerry "in
action" yet John O'Neill did not report for duty in Vietnam until April
of 1969 - Kerry went off active duty in March of 1969 and left the
country before O'Neill arrived. So O'Neill is not only an abject liar but
he's been lying for 30 years.
Shall I go on?
Mark S. Holden
Van Odell didn't get a bronze star for the incident Kerry got his in.
False Document
I'm sorry - I mixed up Van Odell and Larry Thurlow. It's hard to keep so
many liars straight. Odell was there on March 13, 1969 too - he just
didn't get a Bronze Star. Funny that Odell has said Thurlow's Bronze Star
was "richly deserved" but then claims that the citation mentioning "enemy
small arms and automatic weapons fire" was "penned by John Kerry." If
Kerry's "spot report" for that action was fraudulent, then it was
fraudulent for *all* the men who received citations. So how can Thurlow
"richly deserve" his Bronze Star while Kerry's is fraudulent?
So both Thurlow and Odell are liars. Thank you for helping set that
straight.
vonroach
wrote:
>
>"False Document" <bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns956DC01022BFAbi...@130.133.1.4...
>> vonroach <hadr...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:ufk6l09h6cdibvo83...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:30:51 GMT, Sparky <ne...@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >>What's all the fuss over the documents? No one questions the *content*
>> >>and they were an obvious plant. The Repugs play very dirty.
>> > Rather and his fellow democrats at CBS lied and said they were not
>> > forgeries. They lied. The documents were phony and Rather carries on
>> > as a known damn liar.
>> >
>>
>> Hey - what's good for the goose and all. Smear Vets lied and Dan Rather
>> lied. So what's that? 200 to 1?
>
>Not even Kerry has directly called the SBVets liars. Where do you get off
>doing it?
Note well: Kerry's own biographer (Tour of Duty) has recently admitted
his service was not particularly `heroic'. His post war anti-military
activities are well known . Actual pictures of the street riots, the
medals episode, the meeting with the Cong in Paris are available from
many sources.
George Bush's recruiting officer has written just today, that
admission to Texas air guard was very selective. Further, they wanted
the very best trainees that they could get. He rates George Bush as
among his top five jet pilots. The group flew daily missions over the
Gulf of Mexico during the cold war. He did not participate in street
riots against the armed services. That is a crucial difference.
vonroach
<bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well let's see. Official military documents show that the vast majority
>of them were not in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry but they go on TV
>and say "I served with John Kerry." That's a lie so they are liars
They actually did serve at exactly the same time, so this makes you a
liar and democrat tool. But you seem to look the other way on the
real criticism of Kerry which was his loud and repeated false charges
against his fellow servicemen when he returned from a brief tour.
They want an apology for his lies and they should get one.
vonroach
<thats***disgu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In news:ufk6l09h6cdibvo83...@4ax.com,
>vonroach attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:
>
>: On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:30:51 GMT, Sparky <ne...@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
>:
>:: What's all the fuss over the documents? No one questions the
>:: *content* and they were an obvious plant. The Repugs play very dirty.
>: Rather and his fellow democrats at CBS lied and said they were not
>: forgeries. They lied. The documents were phony and Rather carries on
>: as a known damn liar.
>
>in other news, Bush and his fellow neoconservatives at the White House
>lied and said that there were WMD in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein was
>an imminent threat. they lied. the WMD were not there, and Saddam
>presented no threat, and Bush carries on as a known damn liar.
And now it is revealed that Kerry said the same thing on Crossfire in
1998 and Rep King of NY has the tape. Kerry's position was that Sadaam
was a threat and since the UN or Sadaam's business partners in France
would act, that a pre-emptive strike by the US was needed. This was
almost exactly what the Bush team and Congress agreed upon before the
swift, successful overthrow of Sadaam. And Kerry says it was a
mistake, making him and you damn liars and hypocrites.
vonroach
wrote:
>
>"vonroach" <hadr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:2nk6l0ddpa80ee4to...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:38:58 GMT, "John Tibbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Sparky" <ne...@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:v6B4d.2801$6X1.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>> >> What's all the fuss over the documents? No one questions the *content*
>> >> and they were an obvious plant. The Repugs play very dirty.
>> >
>> >Yeah, that Dan Rather and Mary Mapes and Joe Lockhart and Max Cleleand
>> >really are the Republicans behind the "fake it if you don't have it"
>News(?)
>> >network.
>> Don't forget old Ichabod Burkett the phony `sage' of Abilene.
>
>I think he is just being used as a stooge and the 'docs' were faked at
>DNC/CBS!
And passed to him by a DNC operative that he says he can't identify.
Mapes and Rather are a disgrace to TV journalism. The bumpkin from
Abilene now contradicts Joe Lockhart of the Clinton camp and lately of
Kerry campaign. He says Lockhart was very interested in the documents
and wanted them turned over to the Kerry campaign (there they could be
used and then destroyed). This is a felony and a mess.
vonroach
>How can you say the "forged or not", and then claim
>that the "contents are still true"?
The `documents' were forged, a felony. There is not a word of truth in
them. Their allegations are phony lies in toto.
vonroach
<barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>> The contents were never true and I defy you to prove otherwise.
>
>The content has already been admitted as true by those who generated the
>originals and who decried the documents as forged, your defiance
>notwithstanding.
That is the standard democrat lie and you are a typical democrat liar.
His commander has said George Bush was among the top five jet pilots
under his command. Your democrat lies have been tried before by Ma
Richards Texas democrat demagog. It was a lie then and it is a lie
now.
vonroach
wrote:
>If you know who 'generated' the original that is an undisclosed location
>please let us in on it. Even CBS perps claim they don't know.
CBS included forged documents and called it news. You imply that they
did not even know who forged them. What a credible source...you are a
moronic nitwit.
vonroach
wrote:
>Van Odell didn't get a bronze star for the incident Kerry got his in.
Kerry himself made the recommendation, gee whiz I wonder what he
thought he did to earn a medal.
vonroach
<bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>So both Thurlow and Odell are liars. Thank you for helping set that
>straight.
Not so. Kerry is the liar, as his fellow servicemen point out.
Mark S. Holden
> "Mark S. Holden" <ma...@bmas.org> wrote in
<snip>
>>
>>Van Odell didn't get a bronze star for the incident Kerry got his in.
>>
>
>
> I'm sorry - I mixed up Van Odell and Larry Thurlow. It's hard to keep so
> many liars straight. Odell was there on March 13, 1969 too - he just
> didn't get a Bronze Star. Funny that Odell has said Thurlow's Bronze Star
> was "richly deserved" but then claims that the citation mentioning "enemy
> small arms and automatic weapons fire" was "penned by John Kerry." If
> Kerry's "spot report" for that action was fraudulent, then it was
> fraudulent for *all* the men who received citations. So how can Thurlow
> "richly deserve" his Bronze Star while Kerry's is fraudulent?
>
> So both Thurlow and Odell are liars. Thank you for helping set that
> straight.
>
Here's a clip from the Washington Post with Thurlow's response when read
the citation for his Bronze Star:
<"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case,"
<Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze
<Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for
<coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on
<anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."
<Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under
<enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't
<under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the
<source of at least some of the language used in the citation.
Here's a more detailed response he issued later:
<I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star
<was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely
<described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms
<fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.
<To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other
<accounts from my shipmates — there was no hostile enemy fire directed
<at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.
<I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action
<report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the
<only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents
<that occurred on the river that day.
<It was not until I had left the Navy — approximately three months after
<I left the service — that I was notified that I was to receive a
<citation for my actions on that day.
<I believed then as I believe now that I received my Bronze Star for my
<efforts to rescue the injured crewmen from swift boat number three and
<to conduct damage control to prevent that boat from sinking. My boat
<and several other swift boats went to the aid of our fellow swift boat
<sailors whose craft was adrift and taking on water. We provided
<immediate rescue and damage control to prevent boat three from sinking
<and to offer immediate protection and comfort to the injured crew.
<After the mine exploded, leaving swift boat three dead in the water,
<John Kerry's boat, which was on the opposite side of the river, fled
<the scene. US Army Special Forces officer Jim Rassmann, who was on
<Kerry's boat at the time, fell off the boat and into the water. Kerry's
<boat returned several minutes later — under no hail of enemy gunfire —
<to retrieve Rassmann from the river only seconds before another boat
<was going to pick him up.
<Kerry campaign spokespersons have conflicting accounts of this incident
<— the latest one being that Kerry's boat did leave but only briefly and
<returned under withering enemy fire to rescue Mr. Rassmann. However,
<none of the other boats on the river that day reported enemy fire nor
<was anyone wounded by small arms action. The only damage on that day
<was done to boat three — a result of the underwater mine. None of the
<other swift boats received damage from enemy gunfire.
<And in a new development, Kerry campaign officials are now finally
<acknowledging that while Kerry's boat left the scene, none of the other
<boats on the river ever left the damaged swift boat. This is a direct
<contradiction to previous accounts made by Jim Rassmann in the
<Oregonian newspaper and a direct contradiction to the "No Man Left
<Behind" theme during the Democratic National Convention.
<These ever changing accounts of the Bay Hap River incident by Kerry
<campaign officials leave me asking one question. If no one ever left
<the scene of the Bay Hap River incident, how could anyone be left <behind?
But what I'm wondering is why you decided to revive a an old story that
didn't make your guy look good the first time it was around.
It's not even like you rememebred it very well.
Bob LeChevalier
We're still waiting for the cite on Kerry's journals. Or are you
willing to admit that YOU are the liar?
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
vonroach
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>We're still waiting for the cite on Kerry's journals. Or are you
>willing to admit that YOU are the liar?
I take it you never read the book. The author now admits that Kerry
was no hero. You french clowns always like a heroic pose as in
Nepoleon's heroic Russian campaign.
John Tibbs
Don't forget the man (Ben Barnes) who claimed as LT Guv he got Bush
preferential treatment wasn't even Lt Guv at the time. Magic in retro?
John Tibbs
I said that CBS "Claim" they don't know. I didn't say they didn't know. I
think they do know.
"Claim" see?
John Tibbs
> "John Tibbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:DA_4d.361$Ki1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> >
> > "False Document" <bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns956DC01022BFAbi...@130.133.1.4...
> >> vonroach <hadr...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> >> news:ufk6l09h6cdibvo83...@4ax.com:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:30:51 GMT, Sparky <ne...@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>What's all the fuss over the documents? No one questions the
> >> >>*content* and they were an obvious plant. The Repugs play very
> >> >>dirty.
> >> > Rather and his fellow democrats at CBS lied and said they were not
> >> > forgeries. They lied. The documents were phony and Rather carries
> >> > on as a known damn liar.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hey - what's good for the goose and all. Smear Vets lied and Dan
> >> Rather lied. So what's that? 200 to 1?
> >
> > Not even Kerry has directly called the SBVets liars. Where do you get
> > off doing it?
> > --
>
> Well let's see. Official military documents show that the vast majority
> of them were not in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry but they go on TV
> and say "I served with John Kerry."
No, they don't claim to have served on the same boat or even beside his
boat, except for the ones who actually did. Yet Kerry, when before the
Senate, claimed he witnessed them doing atrocities.
That's a lie so they are liars. And
> then there is Van Odell, who received a bronze star for the same incident
> that John Kerry received a bronze star. Odell's citation refers to "enemy
> fire" but Odell claims that there was no enemy fire the day Kerry earned
> his bronze star. But Odell's bronze star citation for the same incident
> says "enemy fire."
It was determined there was no 'enemy' fire but some thought there was.
Odell has not returned his bronze star and he has not
> so much as repudiated the citation he received with it. So either he is a
> liar when he says there was no enemy fire or he is a liar when he does
> not return his ill-booten gotty.
Not necessarily.
And of course John O'Neill, the ring
> leader, claims to have served with Kerry, claims to have seen Kerry "in
> action" yet John O'Neill did not report for duty in Vietnam until April
> of 1969 - Kerry went off active duty in March of 1969 and left the
> country before O'Neill arrived. So O'Neill is not only an abject liar but
> he's been lying for 30 years.
>
> Shall I go on?
O'neill claims to have relieved Kerry! It was a gunner who solidly disputes
Kerry on that occasion.
--
*******************************************
If you want inconsistancies,
forged documents,
empty promises,
Dead people voting,
loud oratory,
subservience to the UN,
cops instead of the Army
chasing Al Qaeda then:
Vote Democrat.
If you like consistency and someone
who puts country first over politics,
Vote Republican.
jt
>
>
John Tibbs
Nope! It just means Kerry is the liar!
John Tibbs
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:q58al05b3tfscls3c...@4ax.com...
> vonroach <hadr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On 24 Sep 2004 20:38:46 GMT, False Document
> ><bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>So both Thurlow and Odell are liars. Thank you for helping set that
> >>straight.
> >
> >Not so. Kerry is the liar, as his fellow servicemen point out.
>
> We're still waiting for the cite on Kerry's journals. Or are you
> willing to admit that YOU are the liar?
If Kerry was as open with his records as Bush is it would solve a lot of
questions! Sign the 180, Kerry!
John Tibbs
LeChevalier is probably a made up name. You know how the bragging snob
liberals love French words and names.
John Tibbs
lengths to fake news to harm a Republican president!
False Document
You're funny. The bottom line is that either they both deserve the bronze
star or they both don't. Your quotes from Thurlow just prove that he's a
liar. He should return his medal or shut up.
False Document
news:b0f9l099jfi4s4c1k...@4ax.com:
You cannot recommend yourself for a bronze star. BTW, Larry Thurlow,
another smear boat liar, did get a bronze star for that action. But he has
not repudiated his own - just Kerry's.
False Document
news:d4f9l0906vq00ntn0...@4ax.com:
You mean the ones who are proven liars themselves? The ones who claim they
were there when they weren't? Or the ones who also received medals that
they somehow mysteriously earned when Kerry didn't earn his?
False Document
news:nroal0dpepbe0tu2v...@4ax.com:
We notice you failed to answer his challenge. Name calling is always the
last, best resort of a liar.
False Document
>
> "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> news:q58al05b3tfscls3c...@4ax.com...
>> vonroach <hadr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >On 24 Sep 2004 20:38:46 GMT, False Document
>> ><bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>So both Thurlow and Odell are liars. Thank you for helping set that
>> >>straight.
>> >
>> >Not so. Kerry is the liar, as his fellow servicemen point out.
>>
>> We're still waiting for the cite on Kerry's journals. Or are you
>> willing to admit that YOU are the liar?
>
> If Kerry was as open with his records as Bush is it would solve a lot
> of questions! Sign the 180, Kerry!
> --
Where are those Bush records?
False Document
news:76c9l0t9ff1rce27n...@4ax.com:
> On 24 Sep 2004 19:46:17 GMT, False Document
> <bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Well let's see. Official military documents show that the vast majority
>>of them were not in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry but they go on TV
>>and say "I served with John Kerry." That's a lie so they are liars
>
> They actually did serve at exactly the same time, so this makes you a
> liar and democrat tool.
John O'Neill did not report to Vietnam until mid-April 1969. Kerry left
Vietnam the first week of April. They were never in Vietnam at the same
time.
False Document
news:gcc9l014e2ipibrlu...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:40:48 GMT, ".impervious"
> <thats***disgu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:ufk6l09h6cdibvo83...@4ax.com,
>>vonroach attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:
>>
>>: On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:30:51 GMT, Sparky <ne...@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
>>:
>>:: What's all the fuss over the documents? No one questions the
>>:: *content* and they were an obvious plant. The Repugs play very
>>:: dirty.
>>: Rather and his fellow democrats at CBS lied and said they were not
>>: forgeries. They lied. The documents were phony and Rather carries on
>>: as a known damn liar.
>>
>>in other news, Bush and his fellow neoconservatives at the White House
>>lied and said that there were WMD in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein was
>>an imminent threat. they lied. the WMD were not there, and Saddam
>>presented no threat, and Bush carries on as a known damn liar.
>
> And now it is revealed that Kerry said the same thing on Crossfire in
> 1998
Before Desert Fox. Why don't you dig up some of George HW Bush's quotes
about Muomar Khaddaffi from say 1984? Then let's see if we can reconcile
George W. Bush's embrace of that ruthless dictator and foremost sponsor
of international terrorism.
False Document
Over 200 of the smeat boat liars who have publicly stated that they saw
Kerry in Vietnam were not in Vietnam when Kerry was. John O'Neill did not
arrive in Vietnam until one week after Kerry left. Deal with it.
Oh, BTW, did Kerry name the soldiers and sailors he saw doing atrocities?
If so, please produce the list of names and we can then verify whether or
not he served in Vietnam at the same time they did. If he did not name
anyone other than himself, shut up and stop lying.
> That's a lie so they are liars. And
>> then there is Van Odell, who received a bronze star for the same
>> incident that John Kerry received a bronze star. Odell's citation
>> refers to "enemy fire" but Odell claims that there was no enemy fire
>> the day Kerry earned his bronze star. But Odell's bronze star
>> citation for the same incident says "enemy fire."
>
> It was determined there was no 'enemy' fire but some thought there
> was.
>
I said Odell above but it was Thurlow. Thurlow's citation says "enemy
fire." Thurlow thinks Kerry wrote that but he has no actual evidence of
this. Either way, Thurlow has not returned his unearned bronze star.
Either there was enemy fire and both men earned Bronze stars or there was
no enemy fire and neither man deserves his bronze star. Well, of couse in
republican america this is not necessary since double standards are the
rule.
> Odell has not returned his bronze star and he has not
>> so much as repudiated the citation he received with it. So either he
>> is a liar when he says there was no enemy fire or he is a liar when
>> he does not return his ill-booten gotty.
>
> Not necessarily.
>
Not necessarily what?
> And of course John O'Neill, the ring
>> leader, claims to have served with Kerry, claims to have seen Kerry
>> "in action" yet John O'Neill did not report for duty in Vietnam until
>> April of 1969 - Kerry went off active duty in March of 1969 and left
>> the country before O'Neill arrived. So O'Neill is not only an abject
>> liar but he's been lying for 30 years.
>>
>> Shall I go on?
>
> O'neill claims to have relieved Kerry! It was a gunner who solidly
> disputes Kerry on that occasion.
> --
>
Here are some of O'Neill's quotes:
"I saw some war heroes ... John Kerry is not a war hero."
"His allegations that people committed war crimes in that unit, and
throughout Vietnam, were lies."
Even Fox News knows O'Neill is a liar:
"I've given more to Democrats than Republicans," John O'Neill claimed on
Fox but FEC records do not show a single contribution from John E.
O'Neill to any Democratic candidates. When pressed, he said he gave to
Democrats "at the local level" and Republicans "at the national level."
However, a search of records with the Texas Ethics Commission, keeper of
contribution records, finds no contributions listed for John E.
O'Neill.'
The guy is an abject and pathological liar. But you go ahead and believe
him. Defend him even.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:40:24 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>We're still waiting for the cite on Kerry's journals. Or are you
>>willing to admit that YOU are the liar?
>
>I take it you never read the book.
You said the journals were on line. Repeatedly. They aren't.
>The author now admits that Kerry
>was no hero. You french clowns always like a heroic pose as in
>Nepoleon's heroic Russian campaign.
Who is French?
Are you Blattarian simply because your name appears to refer to a
common insect?
Bob LeChevalier
>LeChevalier is probably a made up name.
Nope.
>You know how the bragging snob liberals love French words and names.
I'm not much of a snob, and I am a conservative.
Steveo
John Tibbs wrote:
> "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> news:q58al05b3tfscls3c...@4ax.com...
>
>>vonroach <hadr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 Sep 2004 20:38:46 GMT, False Document
>>><bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So both Thurlow and Odell are liars. Thank you for helping set that
>>>>straight.
>>>
>>>Not so. Kerry is the liar, as his fellow servicemen point out.
>>
>>We're still waiting for the cite on Kerry's journals. Or are you
>>willing to admit that YOU are the liar?
>
>
> If Kerry was as open with his records as Bush is it would solve a lot of
> questions! Sign the 180, Kerry!
Release your DD-214, Bush!
Steveo
John Tibbs wrote:
The gunner's statement is refuted by everyone else. Steve Gardner is a
proven liar.
Steveo
John Tibbs wrote:
> "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> news:q58al05b3tfscls3c...@4ax.com...
>
>>vonroach <hadr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 Sep 2004 20:38:46 GMT, False Document
>>><bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So both Thurlow and Odell are liars. Thank you for helping set that
>>>>straight.
>>>
>>>Not so. Kerry is the liar, as his fellow servicemen point out.
>>
>>We're still waiting for the cite on Kerry's journals. Or are you
>>willing to admit that YOU are the liar?
>
>
> If Kerry was as open with his records as Bush is it would solve a lot of
> questions! Sign the 180, Kerry!
Reveal your DD-214, Bush!
vonroach
<bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>vonroach <hadr...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>news:76c9l0t9ff1rce27n...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 24 Sep 2004 19:46:17 GMT, False Document
>> <bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Well let's see. Official military documents show that the vast majority
>>>of them were not in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry but they go on TV
>>>and say "I served with John Kerry." That's a lie so they are liars
>>
>> They actually did serve at exactly the same time, so this makes you a
>> liar and democrat tool.
>
>John O'Neill did not report to Vietnam until mid-April 1969. Kerry left
>Vietnam the first week of April. They were never in Vietnam at the same
>time.
Most of them were in the unit at the same time as Kerry. He later
tarnished the record of service of every service person who served in
vietnam with his self-serving lies .
vonroach
<bio_dud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> were not in Vietnam when Kerry was
The old democrat hack ploy, just repeat your lie often enough and a
few will believe it. biodude, you are a liar.
vonroach
>The gunner's statement is refuted by everyone else.
Another democrat lie.
Barney Lyon
> Don't forget the man (Ben Barnes) who claimed as LT Guv he got Bush
> preferential treatment wasn't even Lt Guv at the time. Magic in retro?
I see conservatives saying that Ben Barnes said that he was Lt.
Governor of Texas when he was asked by Sid Adger (Bush family friend
and go-between) to get Bush into the Natl Guard, but haven't seen any
cite for it.
Here's a cite (a transcript of "60 Minutes"'s interview with him) for
Ben Barnes saying that he was Speaker of the House in Texas, had just
been elected Lt. Governor (1968), but wasn't installed until 1969.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main642060.shtml
DAN RATHER:
Let's get a little background. You were speaker of the Texas House at
age 28.
BEN BARNES:
I think it was 26, Dan.
DAN RATHER:
Twenty six. I stand corrected. What was that like?
BEN BARNES:
Well, first of all it was a long time ago. But it was fascinating, and
it was a very interesting time in which to be in Texas politics and
America politics. The negative was Vietnam. The positive was the fact
that we were doing so many things.
John Connolly was governor. Lyndon Johnson was president. A lot of
exciting things were happening. The space center was coming to Texas.
Higher education appropriations were doubling and tripling each the
legislature met. Texas was moving, and to play a small role was very
exciting for a-- particularly for a young man.
DAN RATHER:
Well, set the scene for me. At the time, what was about to develop in
Texas politics? What was in the presses -- developing?
BEN BARNES:
Well, Texas was a one party state. John Tower had gotten elected to
the United States Senate in a special election when Lyndon Johnson
became vice president. And then there was only one Republican
congressman I believe -- Congressman George Bush from the River Oaks
area of Houston.
And so that we did not have two parties. It was the beginning of the
two-party system in Texas, but Lyndon Johnson was going to be
wrestling with Vietnam. And it was gonna divide the country and it was
gonna cause a lot of problems in Texas. It was going to be a political
revolution as opposed to evolutions that normally take place in
states.
DAN RATHER:
Well, view for me who the major players were.
BEN BARNES:
Well, obviously, President Johnson, Sen. Ralph Yarborough.
DAN RATHER:
Democrat?
BEN BARNES:
A Democrat. John Connolly-- a Democrat governor. Preston Smith, the
Democratic lieutenant governor. All of our state office holders were
Democrats. And there was only one Republican in the state Senate when
I presided over the Senate as lieutenant governor, and I think maybe
two or three Republicans were in the house when I was speaker.
DAN RATHER:
And George Bush, now we know called George Bush I, was a Republican
congressman?
BEN BARNES:
Yes, he was.
DAN RATHER:
And where did you fit in?
BEN BARNES:
Well, I'm not too sure, that I was just very glad to be at the party,
as young as I was. And having been elected and having the opportunity
to serve at the time. And then to be elected lieutenant governor,
there's only been three people that have taken the trip from one side
of the capitol to the other and that was a great honor. But I don't
know exactly where I fit in. I fit in as a person who was very, very
interested and excited about the great things that I think we were
doing for Texas.
DAN RATHER:
Well, would you argue if I said this was sort of the pecking order in
the Democratic party's power structure? Of course, President Johnson
was president. John Connolly, governor. Then Preston Smith, current
governor Preston Smith as lieutenant governor. That would be probably
the pecking order. And as speaker of the house, you fit in somewhere
below that?
BEN BARNES:
Yes, that's correct.
DAN RATHER:
All right. Now, you became lieutenant governor when?
BEN BARNES:
In 1969. I was elected in 1968.
DAN RATHER:
And the lieutenant governor has more power than most lieutenant
governors in Texas. For example, he controls the agenda in the State
Senate?
BEN BARNES:
Yes. And the speaker and the lieutenant governor really control the
purse strings of Texas. Our office of governor is a relatively weak
office. Our constitution was written at the conclusion of the Civil
War. And a Democratic legislature wrote a new constitution and wrote
the governor of Texas-- the office of the governor of Texas into a
relatively weak position.
DAN RATHER:
We had the draft. What was called Universal Military Training at that
time. How did that fit into the picture and the tumultuous events
surrounding the Vietnam War?
BEN BARNES:
I was a supporter of President Johnson's position on the Vietnam War
and I traveled through the United States passing resolutions at
various organizations that I was a member of and supporting his
position on Vietnam. As did almost all of the elected officials in
Texas.
It was a very turbulent time, Dan. It-- young people were taking to
the streets. President Johnson spoke on an event on the University of
Texas campus. And there were some 2,000-3,000 students and other
people in the streets. And interrupted the president's speech. And it
was really-- almost unsafe for President and Mrs. Johnson to return to
their car that night and for us all to depart that building. It's hard
for people that weren't alive at that time to understand the animosity
and the outright-- despising, even as far as hate, that existed in
people that were opposed to war.
DAN RATHER:
And the attitude toward the draft by this time had become what?
BEN BARNES:
Well, it had become-- it had become very, very difficult for moms and
dads who had young men that were draft age to accept-- particularly
later in the Vietnam conflict. To accept the fact that their son or
dau-- or their son-- was gonna have to go to Vietnam. And that was not
something that anybody wanted for their children to do. Certainly not
anybody that I (UNINTEL).
DAN RATHER:
You almost corrected yourself. You said son or daughter and then you
said sons because daughters are not eligible for the draft?
BEN BARNES:
They were not in that. And it's changed in the last 30 years with
women playing such an important role in our military. But not in the
'60s.
DAN RATHER:
I want to ask you to go back and tell me the story. Tell me the whole
story. Tell me the truth, the whole truth about what happened with
George W. Bush and the draft and the National Guard. Start at the
beginning. Take me right through it.
BEN BARNES:
Well, first of all I want to say that I'm not here to bring any harm
to George Bush's reputation or his career. I was contacted by people
from the very beginning of his political career when he ran for
governor, and then when he ran for president and now he's running for
re-election. I've had hundreds of phone calls of people wanting to
know the story.
And I've been quoted and misquoted. And the reason I'm here today, I
really want to tell the story. And I want to tell it one time and get
it behind us. And again it's-- this is not about George Bush's
political career.
This is about what the truth is. About the time in which I served and
the role I played. Sid Adger (PH), a friend of the Bush family, came
to see me and asked me if I would recommend George W. Bush for the Air
National Guard. And I did.
And I talked to a Gen. Rose, who was the commander of the Air National
Guard. I don't know whether my recommendation was the absolute reason
he got in the Guard. He was a Congressman's son. He graduated from
Yale. He was a person that would have been eligible.
But there was a long list of people waiting to be, or hoping to be a
candidate for the Air National Guard, and for the Army National Guard.
That was one route that young men had to go to-- or that was available
to a very special few to-- be able to avoid being drafted and being
able to avoid going to Vietnam. Although some National Guard people
later went to Vietnam.
DAN RATHER:
Sid Adger. Who is he?
BEN BARNES:
Sid Adger is a-- was an oil man.
DAN RATHER:
Sid Adger.
BEN BARNES:
He's deceased now, Dan. He was a friend of the Bush family and a
success oil man in Texas that was a friend of Bush family and a friend
of mine.
DAN RATHER:
Was he a contributor to your political campaign?
BEN BARNES:
I don't know. I would be surprised if he was not a contributor. I've
tried to make everybody a contributor to my political campaigns in
Texas that had any money. But I suspect he probably gave a small
contribution. I don't remember that. That's nearly 40-some odd years
ago now.
DAN RATHER:
What-- people such as Mr. Adger frequently gave money to political
campaigns on both sides?
BEN BARNES:
Oh, that's true in Texas. And-- and-- but you also gotta remember that
there was a Democratic side that had about 200 elected officials and a
Republican side that had two elected officials. So it was very easy to
people to get to Democrats as well as Republicans. I think later, it
may be that maybe Sid Adger might have been a card-carrying
Republican. But I don't remember what his party affiliation was.
DAN RATHER:
When he came to see you, how did he get access to you? Did he call
you? Write you a letter?
BEN BARNES:
Oh, he just called. I was a young, ambitious office holder. I don't
think I probably turned down very many-- very few people. Or I--
everybody got to see me that wanted to see me. I tried to make that
possible.
DAN RATHER:
So he came here to see you. Do you remember what he said?
BEN BARNES:
Well, it's been a long time ago, but he said basically, would I help
young George Bush get in the Air National Guard?
Barney Lyon
> That is the standard democrat lie and you are a typical democrat liar.
> His commander has said George Bush was among the top five jet pilots
> under his command. Your democrat lies have been tried before by Ma
> Richards Texas democrat demagog. It was a lie then and it is a lie
> now.
I know, EVERYBODY lies except the roach here, Bush, and Republicans.
Look at who the REAL liars are:
"Maury Udell, the Ellington Air Force Base flight instructor who
trained Bush, told Newsweek that he rates Bush 'among the top 5
percent of fighter pilots I've ever trained.'"
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4PRN/is_2004_Feb_15/ai_113281806
The fact is:
"Mr. Bush ranked 22nd out of class of 53 pilots when he finished his
flight training at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia in 1969."
That's the middle of his class. That's mediocre. Bush was no great
pilot.
The fact is, 6 months was added to Bush's time in the military. He
was suspended, grounded, for failing to obey an order. He was
transferred to ARF, a disciplinary unit.
Bush's flight logs from 1972, which the White House released just this
last month in response to a lawsuit by the Associated Press, show that
Bush was (abruptly) back to a two-seat T-33 training jet, from which
he had graduated several years earlier, and was put back onto a flight
simulator. The logs also show that on two occasions he required
multiple attempts to land a one-seat fighter and a fighter simulator.
This after Bush had already logged more than 200 hours in the one-seat
F-102A.
Barney Lyon
> How can you say the "forged or not", and then claim
> saying the serial numbers on a forged $100 bill are
> still valid.
>
False analogy. Here's an accurate analogy:
If I borrow $10 from you in front of all of these good people (the
readers here) without signing a note, and if you forge my name on an
IOU, does that mean that I didn't borrow the $10?
All of the readers here who saw me borrow the money - were they
mistaken? Were they seeing things? Did they hallucinate the entire
transaction?
> The contents were never true and I defy you to prove otherwise.
>
At minimum FOUR people who were in a position to know, and they
all say the same thing - "What's in the memos is true."
Here is what they've said, and the links where you can find it:
Killian's secretary Marian Carr Knox says such memos existed and that
they accurately reflect the thoughts of the commander, Lt. Col. Jerry
B. Killian, and other memorandums she typed for him about Mr. Bush.
Knox told the Morning News that she did all of the typing for Lt. Col.
Jerry Killian, Bush's commander.
Marian Carr Knox told the Dallas Morning News after viewing copies of
the disputed memos, "These are not real," and that "the information in
here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones." She
declined to be interviewed late Tuesday, but her son, Pat Carr,
confirmed her comments.
The newspaper said that Knox, 86, had precise recollection about
dates, people and events. She was critical of Bush, whom she called
"unfit for office."
"The information in them is correct," the woman, Marian Carr Knox, now
86, said in an interview at her home here. "But I doubt," she said,
pausing, "it's not anything that I wrote because there are terms in
there that are not used by Guards, the format wasn't the way we did
it.
"It looks like someone may have read the originals and put that
together."
The memos were critical of Bush's performance as a pilot. They say he
sought special treatment to get out of required drills and failed to
get a required physical exam, and that there was pressure from his
commander's superiors to "sugar coat" his personnel evaluation.
"We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was
concerned about," Mrs. Knox said. "I think he was writing the memos
so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on
and what he had done." But, she said, words like "billets," which
appear in the memorandums, were not standard Guard terms.
Mrs. Knox, who was the secretary for the squadron at Ellington Air
Force Base from 1957 to 1979, said she recalled Mr. Bush's case and
the criticism of him because his record was so unusual. Mr. Killian
had her type memorandums recording the problems, she said, and he kept
them in a private file under lock and key.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15guard.html
In 1999, Ben Barnes said the same thing he said on "60 Minutes," in
sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury.
Former Texas National Guard officer Richard Via says the content of
the memos reflects real discussions:
Another former Texas National Guard officer, Richard Via, also said
that the documents were fakes but that their content reflected
questions about Bush that were discussed at the time in the hangar at
Ellington Air Force Base, where he had a desk next to Killian's.
Via said he and others he worked with "remember the physical, and him
going to Alabama was an issue." He said Killian "made notes and put
them in his files about things like that."
Killian kept the files because "he was trying to cover his ass," Via
said. "He was always worried something would come back on him."
He said Killian's secretary "would type them up, and he'd put it in
his desk drawer and lock it."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-14-memos-forgeries_x.htm
Robert Strong, who worked in the Texas Air National Guard
administrative office, offers support:
"He was trying to deal with a volatile political situation, in dealing
with the son of an ambassador and former congressman," says Strong.
"He was trying to deal with at least one superior officer, Gen.
Staudt, who was closely connected to the Houston political
establishment. And I just see an impossible situation. I feel very,
very sorry, because he was between a rock and a hard place."
http://news4colorado.com/topstories/topstories_story_253080125.html
Even Bobby Hodges, who is mentioned in some of the memos and who has
very publicly arrived at the conclusion that they are fakes, said that
the content is accurate:
Rather agreed that the quotes were read to Hodges.
"We wanted to take the documents to him and do an interview, and he
declined to do that," he said, calling Hodges' statements at the time
"impressive" support of the documents' authenticity.
"The colonel said that the documents were - quote - familiar to him,
and that Killian did indeed feel the way that the documents
expressed."
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election20
04/9640726.htm
About Lt. Colonel (Brigadier General) Walter B. Staudt who is said (in
the memos) to be pressuring Killian and Hodges - he denies it.
I wouldn't expect Staudt to admit to pressuring anybody in the Guard
(to either accept Bush into the Guard or to give Bush good
evaluations) if he had pressured them, would you?
Staudt's good words about Bush fall kind of flat, since Bush was
suspended from flying for failing to follow an order. He was referred
to a disciplinary unit, and had 6 months (in the ARF unit) added on to
his time.
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif
http://www.awolbush.com/index.html
http://www.bushwatch.com/awol.htm
http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=327
There's more to this story than memos, and it's not CBS, it's not Dan
Rather, it's not Burkett, it's not Joe Lockhart, and it's not John
Kerry or anybody connected to his campaign.
The media is going to milk this story until it churns into butter,
because the real story here requires effort to research and tell.
The story that Bush and the GOP are trying desperately to obscure is
what at least 4 people (who had first-hand knowledge) agree on: Bush's
superior officers were aware that Bush was performing unsatisfactorily
and they were being pressured to let Bush slide through and were
expected to falsify Bush's records.
The real questions then come up after that sinks in:
Why were they being pressured? Why was Lt. Colonel Staudt pressuring
them?
What do we know for sure, what ISN'T being disputed about Bush's time
in the TANG?
When Bush was sworn into TANG in 1968, Staudt (Bush's unit commander)
staged a special ceremony for the press so he could have his picture
taken administering the oath (after the official oath had been given
by a Guard captain earlier.) Staudt was excited about his VIP recruit,
this direct appointment, because at his staged ceremony, Bush's
father, the congressman, was standing prominently in the background.
The 147th, Col. Staudt's Texas unit, was infamous as a way out of
Vietnam combat for the politically well connected and celebrity draft
avoiders: Both of Sid Adger's sons, Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen's
son, Republican Senator John Tower's son, and at least seven players
for the Dallas Cowboys had been signed into the unit.
What made Bush's unfair, favored Guard appointment doubly
reprehensible was his total lack of qualifications. Rapid selection
into the Guard was reserved for applicants with exceptional experience
or skills such as prior Air Force ROTC training, or special
engineering, medical, or aviation skills.
Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, had reviewed
the Guard's records on Bush for a special exhibit on his service after
Bush became governor. Asked about Bush's direct appointment without
special skills, Hail said, "I've never heard of that. Generally they
did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight
surgeons."
Charles Shoemaker, an Air Force veteran who later joined the Texas Air
National Guard and retired as a full colonel, said that direct
appointments were rare and hard to get, and required extensive
credentials. Asked about Bush, he said, "His name didn't hurt,
obviously. But it was a commander's decision in those days."
When Bush completed basic training, his commander approved him for a
"direct appointment." That made him a 2nd Lieutenant without having to
go through the usual (very difficult) Officer Candidate School. This
special procedure also got Bush into flight school, despite his very
low scores on aptitude tests: 25% on a pilot aptitude test (the
absolute lowest acceptable grade) and 50% for navigator aptitude. Bush
did score 95% on the easier and subjectively graded officer quality
test, but the class average is generally 88%.
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=861
In 1968, Bush's father was a newly minted Congressman with a highly
coveted seat on the House Ways & Means Committee. Very unusual for
such an inexperienced congressman to get on that committee. Very
powerful.
Just as a reference point, at the time of those memos (1973), Bush had
left Congress and was named by Nixon to the Chairmanship of the RNC.
This was during the trial for the Watergate plumbers – Deep Throat had
just told Woodward that "lives were in danger."
Staudt retired around 1972 with the rank of Brigadier General. That's
a hefty promotion (2 grades) in such a short time. It's not unheard
of, but it is unusual. It's more likely to happen during wartime, on
the battlefield. Google Staudt - what he was doing right after he
left the Guard raises an eyebrow:
"NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Walter B. Staudt is Executive Director of the Neighborhood Development
Program, which is In the process of completing a huge drainage project
for the western part of Beeville during the latter part of May this
year (1973). Forty-two city blocks of property are being drained with
storm sewers during heavy rains under this project, and the streets
will be paved after the sewer pipes have been laid.
The NDP also has started building and repairing houses in a plan to
eliminate shacks from the area. One new residence has been completed
and six others have been started at the time of this writing.
This is a Federal Agency, and the total expenditure on the drainage,
paving, and housing program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973,
is $1,250,000."
This, and a whole lot more. Read all about it at:
http://www.beeville.net/TheHistoricalStoryofBeeCountyTexas/Chapter16.htm
So, immediately after leaving the Guard, Buck Staudt was running a
company that was receiving federal funds to develop an oil and gas
town in Texas.
Was Bucky Staudt laying a retirement nest egg by saving politicians'
sons from having to go to Viet Nam, letting them hide out in his
"Champagne Unit," in exchange for federal funding contracts?
Why else would he be so excited to have Congressman Bush's son in his
unit? This wasn't a rock star. Did he stage redundant swearing in
ceremonies for all of his VIPs' sons? Staudt didn't take in these
VIPs sons, save their asses from having to go to Viet Nam, for
nothing.
Explain to me HOW:
Within a year of retirement, a man (Colonel/Brigadier General Walter
B. Staudt) who spent his entire career in the military (flying
planes), lands contracts for federal funds to develop the
infrastructure of an oil and gas town in Texas?
It simply doesn't compute.
vonroach
wrote:
>"John Tibbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<vqg5d.2136$Ki1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>> Don't forget the man (Ben Barnes) who claimed as LT Guv he got Bush
>> preferential treatment wasn't even Lt Guv at the time. Magic in retro?
>
>DAN RATHER:
Bwahahahah Dan Rather? Forged document Dan? Dan the CBS lying news
reader?
>BEN BARNES:
Bwahahahah ROFLMAO. Barnes? The kid democrat politician who lied so
much he never got a big job. Tool of LBJ - this is your source? LBJ
the world's champion democrat liar. Old Landslide Lyndon elected to
senate by dead people of Starr and Duvall Counties? Bwahahahah
Barnes? He was as rotten as the other two LBJ and Conneley. Old Con
once ran for prez and was outed by the farmers in Iowa where he paid
over a million dollars for every vote he was able to buy. Barnes and
Rather are your sources in an interview on CBS? Bwahahahahah
>
>John Connolly was governor. Lyndon Johnson was president.
Do you intend to get to anybody who isn't a congenital liar?
>
> but Lyndon Johnson was going to be
>wrestling with Vietnam.
I thought you said Kerry was wrestling with vietnam in his 3 month
tour?
>
>DAN RATHER:
was reporting lies and body counts from vietnam for old Walter and CBS
>
>DAN RATHER:
>Well, would you argue if I said this was
Old Dan leading a liar in one of CBS's lies ROFLMAO And this is an
`interview'
>BEN BARNES:
>Well, it had become-- it had become very, very difficult for moms and
>dads who had young men that were draft age to accept-- particularly
>later in the Vietnam conflict. To accept the fact that their son or
>dau-- or their son-- was gonna have to go to Vietnam. And that was not
>something that anybody wanted for their children to do. Certainly not
>anybody that I (UNINTEL).
>
>DAN RATHER:
>You almost corrected yourself. You said son or daughter and then you
>said sons because daughters are not eligible for the draft?
Bwahahahah Old Dan breaks in to correct a careless liar Bwhahaha.
unintel = unintelligent - and that sure sums up Ben Barnes.
>BEN BARNES:
>They were not in that. And it's changed in the last 30 years with
>women playing such an important role in our military. But not in the
>'60s.
Actually the women who served in vietnam have there own organization.
Did Benny forget? His memory seems a little foggy.
>DAN RATHER:
>I want to ask you to go back and tell me the story.
That I rehearsed with you.
>BEN BARNES:
>Well, first of all I want to say that I'm not here to bring any harm
>to George Bush's reputation
Of course not Benny - Bwhahahah and neither is old Dan Rather or CBS
or Mapes, or Redstone or Viacom or anybody - that's obvious you old
liar, you are just trying to outdo Dan Rather and CBS with their
forged documents. Um.. by the way Benny what positions have you held
lately? Your party isn't getting creamed by the Republicans, is it?
You realize that would prejudice anything you say.
>
Rest of the ludicrous dialog of liars between CBS's Rather and a Texas
politician with a deep grudge against all Republicans - almost as deep
as CBS's grudge and Rather's own.
Better get some more forged documents Dan, your plot is coming apart
at the seams.