Bush AWOL, Refused Direct Order, Suspended. (UPDATE: Documents may be forged)

New records discovered by CBS confirm that President Bush refused an order to appear for a physical exam and was suspended from flight duty as a result. Attempts were made to "sugar-coat" his insubordination. The White House as yet has issued no comment.



Finally! The proof we all knew was out there. Can't wait to hear the official "sugar-coating" for this information on our "war president."

-koji K.


IMPORTANT UPDATE TO THIS STORY

CBS News is launching an internal investigation into the possibility that aspects of their story may have been based on fraudulent documents. The documents in question appear to contain type attributes that many say are the result of modern word processing software, not 1970's typewriters.

Link to update within this News Thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 10-9-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

Great find...and its an official document from the White House listed at the end of the article. Now, its going to be pretty hard for him to explain this. Of course, I know certain members of this board will tell us how these documents are false, etc. and defend Bush until their last breath...mark my words!

Yup. It would be interesting to trawl the board for posts saying "he wasn't AWOL" when it was just so unbelievably obvious he was. If I only so I can say "I told you so" to every one of them. Not very mature, but then, neither is our "President".

-koji K.

Can anybody say "OOPS!" and "I wonder who would want to descredit Bush?" Maybe the Swift Boat commader?

'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 09, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.

www.cnsnews.com...\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040909d.html

Bush was AWOL no question about it

Originally posted by Aelita
Bush was AWOL no question about it

Kerry has portrayed himself to be a tuff guy on defence. No doubt he made his Vietnam service a corrnerstone of his campaign to show that he was not soft on the defence issue However, one simply has to look at Kerry�s history in public office to become very concerned that a Kerry administration will leave our country at its weakest point since the Carter administration. This post is part of my overall post in the Campaign 2004 Issue forum. On to the cuts:

In an 1984 in written Budget Plan, Kerry proposed canceling the following programs to save money: The MX Missile, the B-1, Star Wars, Anti-Satellite weapons, the Apache Gunship, DIVAD, the Patriot Missile, the Ageis system, the Harrier, further F-15 procurement, the F-14D, the Phoenix and Sparrow missile improvements.

When he has voted, he has also, either tried to kill programs or reduce Americas strength in key areas.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5/11/1988, 1. S 2355: Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would keep the US strategic arsenal roughly in line with the US-Soviet strategic arms limitation treaty of 1979 [SALT II], which had not been ratified at the time. Kerry voted NO to not kill the amendment, which would have required us to live by a treaty that we never ratified. The motion was tabled 51-45.
1991, the 1. Gulf War. Kerry voted NO but the resolution passed 52-47

7/31/1991, 1. S 1507: Vote on an amendment that would show it is the United States' goal to maintain strategic stability with the Soviet Union. Still not understanding the success of the Reagan defense build-up, Kerry voted YES. The amendment failed 43-56.

8/1/1991, 1. S 1507: Discontinue production of B-2 bomber. Kerry voted YES but the bill failed 42-57.

9/10/1991, 1. HR 2707: Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion from Defense, Shift Money to Social Programs. Only 27 Senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut. (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea)

9/9/1992, 1. S Con Res 106: Reduce the defense spending levels for smaller weapon projects by $8.8 billion in fiscal 1993. Kerry voted YES, but the measure was rejected 45-50.

5/5/1992, 1. S 2403: Cancel funding for a second and third Seawolf nuclear submarine. Kerry voted NO, and the measure failed 46-52. Hallelujah! Finally a defense system that Kerry liked! Where's that Seawolf built again? Oh yeah. Connecticut.

9/18/1992, 1. S 3114: Cut $2,686,572,000 from the bill for production of additional B-2 stealth bombers, halting production of the B-2 fleet at 15 planes instead of the 20 planes requested by the administration. Kerry voted YES but the measure failed 45-53.

1993: Kerry introduced 1. S 1163, where the liberal northeastern Senator supported a whole plethora of defense cuts, including:
Reduction in the operating tempo of ballistic missile submarines.
Reduction in the attack submarine force.
Reduction in the antisubmarine warfare weapon systems of the Navy.
Reduction in number of light divisions.
Reduction in number of tactical fighter wings.
Limitation on expenditures for nuclear weapons research, development, and testing activities of the Department of Energy.
Strategic Defense Initiative (limiting the scope)
Termination of the MHC(V) coastal mine-hunting ship program.
Termination of the Kinetic Energy Anti-satellite Attack program.
Force the Retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year

7/1/1994, 1. S 2182: Cut $150 million for additional B-2 stealth bombers. Kerry voted YES for the cut but the measure failed 45-55.

8/10/1994, HR 4650: Eliminate funding for Trident II submarine-launched missiles. Kerry voted YES but the measure failed 40-60. A strange history of voting for the submarines but against the missiles on the submarines. Or, in other words, he voted for the submarines before he voted against the submarine-launched missiles.

1/26/1996, 1. S 1124 (also here): Vote to adopt a revised version of a bill [HR 1530] to authorize $265.3 billion in appropriations for 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, military construction, and Department of Energy defense activities. The bill includes a 2.4% cost-of-living increase for members of the armed forces, among other provisions. This revised bill deletes a provision in the original bill requiring that the U.S. develop an affordable and effective national missile defense system to be operational by 2003. There is also a provision requiring the president to certify Congress in advance that any future deployment of U.S. troops under the operational control of the UN is in the U.S. national security interest, among other changes. Kerry voted NO but the bill passed 56-34.

9/13/2000, 1. HR 4444: Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would require sanctions against China or other countries if they were found to be selling illicit weapons of mass destruction. Not favoring sanctions, Kerry voted YES and the amendment was killed 65-32.
Taken From: www.tacitus.org...

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Can anybody say "OOPS!" and "I wonder who would want to descredit Bush?" Maybe the Swift Boat commader?

'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 09, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.

www.cnsnews.com...\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040909d.html

lol.. CNS news. the conservative propaganda machine squirts out its ink like a frightened squid. so CNS says their experts are doubtful, CBS says theirs aren't... come on Bushies, you can do better!

-koji K.

Originally posted by bet555

Originally posted by Aelita
Bush was AWOL no question about it

Kerry has portrayed himself to be a tuff guy on defence. No doubt he made his Vietnam service a corrnerstone of his campaign to show that he was not soft on the defence issue However, one simply has to look at Kerry�s history in public office to become very concerned that a Kerry administration will leave our country at its weakest point since the Carter administration. This post is part of my overall post in the Campaign 2004 Issue forum. On to the cuts:

In an 1984 in written Budget Plan, Kerry proposed canceling the following programs to save money: The MX Missile, the B-1, Star Wars, Anti-Satellite weapons, the Apache Gunship, DIVAD, the Patriot Missile, the Ageis system, the Harrier, further F-15 procurement, the F-14D, the Phoenix and Sparrow missile improvements.

When he has voted, he has also, either tried to kill programs or reduce Americas strength in key areas.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5/11/1988, 1. S 2355: Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would keep the US strategic arsenal roughly in line with the US-Soviet strategic arms limitation treaty of 1979 [SALT II], which had not been ratified at the time. Kerry voted NO to not kill the amendment, which would have required us to live by a treaty that we never ratified. The motion was tabled 51-45.
1991, the 1. Gulf War. Kerry voted NO but the resolution passed 52-47

7/31/1991, 1. S 1507: Vote on an amendment that would show it is the United States' goal to maintain strategic stability with the Soviet Union. Still not understanding the success of the Reagan defense build-up, Kerry voted YES. The amendment failed 43-56.

8/1/1991, 1. S 1507: Discontinue production of B-2 bomber. Kerry voted YES but the bill failed 42-57.

9/10/1991, 1. HR 2707: Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion from Defense, Shift Money to Social Programs. Only 27 Senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut. (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea)

9/9/1992, 1. S Con Res 106: Reduce the defense spending levels for smaller weapon projects by $8.8 billion in fiscal 1993. Kerry voted YES, but the measure was rejected 45-50.

5/5/1992, 1. S 2403: Cancel funding for a second and third Seawolf nuclear submarine. Kerry voted NO, and the measure failed 46-52. Hallelujah! Finally a defense system that Kerry liked! Where's that Seawolf built again? Oh yeah. Connecticut.

9/18/1992, 1. S 3114: Cut $2,686,572,000 from the bill for production of additional B-2 stealth bombers, halting production of the B-2 fleet at 15 planes instead of the 20 planes requested by the administration. Kerry voted YES but the measure failed 45-53.

1993: Kerry introduced 1. S 1163, where the liberal northeastern Senator supported a whole plethora of defense cuts, including:
Reduction in the operating tempo of ballistic missile submarines.
Reduction in the attack submarine force.
Reduction in the antisubmarine warfare weapon systems of the Navy.
Reduction in number of light divisions.
Reduction in number of tactical fighter wings.
Limitation on expenditures for nuclear weapons research, development, and testing activities of the Department of Energy.
Strategic Defense Initiative (limiting the scope)
Termination of the MHC(V) coastal mine-hunting ship program.
Termination of the Kinetic Energy Anti-satellite Attack program.
Force the Retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year

7/1/1994, 1. S 2182: Cut $150 million for additional B-2 stealth bombers. Kerry voted YES for the cut but the measure failed 45-55.

8/10/1994, HR 4650: Eliminate funding for Trident II submarine-launched missiles. Kerry voted YES but the measure failed 40-60. A strange history of voting for the submarines but against the missiles on the submarines. Or, in other words, he voted for the submarines before he voted against the submarine-launched missiles.

1/26/1996, 1. S 1124 (also here): Vote to adopt a revised version of a bill [HR 1530] to authorize $265.3 billion in appropriations for 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, military construction, and Department of Energy defense activities. The bill includes a 2.4% cost-of-living increase for members of the armed forces, among other provisions. This revised bill deletes a provision in the original bill requiring that the U.S. develop an affordable and effective national missile defense system to be operational by 2003. There is also a provision requiring the president to certify Congress in advance that any future deployment of U.S. troops under the operational control of the UN is in the U.S. national security interest, among other changes. Kerry voted NO but the bill passed 56-34.

9/13/2000, 1. HR 4444: Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would require sanctions against China or other countries if they were found to be selling illicit weapons of mass destruction. Not favoring sanctions, Kerry voted YES and the amendment was killed 65-32.
Taken From: www.tacitus.org...

urm, thanks... but what does this have to do with the thread topic?

-koji K.

Originally posted by koji_K
lol.. CNS news. the conservative propaganda machine squirts out its ink like a frightened squid. so CNS says their experts are doubtful, CBS says theirs aren't... come on Bushies, you can do better!

-koji K.

Forget CNS News, just take a look at the documents. If you can give me an adequate explanation as to why there are modern superscripts (a product of word processing programs) in a 32 year old government document, I'll consider the validity, until then you just have a "Rather Biased" propaganda piece.

www.cbsnews.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

www.cbsnews.com...


[edit on 9/9/2004 by Mirthful Me]

What modern superscripts?
Typewriters don't have them?

Originally posted by Jamuhn
What modern superscripts?
Typewriters don't have them?

So why does the superscript "th" appear in one of the documents?

www.cbsnews.com...



[edit on 9/9/2004 by Mirthful Me]

Well, I know that typewriters had superscript capability and you could create a combination of letter for the superscript with any typewriter. But, I doubt typewriters had different font sizes, so it would have to be built-in.

I'll tell you though, the 'th' is in a different font, look at the proportions. It's possible it was written in, or the army had a typewriter with that superscript key built-in. There are a lot of ways it could be possible.

BTW, you might want to fix your links.

EDIT: On my modern word processor, my fonts don't change on superscripts.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by Jamuhn]

You guys are just a bunch of Bush bashing liberal lovers



LOL.. you know thats what these people are thinking anyway.

Oh I forgot to add you are anti American and a terrorist supporter. HAHAHA

So now they can't use those excuses lets see what the Bush lovers come up with.

[edit on 9/9/2004 by Indy]

As Jamuhn states, typewriters in the 70s could use superscript. I admit it looks like something from a modern wordprocessor, but then modern wordprocessors were designed to look like old typewriters.

There are other ways of determining the authenticity of these documents, one of which is to analyse the ink used. Typewriters of those days used ribbon ink of a particular quality. If this becomes a credibility issue, I'm sure we'll find out soon enough if they're genuine or not.

-koji K.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by Jamuhn
What modern superscripts?
Typewriters don't have them?

So why does the superscript "th" appear in one of the documents?

www.cbsnews.com...

[edit on 9/9/2004 by Mirthful Me]

Because typewriters DO have "�" "�" "�" superscripted "th", "st", "e" and a whole bunch of other characters.

Superscripting text by itself wasn't posible with older typewriters, but they did have much used expressions like "st" "th" "e" and others on them.

Go check out some typewiters dude.

The IBM Selectric and Selectric II were the typewriters of the age. And from what I have found there were no superscripts available for those.

Here are font samples...

www.selectric.org...

www.selectric.org...

So unless someone can provide proof of a typewriter capable of making superscript like that I'd have to assume it to be a fake. Also for a 30 year old document it looks to be in good shape. And this is a military order. No letter head?

Heres an Image

Well, the White House distributed these memos and has "not questioned their accuracy".

story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20040909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_national_guard

So, as it stands, they're still the real deal.

-koji K.

Thanks Trick for posting that. I change my mind about it not being a typewriter. It must be a typewriter. I did a test in Word to see how the superscript would look. Word doesn't raise the superscript that high. Only a typewriter would. But if the most advanced typewriter of the age didn't have superscript then what did? Could it have been an old manual typewriter instead of a modern electric?

Valid or not who cares if Bush was Awol for a month or two 30 years or so ago. What difference does that make today. NONE!! Think about it people. What if every thing you did 30 years ago was held under a microscope. Would any little indiscretions appear? For the vast majority of people they would. Do they really affect your character today? NO, except that they are lessons learned. President Bush has not made an issue out of his service back then and therefore it should not be a campaign issue, unless you are simply looking for muck to rake.

Kerry on the other hand has listed his questionable service as one of the reasons we should elect him and it is therefore fair game to go after. The president has actually come in on Kerry's side on this issue by saying that his service in nam was honorable. What more can you ask for.

Can we please get beyond these kind of irrelevant issues and on to the real and pressing issues of this campaign. This is such a waste of time.