Documents obtained by 60 Minutes include a memo from Bush's squadron commander(Lt. Col. Jerry Killian) instructing Bush to take his annual physical "as ordered" (quotation marks are being used the same as in the newspaper account). Bush did not take the physical, and was suspended from flight status on Aug. 1, 1972.

White House officials have said there was no reason for Bush to take the annual physical required of fighter pilots because there were no suitable planes for him to fly in Alabama, where he had applied for substitute training.

The above is taken directly from the Washington Post story by Michael Dobbs and Thomas B. Edsall, as printed today in the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

Now, what I want to know is how much of a ruckus needs to be made before there is a response to this by Rumsfeld, Powell and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Will they sanction the reply of the White House officials, thereby changing military policy of following the direct order of a superior officer without question to one of deciding whether or not to comply based on if you thought the order relevant? Or,will they stand by military policy and regulations and say Bush should have forfeited his National Guard status and been made eligible for active duty, and faced disciplinary action including possible court martial for disobeying a direct order from his commanding oficer?

The documents received by 60 Minutes make it clear that favorable treatment was being accorded Bush, and that along with getting his commission and placement in the Guard ahead of the lengthy list of non-privileged young men also trying to avoid active duty, he was also having his evaluations "sugar-coated" (again, Washington Post's quotes).

I really am looking forward to see if any one of the three I mentioned above will give a public comment regarding this; to agree with the WH officials would require a change in military policy/regulations, but to say opposite would be to say their boss was less than honorable in his military service and his statements regarding it since.

It would be an interesting precedent, allowing any of the reservists being called up now to re-examine their need to follow the orders, depending on whether they felt them relevant to their future plans.

*Edited for spelling.

You might want to wait a few days before making up your mind on this one...

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL 20040909d.html

At least until the answer is definitively known.

Last ditch Kerry effort.

You might want to wait a few days before making up your mind on this one...
At least until the answer is definitively known.Your link was a good one, thanks.

The point of my post was really that the events are accurate, whether the documents are or not. Bush was ordered to take a physical for flight certification as required, and he failed to do so, and was suspended. Those are facts known before the documents surfaced.

The response of the White House officials is what grabbed my attention, due to the tone of making it acceptable to disobey an order from a commanding officer. There were many GI's who spent lengthy time in the LBJ for the crime of disobeying a direct order, and were subsequently dishonarably discharged, and many of them had more good reason I would wager than Bush for their choices. (As a 40% disabled Viet Nam vet, I am prone to some bias in the military related aspects of this campaign, including Kerry's postwar antics.)

The documents may well turn out to be a tool of a 527 group, like the Swift Boat stuff. I think both sides will pull out all the stops as we march down these last two months. Kerry obviously is on the ropes.

Alot of times those types of special physicals arent mandatory if you are not doing the job the physical is required for. I for one being in the Navy stopped recieving my special physicals as soon as I was no longer doing the job required of me. Same with in the Navy, by doing your flight phys. it allows you to be able to still fly but if you do not, you can not. But, not doing a flight physical which is usually just an extra page a Dr. fills out you still have to do a physical.

So Bush himself may have not made the decision on his own since the Dr. can have a say in it also. I mean for special physicals usuallyt akes an extra 30min to perfom.

Haha yeah the only problem with these "documents" is that they were written on Microsoft Word(hmmm..in 1972) and the deceased commander's(died in the 80's..convenient?) wife said he didn't talk like that and he never took notes, not to mention that he actually liked Bush and spoke to her in a positive fashion about him. Then you have his personel man who worked with him for 17 years that says this looks nothing like the sort of thing the commander would write.

Now, CBS says they authenticated them..but they are refusing to say who they had authenticate them.

In short, they're forgeries..and I wonder where they came from.

I hope they find out. Frankly, I am much less concerned with what Kerry or Bush were like/doing over thirty years ago than I am with what they are like/doing today. A forgery speaks volumes more to me about integrity than he said/she said arguments. If the forgeries can be traced to *either* campaign (either as an attempt to discredit Bush or as a more clever attempt to discredit CBS/Kerry), then my decision has been made on who to vote for.

In either case the onus is on the Kerry camp....

No, the onus is on CBS, as they were the ones to not only put forth the documents but to claim their authenticity based on their own (as yet unnamed) "experts."

I notice CBS is still sticking to their assertion that the documents are authentic, but have not issued any rebuttals or explanations to the various indications pointed out by other experts that the documents are a hoax.

It's looking more and more like the producers of CBS News/60 Minutes have allowed their apparent pro-democrat bias to cloud their judgement. They seem to so want to believe the allegations against Bush that they have been blinded to the physical evidence being suspect. I find it hard to believe they missed signs of forgery after 6 weeks of careful evaluation (or so they claim) that others picked up on in a couple of days.

Yeah one note, if the Bush administration had given CBS these forged documents, they wouldn't be postering like they are. The fingers would be pointing already.

I wonder if this type of activity ranks on Nydia's fascism scale?

I love this guy

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/181/1232/1024/Bob_verifies_%20memo.jpg

http://wizbangblog.com/images/clippyhoax.jpg

No, the onus is on CBS, as they were the ones to not only put forth the documents but to claim their authenticity based on their own (as yet unnamed) "experts."
This will spin to the Kerry camp without a doubt.... any moral high ground they pretended to have is gone. No matter who leaked what it will be interpreted as an effort to stink up Bush (no pun intened). People dont like that kind of stuff.

But being the electoral college map buff that I am, Kerry is still dangerously close to Bush.... I would love to see how this plays out in the polls over the next few days/a week.

frankly i'm amazed this suprises anyone. credence Clearwater revival stated it best in thier song "Fortunate son".

GW was only one of MANY eligible son's of well off men who recieved special treatment. the middle class white people where left to run to Canada to avoid the draft. leaving the poorest and mostly african american to fight the brunt of the war.
Kerry was giving special treatment in the form of the assignment he recieved.
Clinton applied for and recieved a scholarship wich kept him out.
With the exception of Bylimet i highly doubt anyone on this board where born or out of diaper's during what was a very trying time in this country.
hard to judge what was going thru any of these young men's minds 40 years ago.

actualy at the time of kerrys speech i was 7 years old , and remember watching the protest on tv, seeing the baby killer signs, and reading about the anti war protesters spitting on the troops returning for war .

You have a point Thormir, but some Democrats in Congress were using them as a basis to slam Bush and most notably the Chairman of the DNC was leading the charge.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132157,00.html

Seriously, Kerry cracks me up.

CBS has gone crazy with those memos.

If nothing else, it's a good example of media bias against Bush in the networks.

Rather's career should be shot after this one..it looks like he was just gunning for Bush without caring to check on his sources. It turns out that some of the sources he claimed backed up the memos weren't even talked to until after the segment was aired.

I believe...

I believe the Killian documents are authentic.

I believe that Killian's widow, who doubts their authenticity, has a pro-Bush agenda and is lying.

I believe Killian's son, who doubts their authenticity, has a pro-Bush agenda and is lying.

I believe the personnel clerk in Killian's unit, who doubts their authenticity, has a pro-Bush agenda and is lying.

I believe Dan Rather when he says the Killian documents were conclusively authenticated, even though CBS only had access to low-quality photocopies.

I believe Dan Rather's lone "handwriting" expert was telling the truth when he pronounced the typed documents legit.

I believe the multiple "printed document" experts, who dispute their authenticity, are all Bush partisans, and are all lying.

I believe that Ben Barnes's daughter, who thinks her father is lying, has a pro-Bush agenda and is lying herself.

I believe that Ben Barnes, who is a Kerry campaign vice-chair, and has raised more than $100,000 for the campaign, does not have a political agenda, and is telling the truth.

I believe Ben Barnes when he says he helped Bush enter the guard when he was lieutenant governor, even though he didn't actually become lieutenant governor until a year after Bush had already enlisted.

I believe that all 250 Swift Vets for the Truth are pro-Bush partisans, and that they are all lying. All of them.

I believe the dozen or so vets who travel with the Kerry campaign from stop to stop do not have a political agenda, and they alone are telling the truth.

I believe John Kerry when he said he spent Christmas in Cambodia.

I believe John Kerry when he said he did not spend Christmas in Cambodia.

I believe that questioning Bush's military record is justified, even patriotic, even though Bush never made it a campaign issue.

I believe that questioning Kerry's military record is vile and despicable, even though Kerry made his service the centerpiece of his campaign.

I believe I'll be glad when this election is over.

I believe that all 250 Swift Vets for the Truth are pro-Bush partisans, and that they are all lying. All of them.

No, at least 2 are telling the truth.

I give you the liberal rag known as the Billings Gazette (http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&tts=1&display=rednews/2004/09/01/build/state/25-swift-boat.inc)

Fil

I believe I'll be glad when this election is over.Wiser words are yet to be spoken...

I notice CBS is still sticking to their assertion that the documents are authentic, but have not issued any rebuttals or explanations to the various indications pointed out by other experts that the documents are a hoax.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

you evidently didnt look hard enough ;)

CBS News responded, saying, "We believed General Hodges the first time we spoke with him. We believe the documents to be genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it." Where's the rebuttal? Where's the explaination?

akipt, did you read past that sentence? The article responds to numerous criticisms of the authenticity of the documents, including criticisms of font type, superscript use, and identification of one of CBS' "experts" (Marcel Matley). The response doesn't prove authenticity, but it's present in the article.

Selective Reader arent ya akipt :D

You're calling ME selective? They used one handwriting expert to authenticate a typed document?

hehe :p Dan Rather is so screwed. Any unbiased reporter would just rat out the source of all this and save some face (what doesn't already have egg on it)

Actually I posted that *before* CBS aired any rebuttal/explanation, if you check the time/date. Just FYI.

Woohoo! I have to retract what I just said.

CBS' expert now denies ever authenticating them in the first place...

The Washington Post reports today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-2004Sep13?language=printer) that Marcel Matley, the expert CBS cited as having authenticated documents allegedly written by Lt. Col. Killian to discredit President Bush's National Guard service, says CBS's claims that he authenticated them are false.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

"I knew I could not prove them authentic just from my expertise," he said. "I can't say either way from my expertise, the narrow, narrow little field of my expertise."

I eagerly await CBS' response to *this* one.

More grist for the mill...

Here's the Washington Post article. Sounds like the CBS rebuttal is getting shredded a bit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-2004Sep13?language=printer

Dan Rather is now on the same playing field as Geraldo Rivera.... What a 'tard.

Something to think about:

The moment CBS admits these docs are bogus, they must divulge who their source was. Protecting sources who tell the truth is honorable (though not as sacrosanct as some in the press think). Protecting sources who gave your news organization an umbrella enema and then opened it, is nuts. You have no obligation to protect a source who lies to you. Indeed, you have an obligation to out such sources. The only plausible motive I can think of for why Rather et al would protect the source of these documents -- once they admit the truth -- is that the source of these docs is even more embarassing than the fraudulent nature of the documents themselves. If it's Chris Lehane or Ben Barnes or someone else tied to the Kerry campaign, CBS News will have actively aided and abetted a partisan smear. And they can't afford to admit that.

Look at it this way: Assuming CBS comes clean, imagine if Karl Rove were the source. They'd admit it in a heart beat.
If it was Ben Barnes, the Kerry campaign is over, finished, kaput.

Considering the Kerry campaign (err I'm sorry, the DNC) just released this (http://www.democrats.org/fortunateson/index.html) today with Dan Rather and Barnes trashing the president in it. Can anyone say "inappropriate timing" ?

Sooooo let me see.... Bush orders release of records http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111396,00.html

But Kerry wont release his medical records.......


I heard on Fox News also that CBS is now calling the recent documents on Bush's Gaurd issues.... "questionable"....

hehe you gotta love it.

Now all that is left is the two debates for Bush to screw up his double digit leads... *crosses fingers* in hope it doesn't happen.

Edit: Put this polling info in post http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Anyone know the set dates for the debates?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132820,00.html

If this is true Kerry is even a bigger dumbass then previously expected.

I think that really depends on what your expectations were..

Now all that is left is the two debates for Bush to screw up his double digit leads... *crosses fingers* in hope it doesn't happen.
Anyone know the set dates for the debates?
Killing two birds with one stone. :)

www.debates.org

The bipartisan Commision on Presidential Debates set up 3 dates, Sept 30, Oct 5, and Oct 13 and a vice-presidential debate on Oct 8. But, currently, the Bush campaign has not agreed to this schedule. Talk about timely, this story is from this morning: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/presidential.debates.ap/index.html

I'll look around, there was a newspaper in Phoenix that had a story a couple weeks ago that basically said they believed they were going to get bumped from the debate schedule ( the Oct 13 date was in Arizona, Florida and Missouri were the other two respectively ).

Fil