Seeing as the previous funnies were appreciated, here are a few more amusing (No, groundbreaking, earth-shattering!) memos Rather has discovered:
I found all of my Bloom County books back in June when I moved. Sat down and read them all over again.
“The Red Hordes’ knocking at our Southern door!!!”
It’s not over just yet…
BB-Whahahaa
Speaking of media…
Don Imus, a syndicated talk show host, based in NYC interviewed John Kerry yesterday.
It was disjointed to say the least. Imus supports Kerry and recently changed his support from Bush. I would consider him a moderate and not affiliated with either party.
After the interview he said he went to his office and banged his head against his julebox and stated “I can’t believe that is the guys I am going to vote for and I can’t figure out where he stands on anything”. Imus is fairly irreverant and probes fairly deeply. JFK just would not answer a question directly. It was pretty unusual and funny…to me at least.
On a more serious note, here’s a great, thorough critique of the entirety of the entire 60 Minutes II piece:
Hedo,
Just so you know, Imus says he is a registered Republican and always has been. He also said that he recently switched to ‘undecided’ after saying he was in Kerry’s camp.
Not that any of this is all that relevant to your point, just a little clarification.
Imus appreciates a lot of political flavors and is friendly with all types.
Having watched the interview with Kerry, it wasn’t difficult to understand Imus’ frustration. Imus gave Kerry a wide open opportunity to announce his vision, and Kerry continued to straddle and waffle.
[quote]doogie wrote:
I found all of my Bloom County books back in June when I moved. Sat down and read them all over again.
“The Red Hordes’ knocking at our Southern door!!!”[/quote]
I’m ferverous!!!..I’m ferverous!!!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
George Bush did not want to go to Viet Nam, he had a way out and he took it. Everyone was aware of this in 2000. [/quote]
The issue at hand is not that George Bush found a way to avoid Vietnam (as Bush admitted, he joined the Guard because he was “not prepared to blow an eardrum out with a shotgun” in order to avoid combat).
The issue here is that George Bush basically walked away from the last 2 years (or 1.5 years, certainly) of a 6 year military committment.
That’s the issue.
Lumpy:
You missed my point!
Your “issue” is a non-issue! You have to stop thinking that this is important, or relevant in any way to this Presidential election. What a twenty something kid did thirty some years ago is hardly newsworthy today. That’s one reason that I was against raising all of these instances when John Kerry demeaned the United States war effort and his fellow soilders. It was 35 years ago!
One reason that John Kerry is falling behind in the polls is because of this stupid National Guard issue. It has not at all helped him. You guys need to let that one go. It does not harm Bush, and it does not promote Kerry. By continuing to have this story be front page news each night only keeps the election moving in Bush’s direction, or at least locked in a Bush lead.
You have to be able to see this…
Ok that just might be the issue of President Bush, but WHAT about Mr Kerry? You keep saying Lumpy, as well as John KErry that oh I did release all of my documents. Well… Not according to the US Navy!!!
Navy Contradicts Kerry on Release of Military Records
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
September 16, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Navy released documents Wednesday contradicting claims by Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry that all of his available military records have been released.
The Navy, responding to a Freedom of Information Act request from the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, also referred interested parties to Kerry’s campaign web site for government military documents.
Navy Personnel Command FOIA Officer Dave German wrote in an e-mail to Judicial Watch that the Navy “withheld thirty-one pages of documents from the responsive military personnel service records as we were not provided a release authorization.”
A “release authorization” would have to come from Kerry filling out and signing a Standard Form 180, something he has yet to do. A Standard Form 180 would authorize the complete release of all his military records. Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in August to obtain Kerry’s military records.
The official U.S. Navy response was received by Judicial Watch on Wednesday, the same day that Kerry told syndicated radio and MSNBC TV host Don Imus that “We’ve posted my military records that they sent to me, or were posted on my website. You can go to my website, and all my – you know, the documents are there.”
When Imus pressed Kerry as to whether all of his documents were in fact included on the campaign website, Kerry responded, "To the best of my knowledge. I think some of the medical stuff may still be out there. We’re trying to get it.
“We released everything that they (the Navy) initially sent me,” he added.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the Navy’s correspondence confirms that Kerry has not been forthright in releasing his military files.
“It’s written confirmation from the U.S. Navy that there are additional documents from Kerry’s service record that have yet to be made publicly available,” Fitton told CNSNews.com.
Fitton called the Kerry campaign’s contention that all of the candidate’s military files have been released, “wrong.”
“They (the Kerry campaign) are either ignorant or misleading us. The simple solution is to authorize the release of all records related to his service,” Fitton said.
German in a letter dated September 15, also referred Judicial Watch to Kerry’s campaign website for more information on Kerry’s military records.
“Numerous responsive U.S. Navy service record documents, as well as service record documents not subject to disclosure requirements under the FOIA, may be accessed at” the Kerry campaign’s website applying to his military records, wrote German.
“Right now we are in the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ situation, where the U.S. Navy is telling us to go to a campaign Internet site to get government FOIA documents,” Fitton said.
“I am not aware of any other instance where [a government agency] told us to go to a political website for documents,” he added. “It’s not a reliable repository of government documents.”
In additional correspondence with Judicial Watch dated Sept. 15, the Navy stated that it did not have a copy of Kerry’s Discharge Certificate (DD Form 256N), adding that the Navy did not keep files of the certificate in its records.
German wrote in a letter dated Sept. 15, “A copy of an honorable discharge certificate (DD256N) is not placed in the U.S. Navy Service record when issued.”
Jerome Corsi, co-author of the best-selling book “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” told CNSNews.com the he was “surprised” the Navy did not have a copy of Kerry’s discharge file.
“That means [Kerry’s] got it,” Corsi said. “It goes against his contention that he has released everything that is in his possession, because certainly that form is in his possession.”
Corsi believes that the Navy’s official response proves that “it’s Kerry who is blocking the release of the [military] documents and nobody else.”
“What’s Senator Kerry got to hide?” Corsi asked. “By not releasing these files, he is creating the impression that there is something there he doesn’t want anybody to see. What is it?”
Judicial Watch is also awaiting the U.S. Navy’s response to its inquiry regarding Kerry’s “Silver Star with combat V.” The citation appears in Kerry’s DD214 military form on his website, but according to military officials, no such medal exists.
“Kerry’s record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a ‘combat V’ to anyone for a Silver Star,” said a Naval official to reporter Thomas Lipscomb in an article for the August 27th Chicago Sun Times.
According to the Sun Times article, “Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a ‘combat V’ for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star ‘combat V,’ either.”
SO if Bush has to release all, and come clean, then Kerry has to too… ANd Kerry refuses to sign that form. It will only when both does, that this issue will come to rest…But if one does and the other refuses, to come clean, then that is a real issue here.
Joe
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The issue here is that George Bush basically walked away from the last 2 years (or 1.5 years, certainly) of a 6 year military committment.
That’s the issue.[/quote]
That right there is what’s wrong with the whole Kerry clusterfuck.
You don’t even know what the issues are. And what’s worse, even if you were to address the real issues of the race you have no message.
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
George Bush did not want to go to Viet Nam, he had a way out and he took it. Everyone was aware of this in 2000.
The issue at hand is not that George Bush found a way to avoid Vietnam (as Bush admitted, he joined the Guard because he was “not prepared to blow an eardrum out with a shotgun” in order to avoid combat).
The issue here is that George Bush basically walked away from the last 2 years (or 1.5 years, certainly) of a 6 year military committment.
That’s the issue.[/quote]
Hmm. Let me see. They’ve been trying to make this story stick for 6 years, since Bush was governor of Texas – this is the third election cycle the story has been covered.
So far, the only proof offered for the positive contention that Bush shirked his commitment was put together by CBS in the 60 Minutes II story. Of that proof, the memos are proved forgeries, the person who said he pressured the Guard to let Bush in when he was Lt. Governor 1) Wasn’t Lt. Governor at the time 2) Is a major Kerry campaign contributor who somehow didn’t come forward with this story in the last two election cycles 3) Is contradicted by his daughter, who says he used to hold that he never helped Bush get into the Guard and 4) Even if what he claims were true, he claimed no one ever asked him to help Bush get in to the Guard, but that he did it with the thought that the Bush family would be thankful. Conveniently, the only possible corroroborating witnesses for his story, who also didn’t come forward in previous election cycles, have passed away. Bush received an honorable discharge, and Byron York, in a column I posted elsewhere, demonstrated Bush fulfilled his hours requirement, as do the payroll records.
So, where’s the proof on your side, Lumpy – proof that Bush walked away from his commitment, proof that he did not satisfy the requirements of his service? Or proof that the pro-Bush evidence above is fake or false like the fake memos?
BTW, as to attempting to avoid combat service in Viet Nam, Kerry 1) applied for a student deferral to study in France, which was denied and 2) Signed up for the Navy and swiftboat duty at a time when the swiftboat mission was far away from combat – unluckily for him, the mission changed just before he reported for duty. He wasn’t signing up for combat duty – if he wanted that, he would have gone in the infantry or the marines. That is not to denigrate his service, or question that he was in combat, saw fire, killed the enemy, or anything else. It’s merely to show he tried to do what you show Bush did above – avoid combat duty while still serving.
The issue too is this, The way President Bush respects and treats the military. Bush never turned his back on the military. He never spoke out against the military. YOu take for example the differences between Bush and Kerrys speeches to the National Guard. You compare the receptions, the both men recieved. Bush received 7 standing ovations… Kerry not a one.
Kerrys sppech …
On NBC Network TV there was about 5 seconds showing the not happy looking vets for kerry (none clapping, most looked very pissed) and contrasted with Bush’s reception. But like I said, it was only like 5 seconds.
several hundred walked out DURING his speech and said he received a cool reception at best.
The atmosphere could best be discribed as GRIM.
The Army members looked like they wanted to call in an air strike.
The Air Force members looked like they’d enjoy flying the mission.
The Navy and Marine members looked like they had similar thoughts.
And then along with the speech, Moveon.org makes a new ad the defeated soldier. The sign of the gun raised , surrender A surrender to the terrorists? .WHAT kind of image does that potray??? Then you couple that with the speech Kerry gave to the National Guard… Again WHAT message you think that is to the military? A message of pessissism, doom and gloom. That any message to tell the troops, on the front line?
The best was said by Bob Dole:
It’s one thing to debate whether we should take the fight to the terrorists, but depicting an American soldier in effect surrendering in the battle against the terrorists is beyond the pale.
I cannot believe that John Kerry, who reminds us daily of his Vietnam service, would possibly approve the disgusting and demoralizing portrayal of American soldiers fighting for us in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world.
John Kerry has raised doubts about our troops’ ability to maintain security as well as Iraqi’s ability to decide their own future through elections. He has called the allies in Iraq “window dressing.” This is all reminiscent of his appearance before a Senate Committee in 1971 where he suggested with nothing but second hand information American GIs were committing atrocities and war crimes of the worst kind in Vietnam.
This defeatist attitude undermines the great progress and sacrifices of our men and women in the military and the contributions of our allies who are fighting against terror and standing up for freedom around the world.
The politics of pessimism that is being pursued by John Kerry and the extreme liberals demonstrates they are consumed by the past with nothing to offer but attacks on the President’s agenda for creating a safer world.
John, say it isn’t so and denounce this latest effort to divide Americans"
I WONDER if he will???
Joe
T Bolt23
Didn’t realize that he was a registered Republican. I have not been a regulare listener to his program. He seems very political so it has been interesting as of late.
I think he hit the issue right on however. If a fairly intelligent person, who generally likes Kerry, can’t figure out what he stands for…how will the rest of the electorate.
Friends,
The National Guard gave raucous cheers to W.
Didn’t a large number turn their backs and walk out during Kerry’s speech?
Any guesses on how many more military members will vote for W.?
I’m guessing he’ll eventually poll well over 90%.
Hey Lumpy/RSU/DanH/Chinadoll/Elk/Todd, you going to call them Chickenhawks?
Can’t wait for November,
JeffR
Them memos were proved fake for a week now, for anyone who cared to view things objectively.
CBS is now going to admit as much:
Great side-by-side graphic of actual memos from Jerry Killian from the time period against the forgeries, courtesy of known Bush hacks at the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html
Prediction from Byron York, posted at The Corner at NationalReview.com:
THE CBS STORY TODAY [Byron York]
The question at CBS News no longer concerns the authenticity of documents used in the “60 Minutes” report on George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard. That issue is settled. Instead, the question now is: Which heads will roll? Judging by news leaking out of the network’s headquarters, efforts at finger-pointing and buck-passing are in high gear as CBS News prepares to admit that it based its report on forged documents. At the very least, top management seems ready to axe “60 Minutes” segment producer Mary Mapes. Their rationale will be that, during the extraordinarily rushed production of the Bush/Air National Guard piece, executives asked Mapes a series of questions about the documents and relied on her confident answers in deciding to go ahead with the segment. The question then will be whether CBS News executives make the calculation that they can get away with firing just one person in the decision-making chain. CBS News officials certainly remember the “Dateline NBC” scandal which brought down not only the producer of the offending segment, but the on-air reporter for the segment, and, ultimately, the president of NBC News. In this case, the president of CBS News is Andrew Heyward, the executive producer of the “60 Minutes” program in question is Josh Howard, and the on-air reporter is Dan Rather. All were closely involved in the decision to air the Bush piece, and all have vigorously defended the documents’ authenticity in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And there appear to be forces inside CBS – the network at large, not just the news division – who are laying the groundwork for the removal of at least some, if not all, of them. Today’s New York Times reports that, “The seemingly unflappable confidence of Mr. Rather and top news division officials in the documents allayed fears within the network” when doubts arose about the documents’ authenticity. That can be read as coming from executives at CBS/Viacom, which oversees CBS News. In an argument that will mirror the rationale Heyward and others will likely use in getting rid of Mapes, top CBS/Viacom officials could argue – in this case, with some good reason – that that they were misled by CBS News officials who expressed confidence in the “60 Minutes” story.
Posted at 09:37 AM
Rather’s statement – net paraphrase: It was an honest mistake.
Via Drudge:
EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET
STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush’s time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question?and their source?vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where?if I knew then what I know now?I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people’s trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.