[CBRVFR]

They didn't have MS word 30 years ago..

A multipart rant, if you'll indulge me.

So, the 60 minutes papers which the Kerry campaign hoped would refocus the public's attention on Bush's NG record are suspect.

First, if it's true, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of arrogant assholes, especially that tool Mike Wallace. (edit: I mean Dan Rather. Mike Wallace is also a tool, though.)
Second, when I read that these papers were to be featured on TV last night, and got this email from the local democratic headquarters (remember I'm running for local office on a slate as a democrat);

To find out the truth about Bush's military career in the Texas Air
National Guard while John Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam for two tours
of duty, please watch 60 Minutes II tonight starting 8:00 pm. If anyone
can record the show, please do so. Some of us will be working tonight.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/...ain48284.shtml

Thank you all again for your commitment to our cause.

I thought how clever it would have been for the Bushies to fake the docs, allow them to be "discovered", and discredit the JFK campaign when they bit on the hook.

Third, though I'm not now a democrat despite my candidacy (permanently pissed off independent), I was once. That was in 1971 and '72, when I was a draft age hippie going to college in Northern California, and I distinctly remember while working for McGovern's primary run, that VN vets were barely tolerated, accused of being baby burners, and that any means, fair or foul, to get out of serving in that war was A-****ing-OK.

No 50+ year old boomer is much like the 18 year old they were during that horrible, divisive period, unless they've been smoking dope every day for 35 years. I've changed and evolved, as has Bush, and Kerry.

So, for the dems to act as if Kerry the war hero has anything to do with Kerry the 20 year senator is incredibly hypocritical and ultimately stupid.
For them to trumpet the virtues of military service in that war, which was nearly universally despised within that party, is unbelievable.

Kerry is not well served by bringing up the subject of the VN war. His voting record speaks more of a war protester than someone who gives a **** about the needs of the military.

He cannot win a testicular-trophy-tournament with Bush in 2004. ( though he obviously has something going for himself in that department, having married two women worth approximately a jillion dollars.. but I digress).

He needs to just explain coherently to the American people what policies he has in mind if elected. A lot of voters would PREFER that the next president have opposition in the congress. He still has a chance, if he just talks about the future, and lets Edwards do most of the talking, at that.

I am so ****ing disappointed in the choices the parties give us.


OK, I'm done now.

[firedawgon929]

I am so ****ing disappointed in the choices the parties give us.

Yup. It's going to be a long 4 years no matter who wins it.

[ccwilli3]

lots of flaws in said "found" document...

* The documents are not on a standard letterhead. Instead, they feature a typewritten and centered address with a post office box rather than an actual street address of the squadron. The address is P.O. Box 34567, which coincidentally includes five consecutive numbers.

* Dates in the letters - "04 May 1972" and "14 May, 1972" - are inconsistent and do not follow military form. The military prefers the following example, according to ex-officers: 4 May 72. It doesn't include a zero preceding the date or a comma following the month.

* The lines "MEMORANDUM FOR:" and "SUBJECT:" that begin the May 4, 1972, document, weren't officially used in the 1970s. According to one retired military officer, the correct format then was most likely "REPLY TO ATTN OF:" then "SUBJECT:" and finally "TO:" preceding the text of the message.

* Bush's name was listed in the memo as "1st Lt. George W. Bush." But other military documents, including those posted on Sen. John Kerry's website use a different format. Bush's name would have likely appeared as "1LT Bush, GW" or "1LT G Bush."

* There shouldn't be disparities in the May 4, 1972, letter such as, "111 F.I.S." and "111th F.I.S.," according to ex-military officers. Also, the acronym "F.I.S.," which stands for Fighter Intercept Squadron, shouldn't have included periods.

* The signature block with Killian's name lists his rank as "Lt. Colonel," when in reality most military commanders abbreviated that title as "LTC" or "Lt. Col.," according to retired officers. The signature block also includes the word "Commander" when "Commanding" was the preferred reference.

[Baketech]

My take...?

The story is true, but the docs are fake. Do I care..not really, it's the same crap that was dredged up in the previous election....

The only thing that is brought to light by this story is the further proof of partisanship by our left-leaning media.