|
Bush memos - looks like a hoax
|
Posted By:
Matt
Sep 10, 2004
|
Too bad Alex is on vacation - look what's in the news now. Several memos have surfaced claiming Bush failed to perform his National Guard duties. They are dated from the early 1970's. You can view scans of the actual documents here:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/Politics/BushGuardDocs.PDF
Note, these scans are image files and may take a while to download. But take a close look at the typeface - the typeface, the font spacing, and the subscript (such as the way "111th" appears on the second page, all suggest they were typed on a modern word processor rather than a '70s vintage typewriter, which probably would have used a typeface similar to Courier. Here's an article over the controversy:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955784/
My overall impression is that the documents are a forgery, and not even a very good one.
|
Comments
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 | 05:46 PM
first question: who benefits? If they are such an obvious forgery, as claimed, then could they purposely have been leaked to "The Kerry Camp" giving them enuff rope to hang themselves? Or, could they be the shoddy work of "The Kerry Camp". who has access to millions of dollars and probably wouldn't be stupid enuff to put so much stock in a shoddy forgery? Or, could some loon with a word processor have put them together to throw a monkey wrench into the works and watch everybody scramble? Or: are they the real thing and this is just another in a long line of spin, deception, lies, and Bull$hite? The world may never know... |
anon
|
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 | 07:23 PM
Cui bono? You ask. Certainly not Dan Rather who ends up with the egg on his face. Tell me why he so uncritically accepted and aired these obvious fakes in the first place.
They Kerry Camp does not benefit in the long run as they look like inepts. In the short run it distracts from his lackluster Senate record where none of his legislation made it out of committee. As he got no bounce from his convention, his side can only try to bring his opponent down.
These were obviously not created by the Bush Camp as that would have been uncovered by now.
In any case, this certainly deserves a mention in the Museum's permanent collection. |
rwt1138
|
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 | 04:00 PM
I agree, almost certainly a fake. Note the superscripted "th" on 187th and 111th. Also, was 34567 really the P.O. Box of the Houston Air National Guard? Seems like that could be checked--it's certainly easy enough to remember. As for the superscript typing, as I recall, in 1973 that would have been pretty tricky and generally involved some kind of hardware swap--for two characters, I can't see someone taking the trouble.
Finally, as someone who works in the private sector and who has saved a lot of CYA memos and e-mails (and written quite a few), I don't know how it works in the military but in the private sector you don't usually name a CYA memo "CYA"; generally, you find something fluffier and less cynical. The boss or his boss tends to prefer "Summary of Review Discussion" over "Just In Case This Ever Blows Up I want My Name Out Of It" as a subject line. Again, I don't know how that works in the military--or did in 1973. In short, inconclusive but darned suspicious. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 | 06:15 PM
Once again: who benefits from an "obvious" forgery? Bush... it appears the focus has been sucessfully removed from scrutiny of Bush's service to who/what/where/how/why these "forgeries" came into the hands of CBS... Okay, let's say they are forgeries...AGAIN: Who Benefits? Bush...one more time: Bush Personally, the lies regarding Iraq's WMDs in the run-up to the war should be The Hoax of The Century... even if it was hatched in the last decade of the last century... lies, lies, all lies... Take that, digital brownshirts of the net (present company excluded, I'm sure) |
Matt
|
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 | 08:44 PM
My bet is that this was most likely the work of an ammetuer who wanted to make the sort of campaign contribution that isn't subject to campaign finance reform. We've seen that there are plenty of people on both sides who hate the opposing candidate enough, have few enough scruples, and have the ability to come up with such a memo. I think that it's most likely a campaign meddler who doesn't have the funding of, say, George Soros or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Most likely the meddler hoped to support Kerry, but it's certainly possible he wanted to embarass the Democrats instead. I don't think it's the work of anyone who was actually working with either campaign.
Another possibility is that someone in the media pulled it off. We've certainly had our share of dishonest reporter scandals, but I think it's most likely the work of some sort of "grassroots campaigners." |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 | 04:45 PM
Question: would the Media, CBS, have applied more scrutiny to documents disparaging John Kerry? Probably not...they are obviously hungry for a hot story, or diversion, as the resultant frenzy shows...Check out Drudge today for copies of the After Action report on JKs incident in Nam that led to his medal(s)...the quality on those document copies are certainly suspect, if one was inclined to suggest so... Again, who benefits, no matter the scource or creator of the GW docs? GW... he just has to stand there, not saying anything off the script, and the chittering cicadas do the rest...chitterchitterchitter |
anon
|
Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 | 04:04 PM
"Again, who benefits, no matter the scource or creator of the GW docs? GW... he just has to stand there, not saying anything off the script, and the chittering cicadas do the rest...chitterchitterchitter"
I beg to differ on that. . .
If the creator could be linked to George Bush or his campaign; however remotely (even six degrees of Kevin Bacon-style), the rabidly anti-Bush mainstream media (excuse the redundencies) would be screaming for his impeachment by now. As the matter stands everyone who can, is distancing themselves from these painfully inept forgeries.
These are as transparent as the gag memos I've seen circulated, such as the classic Special High Intensity Training (one guess at the acronym formed).
|
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 | 08:18 PM
following the trail to the usual suspects, i would not be surprised to see "the forgeries" proven as put together by some interest who supports gwb, for whatever reason...I'm not suggesting that the gwb campaign is directly behind this, i figure it's obvious, though, that they have pounced on a screw-up, to the bush adavantage. Of course, that is what one would expect in such a close race...again, it seems to have sucessfully pulled the focus from gwb's service to the "forged" documents and cbs's willingness to exploit them without proper scrutiny... i just wish this much scrutiny was directed toward gwb...can't deny, make the messenger fry |
Matt
|
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 | 03:02 PM
But does Bush truly benefit from this? With or without the memos, it seems that he's still got a record in the National Guard where they still haven't conclusively established he was even there all the time he should have been. Sure, it did embarass some Democrats who believed it was real, but I don't think Bush really wants more discussion of his National Guard record. "Who benefits?" does not have an obvious answer. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 | 06:02 PM
i think i should clarify my question to ask "Who benefits at the moment"...this may have temporarily removed the focus from bush's record to the documents, but you are right, matt...this will (and should) bring greater scrutiny upon bush's service in the long term... however, with the election so close, a short term diversion is all that's needed... you Can fool all of the people some of the time (that's a real profound statement on a hoax forumn, eh? Sorry) |
Shawna
|
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 | 10:36 AM
I think Karl Rove perpetrated this hoax |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 | 03:32 PM
I find it funny that the right is calling for Rather's head, for getting behind a false document, when they were so hesitant to criticize GWB for getting behind a false premise to go to war. Nobody died when Rather's source lied. If you read Rather's apology, it seems that he is giving the mea culpa speech that Bush should have. Yepper, Shawna... smells like Rove to me |
Shawna
|
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 | 03:55 PM
Exactly, shift the negative attention to the Biased Liberal Media rather than this bogus President and his scandalous, muderous stupidity. |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
