SwiftVets.com Forum Index SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

TANG Memo on Bush
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 32, 33, 34 ... 65, 66, 67  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
You GottaBeKidding
Rear Admiral


Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jimlarsen,

Word is not very good at WYSIWYG, which is why there's Print Preview. I actually use a different program (Lotus Word Pro) for most of my work, and it doesn't have print preview because it doesn't need it. It really IS WYSIWYG because it reacts with both the video driver and the printer driver to show you exactly what you'll get when you print.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Debs
Lieutenant


Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 228
Location: Lubbock, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jimlarson,

I also typed the memos out on Word and the superscript matches exactly to the superscript in the fake memos. Also, even if there was a ball back in the 70's which could duplicate the superscript, in the fake memos, the "th" is not consistent throughout the memos. In some places it is a superscript, in others it is not, and in still others there is a space between the numbers and the "th" and it is not a superscript. It seems if it was on a ball, then the "th" superscript would be consistent throughout all the memos.

Debbie
_________________
"No greater love..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cipher
Vice Admiral


Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 902

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reason that AFM 35-13 is significant is that it is cited as an "In Accordance With" reference (which implies a directive, order, regulation, or instruction), as opposed to an authority to be complied with (as in a standard or protocol).

It may seem like hair-splitting, but in the military there are ways to do things, and then there are orders. There is a distinction.

Um, side note: Discussion on the documents on WABC radio now (for the next 30 minutes):

http://www.wabcradio.com/listenlive.asp
_________________
USMC 69-72, 7th Comm, 3rd MarDiv, FMFPAC
US Army 75-79, 97th Sig, SHAPE, NATO
Arkansas National Guard 79
Defense contractor for US Navy, SSPO, SP-20, SP-24, OP-12 84-92
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Navyfam
Seaman Recruit


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When I first heard that 60 minutes (of hell) was running a negative story on new documents about the President's national guard service I was just so furious because 60 minutes (of hell) is so partisan it never ran a story on SBVT, never looked into JFnK's records....

NOW they're saying "We've been duped!" Get real, they knew this story was questionable but in their anti-Bust pirhanna feeding frenzy what they desired most, Bush's blood in the water, got in the way of anything approaching journalistic objectivity. Well CBS can't fake it anymore.

I'm waiting for Dan Rather(not) to eat crow. I might have some respect for him if he would report on who the source was and who particularly gave CBS the documents, and if CBS admits responsibility instead of blaming it on ROVE (I mean really, Rove?) but I won't hold my breath.

I thank God that there are sites like this one and others where a person can get the truth. MSM is just liberal opinion, not the "news".

God bless you all.
_________________
Sailors in family WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, 1st gulf war and many peacetime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
W.P. Wily
Lt.Jg.


Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The story has made the ABC and NBC news web sites:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955784/

Strangely enough, all I could find on the CBS news web site is the original discredited story. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!

Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TEWSPilot
Admiral


Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1235
Location: Kansas (Transplanted Texan)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:43 am    Post subject: Just for some perspective Reply with quote

Keeping in mind that this whole flap is about whether GW Bush fulfilled his obligation -- or at least an attempt to produce "documents" proving he didn't and was disciplined for it, here is a chronology of his service and the points he accumulated during the entire period in question.

Bush’s National Guard years

...Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

... In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”

Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

That’s fine. We should know as much as we can.

And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.
_________________
Find the perfect babysitter, petsitter, or tutor -- today!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cipher
Vice Admiral


Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 902

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, here we go. This looks like it is a direct quote from the AFM 35-13:

Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13: “When a Rated Officer Fails To Accomplish a Medical Examination Prescribed by AFM 160-1…(1)The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination. After reviewing the findings of the investigation, the local commander may convene a Flying Evaluation Board or forward through command channels a detailed report of the circumstances which resulted in the officer’s failure to accomplish a medical examination, along with a recommendation that the suspension be removed. (2) The individual’s major command will forward the report along with the command recommendation to USAFMPC/DPMAJD, Randolph AFB TX 78148 for final determination.”

NOW, if you look at the 4 May 72 document, (here: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf ) first paragraph, and SUBSTITUTE the language above in place of IAW AFM 35-13, then you can see why it's nonsensical.

(this assumes the quoted text, lifted from the Kerry site, is accurate)
_________________
USMC 69-72, 7th Comm, 3rd MarDiv, FMFPAC
US Army 75-79, 97th Sig, SHAPE, NATO
Arkansas National Guard 79
Defense contractor for US Navy, SSPO, SP-20, SP-24, OP-12 84-92
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cipher
Vice Admiral


Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 902

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TEWSPilot --

I can understand that frustration. It's unlikely Kerry will ever get off his records. His records are too pristine to be sullied by the likes of us mere mortals gazing on them.

What is important about this document flap is that it seems to point directly back to the Kerry Kamp. Dirty tricks at its best (or worst).
_________________
USMC 69-72, 7th Comm, 3rd MarDiv, FMFPAC
US Army 75-79, 97th Sig, SHAPE, NATO
Arkansas National Guard 79
Defense contractor for US Navy, SSPO, SP-20, SP-24, OP-12 84-92
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lrb111
Captain


Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 508

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the CYA memo http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay19.pdf

it says:
Quote:
Says that he is working on another campaign for his dad.
<snip>
He has this campaign to do and other things that will follow and may not have the time. I advised him of our investment in him and his commitment.


From this site i'm looking for info that his dad was running for senate, or anything. I'm not finding that his dad was running in that time period...
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0857082.html

Quote:
After losing a race for the U.S. Senate in 1970, he served in several important posts under Presidents Nixon and Ford, including ambassador to the United Nations (1971–73), chairman of the Republican national committee (1973–74), chief of the U.S. liaison office in China (1974–75), and director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (1976–77).


Anyone with facts that his dad was even running?

I seem to remember from a televised interview, that he requested the time off to help with a campaign from Georgia(?).....

Can anyone reinforce the doc, or help debunk on this issue?
The way it's worded sure sounds like a ill-informed sophomoric attempt at an "attitude", about george... imo..
_________________
said Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "It is inexcusable to mock service and sacrifice."
well, when even the DNC can see it,,,,, then kerry is toast.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JimRobson
Lieutenant


Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 242
Location: Jacksonville FL

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Hondo, I appreciate it.

My bets are placed on CBS revealing their source for these docs. I know CBS won't take that kind of heat. When the chips are down, (and they are) they will sing like Caruso.

It won't be pretty for the Dimocrats.
_________________
ETN2 PTF2 (Littlecreek Underwater Demolition Unit 2 1963)

http://www.thewebplace.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
noc
PO1


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 492
Location: Dublin, CA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You GottaBeKidding wrote:
noc,

Elite is a monospaced (typewriter-style) font, not a proportional one. It's more similar to Courier than to Times New Roman.

With the typewriters that had interchangeable balls or wheels, you could usually switch between 10 pitch and 12 pitch. 15 probably wasn't very common. I had a 15-pitch daisy wheel for a printer, but it would likely have been rare on a typewriter.

Typewriter fonts are measured horizontally, characters per inch. Proportional (and computer) fonts are measured vertically, from the top of the tallest character to the bottom of the deepest descender. You can't measure them from side to side because different characters are different widths.

When you use a typewriter (monospaced) font, 12 point is 10 pitch (10 characters per inch) and 10 point is 12 pitch.

(And that's probably more than you ever wanted to know!)


Elite is a serif type font meaning it has the little feet unlike courier which is not. You are right about the size 15. It also was not available on the Selectric II. Only 10 and 12.

Here is a link to the elite font:

http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.asp?pid=205294

One last thing I am trying to confirm is exactly what 88 characters were on the font ball and if there was a font closer to the Times New Roman that was available.

The elite font does not match the documents. It is just the closest I found.

Thanks for the info you posted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
You GottaBeKidding
Rear Admiral


Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

noc,

I'm old enough to have typed on typewriters with both Elite and Pica so I know what they look like...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul R.
PO3


Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 273
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This from an article on Bush's TANG service:


"After Bush had flown the F-102 for four years, with excellent efficiency reports, he was asked to join the Alabama U.S. Senate campaign of Winton Blount, an old family friend.

This he was allowed to do: Under National Guard rules, a Guardsman is allowed to move anywhere in the nation, so long as there is a National Guard unit that he or she can and will join there.

... In May 1972, Bush joined the Air National Guard unit at Montgomery and began to work on Blount's campaign, headquartered there. Unfortunately, there were no planes in the Montgomery Guard unit that Bush was qualified to fly and, according to available information, he found himself flying a desk -- literally with nothing to do."

http://www.al.com/opinion/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1093770964297240.xml
_________________
Paul R.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul R.
PO3


Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 273
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Incidentally, it seems like I read somewhere that Bush was Blount's campaign manager, but I don't know if that's accurate. It also seems to me that at least one of Bush's superiors commended Bush for his interest in civics and government and stated that he (Bush) would be a fine representative for the Guard in the business / politics world.

(That's just a recollection from a possibly fuzzy brain, up way too late!)
_________________
Paul R.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neverforget
Vice Admiral


Joined: 18 Jul 2004
Posts: 875

PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lt Col Killian's widow is saying he didn't write these memos, period. Blaming Karl Rove is ridiculous. What happened is great poker playing:

CBS gave them to the White House, they gave them back without saying anything, and then let them shoot themselves in the foot. The original sources for the documents were the DNC and the Kerry campaign.

He's done. Rather's done.

Take a look at http:tradesports and see how President Bush has climbed and Kerry has been in freefall since all of you hard workers started on this today/yesterday.
_________________
US Army Security Agency
1965-1971
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 32, 33, 34 ... 65, 66, 67  Next
Page 33 of 67

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group