That the newly-unearthed "documents" regarding Pres. Bush's National Guard service are nothing more than poorly produced FORGERIES. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html Boy, oh boy...do you ever have egg on your face. :lol: :lol: :lol:
good links. i wasnt sure what to make of this story for a few days. but now it appears pretty clear that those documents are forgeries. i am curious to see where this story goes, but it seems like it wil only help bush if people are caught faking crap about him. i am getting excited, it looks like it will be four more years for our man, gentlemen.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml i guess if you listen to people like sean hanity you would believe they were forgeries. official papers released by the white house of his military record have the same script. man people just take anything as fact and jump right out with it. good thing for the bush people they didn't come out saying the same thing yall are. how long has that script been out? 1931? i guess the republicans will be saying that the owner of the company that distributes this typing style says "it has been available since 1931" can't be trusted because hes a kerry backer.
How about we judge him on what he has done the last 4 years. Does it really make sense to question his guard service when he has been commander in cheif for 4 years??? Judge him on that, and if you dont like him then vote Kerry. I think what Kerry did in Vietnam was atroucious, yet that is not the reason I am so opposed to him. I am opposed due to his voting record: high taxes, weak military spending and gun banning legislation. He wanted to ban several shot guns...so good luck hunting ducks with a sling shot. :dis:
That would mean we would have to judge Kerry on his 20 year Senate record. Can't have that now can we?
Of course CBS and Dan Rather are going to try to cover their asses on this one, dummy. They messed up. Tell me, did Microsoft Word exist in 1973? Because that's what some of the analysts said it looked like this forgery was created on. IF there really was a typewriter with a superscript New Roman font on it available in 1973, then it was the latest in typing technology, and I can guarantee you, a National Guard unit would have been the last place to have one. Owing to budgetary constraints, the NG gets all the hand-me-downs from the Regular Army and Air Force...so odds are, if this report had been typed at an Air NG base in 1973, it would have very likely been typed on a WWII vintage manual typewriter. I won't even get into the accounts of Col. Killian's son and widow, who claimed that Col. Killian never kept "personal files", never typed anything himself, and had nothing but the highest regard for young Lt. Bush. This whole thing is really just a silly, sloppy and botched attempt to smear Pres. Bush to take attention away from the mess that John Kerry has made of his campaign by playing the Vietnam card. The timing of it alone would make it suspect to anybody but the most die-hard liberals...who are too far gone to be reasonable, anyway.
so the papers released by the white house that had the same script that were also from THE NATIONAL GUARD are so rare that its not possible that anyone else had that same type writer? this is the problem that guys like you have, you call me a dummy because "SOME" experts say it doesn't look real without seeing the origionals. you people attack anyone that has anything bad to say about bush. its amazing that you people think hes so great but if he was so great why is he in such a close race with someone thats probably not even close to being the best democrat to be running for president? go ahead and attack me without knowing who i am because that really shows what type of person you are. so what happens if cbs gets the origionals and shows for sure they are real, then what will you say? probably the same thing as before because thats how your type are.
Because there's enough people like you out there that have been sold the DNC bill of goods that anybody is better than Bush. And they peddle that story because they have nothing else to run on. Let me turn your question around: If Bush is the total f**k-up that people like you seem to think he is, why doesn't Kerry have a 20-point lead on him? BTW, w/ the heated exchanges going on vis-a-vis this subject, if you think being called a dummy is a personal attack, then you really need to get a thicker skin. I'm seeing people on both sides being called much worse. However, if you're that easily offended, you have my apology for the use of the word "dummy".
the reason kerry doesn't have a 20 point lead is because of who he is. i agree hes not even close to being the best democrat to be running but i just don't like bush.
