Man named in Bush memo left Guard before document was written

Dallas Morning News ^ | 9-10-04

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

[AUSTIN, Texas - (KRT) - The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat" President Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written, his own service record shows. ]

But this can't be! Dan Blather (soon to be retired) has assured us that his story and supporting evidence are true.

This joker is going to have to be pried from under his desk while sucking his thumb before this is all said and done.

[sandbar]

>Another poster said that the entire letterhead was a fake. He >said they didn't put P O boxes on letterheads

Not only that, but if you look at the two lines, they don't match up. Anyone who is proficient on the typewriter knows that the letters line up directly above each other, but in some cases the numbers and letters above the other line is in between the letters below. That is the center function on Word. Can't happen on a typewriter unless it is an electric on with half space capability and the one I used in 1989 didn't have that. Not unless they had the mac daddy typewriter and I don't know anything in the military being top of the line.

[Truthsearcher]

To me this is as damning a piece of evidence as any other. It alone would point to forgery, add in all the other and this is a slam dunk.

[igoramus987]

Rather: "Until and unless someone shows me definitive proof that they are not (genuine), I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill."

from link

"DOCUMENT AND HANDWRITING EXAMINER MARCEL MATLEY ANALYZED THE DOCUMENTS FOR CBS NEWS.

HE SAYS HE BELIEVES THEY ARE REAL...BUT IS CONCERNED ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING EXAMINED BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE QUESTIONING THE DOCUMENTS....BECAUSE DETIORATION OCCURS EACH TIME A DOCUMENT IS REPRODUCED.....AND THE DOCUMENTS BEING ANALYZED OUTSIDE OF CBS HAVEBEEN PHOTOCOPIED, FAXED, SCANNED AND DOWNLOADED.... AND ARE FAR REMOVED FROM THE DOCUMENTS CBS STARTED WITH WHICH WERE ALSO PHOTOCOPIES."

Note that the documents that everyone is analysing are the pdf documents that CBS put on their website.

Their own document expert tells CBS that he has concerns about authenticating a document that has deteriorated, yet instead of first getting a copy of the original memos and authenticating them, CBS and Dan Rather unprofessionally and unethically decide to air the story based on copies of the memos that CBS say are [deteriorated] photocopies.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

[A CBS staffer stood by the story, suggesting that Staudt could have continued to exert influence over Guard officials. ]

Only an ignorant political hack would say something like this. More evidence that this story is witness to rampant 20/30-something ignorami run amok.

[comebacknewt]

"Pay no attention to the retired Colonel behind the curtain".

[need_a_screen_name]

"To me this is as damning a piece of evidence as any other. It alone would point to forgery, add in all the other and this is a slam dunk."

EXACTLY! That's probably why all the protest earlier in this thread about it being in Breaking News. Gotta keep this hidden, you see...

[sauropod]

Precisely, as I have raised on other threads.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Aren't forgers supposed to be smarter than this? This sounds like a guy who would give a stick-up note to a bank teller on the back of his electric bill.

One wouldn't want to confuse expert forgers with desperate political hacks, but how does one explaing CBS? This is such a strange story.

[igoramus987]

http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf

You must see the Flash animation posted by ckilmer!!

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

**Man named in Bush memo left Guard before document was written**

In KerryLand, the man left before he left.

[GOPJ]

bump

[commish]

You've seen "AFM 35-13" or you've seen "AFR 35-13"?

Actually I found both. Seem to be same document, was changed from an Air Force Reg AFR to Air Force manual at some point. But it does look like it existed in 1970's as AFM 35-13.

Here is AFM 35-13 reference in Special Orders from 1970 for 6994th SS

Here is AFR 35-13 in special Orders from 1954 for 7551st PSS.

Notice that these are good examples of how Special Orders are created. This format is still in use for group Orders today.

AFR/AFM 35-13 looks to have had something to do with SPecial Orders, not sure how it would pertain to the "memo" Orders in the Bush Docs.

I now want to find a copy of AFM 35-13 and find out EXACTLY what paragraph 2-10 says.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Thanks for expanding on the compilation. You added one that I was going to raise (reference to typist and CC's). Let's Roll!

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

That pic is a fake! A Potemkin Titanic, no less. Dang.

[Southack]

"I now want to find a copy of AFM 35-13 and find out EXACTLY what paragraph 2-10 says."

Yes!

1 Full Legislative Day Left Until The AWB Expires

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

" He attributed the backlash to partisan politics and competitive journalism."

Spoken like a true Leftie. Competition bad. Blather probably never recovered psychologically from his failures in grade/high school.

[Tamzee]

21 - Bush's grade would "normally" be abbreviated "1Lt" not "1st Lt"

====

A glorious list, Southhack, and an immense help!

I have to point out one tiny error, though. Someone pointed out on another thread that "1st Lt" was acceptable in the NG back then so I looked through Bush's documents and found one where he did sign that way. This is Bush's own request for discharge.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc27.gif

[commish]

Nothing definative but a search of the Air Force Publications Website - www.e-publishing.af.mil -- for obsolete Regulations returned the following :

AFR 35013 was replaced 10/1/1990 by AFI 36-2605

Found no reference to AFM 35-13 in Obsolete search

That said -- AFI 36-2605 is AIR FORCE MILITARY PERSONNEL TESTING SYSTEM and has to do with procedures for administering and protecting Controlled TESTING MATERIAL for promotion or performance testing of Air Force Personnel.

Doesn't mean that AFM 35-13 didn't exist or wasn't a different doc in 1972, but the last version of AFR 35-13 had to do with Testing procedures, not Flight Physicals. And there are no toher references on the AF Pub site for AFR 35-13 or AFM 35-13.

As an aside, I checked AFR 35-10 MILITARY STANDARDS (which would have existed in 1972), it cross checked to AFI 36-2903 MILITARY STANDARDS, which is the Doc we use today.

[JustAnotherSavage]

"Blather probably never recovered psychologically from his failures in grade/high school."

Potty training?