Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Documentgate... some revelations
The Watcher

Posted on 9/13/2004, 6:56:18 AM by The Watcher

Look carefully....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf

and

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf

These purport to be the same documents.

Notice that the CBS version has a memo with a redaction that the other does NOT HAVE!!!

The address is blacked out partially on one, but not the versions from USA today.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bush; cbsnews; forgeries; killian; rather; tang; usatoday
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

1 posted on 9/13/2004, 6:56:19 AM by The Watcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Watcher

BTTT


2 posted on 9/13/2004, 6:57:31 AM by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher
USA

See BS
3 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:00:34 AM by boxerblues
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher
The address is blacked out partially on one, but not the versions from USA today.

The CBS copy redacts the Longmont address. Which, at the purported date of the memo, was obsolete -- by about 18 months.

4 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:03:18 AM by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fiddlstix

bump


5 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:03:56 AM by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: boxerblues

Hey, look carefully...

different "dirt" dots on the pages.


6 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:04:11 AM by The Watcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher
The reason for the different versions of the documents is described at the end of today's USA Today's article here.

We can't quote a Gannette Snoozepaper, so I will paraphrase:

The Gannette Snoozepaper got the documents independently soon after the 60 Minutes piece aired from a person with knowledge of Texas Air National Guard operations who refuses to be identified. The source thinks he or she might be retaliated against. The chain of custody for the documents is unclear.
7 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:05:15 AM by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher
Also, several FReepers noted that the Longmont address was readable on the pdf, thru the blackout.

This was interpreted to mean that CBS had redacted the address (for reasons unknown) because, if text is blacked out and then copied, the text will be unreadable on the copy.

Ergo, CBS did not receive a copy of the document that had already been blacked out.

It is suspicious that they chose to black out the address, because there is no "privacy" reason for having done so. As it turns out, it looks more like trying to cover up an egregious error (the obsolete address).

8 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:08:25 AM by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc

How can the document be AT ALL GENUINE if there are multiple versions???

All this does is prove that document manufacturing has been going on.


9 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:09:16 AM by The Watcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher

BTTT


10 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:10:52 AM by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher
Well discussed already in "USA Today acknowledges that it independently received the documents" and in other FR threads to which y'all should also refer.
11 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:11:33 AM by Weirdad (A Free Republic, not a "democracy" (mob rule))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

"The CBS copy redacts the Longmont address. Which, at the purported date of the memo, was obsolete -- by about 18 months."

HOLY CRAP! Can you confirm that, please?! A link, something?! That's -devastating- if true.

Qwinn


12 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:14:03 AM by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
HOLY CRAP! Can you confirm that, please?! A link, something?! That's -devastating- if true.

Bush's TANG documentation lists his various addresses -- three of them, as I recall. Longmont was the second one, but by the date of the CBS "documents" he was living on Westheimer.

I don't have a link, but I've seen the timeline elsewhere on FR.

13 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:22:49 AM by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
USA today cbs Those are the pdfs. download them both and study them c arefully.
14 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:26:17 AM by The Watcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher
Sorry about the bad formatting.

CBS

USA Today Copy the pdf's to your hard drive and open both in adobe.. switch back and forth and look at them.

15 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:33:05 AM by The Watcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher

Thanks, but I've been looking at those for hours. What I'm trying to locate evidence for is that Bush's Longmont address was 18 months obsolete at the time of the memos (May 4, 1972, apparently)

Qwinn


16 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:37:59 AM by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Thanks for the reply. I'm going nuts trying to track it down as we speak :)

Qwinn


17 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:39:32 AM by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
I'm going nuts trying to track it down as we speak :)

Wish I could help. I can say that, on one of the CBS document threads, somebody produced a list of addresses and times.

But there are only several dozen document threads, with several hundred posts apiece...

18 posted on 9/13/2004, 7:41:33 AM by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Well, through googling, I've managed to confirm that Bush moved from "Houston" to Cambridge in September 1973. That's well after the date of the memos. If "Houston" implies the Longmont address, then no dice. If he had more than one Houston address though, then it's still possible this could mean something. I'm still looking, but I don't think I'm going to get much further with Google.

Qwinn


19 posted on 9/13/2004, 8:07:53 AM by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: okie01

A little more detail. Bush moved from "Houston" (once again, no specifics) to Alabama in May 1972, the month of the memo. Still looking for an alternate Houston address.

Qwinn


20 posted on 9/13/2004, 8:13:57 AM by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson