Mr. Bush was running, not as a former Lieutenant but as a sitting commander-in-chief, so from the Republican perspective thirty-year-old TANG memos are merely quint. But Senator Kerry wanted scrutiny of that history because he was running as a former Navy Lieutenant. CBS gave Senator Kerry a pass on an amazingly thin record as a politician in the past thirty years but pursued the merest possibility of evidence of mal/nonfeasance by Lt. Bush in the distant past in a way resembling nothing so much as Captain Ahab searching the Pacific for the great white whale. The story of "Lieutenant Bush skipped Guard Duty" collapsed under the weight of the evidence of the fraudulence of the supporting "documents."
- First, since they weren't originals with original signatures, they would never have stood up in court. On that basis alone, proclaiming that the "documents" proved anything was not in the public interest.
- Second, the "documents" were not merely copies, but very poor quality copies - of the sort that are produced when the copy in hand is a copy of a copy of a copy, perhaps ten generations. That is suspicious because the "documents" turned up only in 2004, ten years at least after their publication would have been political dynamite. How strange that people obtained copies and made copies from them, over many generations - yet only in 2004 did they surface at CBS.
- some of the "documents" purport to have been produced only for file and would have embarrassed their putative author "I'll backdate but I won't rate" if seen by other officers.
- the family of the deceased putative author, who would have had the decedent's effects, deny having had those "documents" - yet they did not turn up until ten years after they would have been highly valuable to Bush's opposition. But in 2004, the "documents" turn up at CBS - with no chain of custody.
- poor copy quality - and no original - is routine for forgeries.
- minor anachronisms such as old address for GW Bush when the current address would have been known and its use de rigeur; nonstandard formatting of memos and nonstandard usage within them. And a memo complains of undue influence by an officer who was already retired at the time to which the "memo" was dated.
- The "documents" match perfectly the results of keying the same text into Microsoft Word operating at its default settings. This is amazing because:
The claim is made that "typewriters" capable of closely mimicking Microsoft Word existed in the early 1970s, but no example of a routine TANG document formatted in such sophisticated way has yet been produced. Since the National Guard tends to get hand-me-down equipment from the regular military, since a machine capable of that sophistication would have cost as much as a new car at the time, and since it would have been gratuitously tedious to operate at that level of sophistication for the sort of document which these "documents" purport to be, that is hardly surprising.
- USAF stationary of that time was not 8.5 inches wide; a memo typed on narrower paper would naturally tend to be laid out differently than the same memo typed on 8.5 inch wide paper.
- among all four memos there was not a single hyphenated word at the end of a line, as would be common with the use of a typewriter.
- the memos contain centered text - and Microsoft Word centers perfectly, down to the pixel level whereas typewriters center down to only the character level - an odd number of typed characters is not truly centered in the same way as an even number of typed characters because that would require adding a half of a space in the line.
- Microsoft Word not only assigns differing character space widths to various letters - "w" being given more space than than "i" - but actually nests adjoining characters together if (for example) the hook of a "j" can fit under the top of a preceding "T". This is impossible on a normal 1970's vintage typewriter.
- Microsoft Word automatically superscripts "th" if that character couplet follows a numerical character without an intervening space; the "documents" have an example of a superscripted "th" couplet immediately after a numeric character. The "documents" also contain a "th" couplet after a numeric character but with an intervening space - in which case the "th" couplet is not superscripted. Microsoft Word would not superscript the couplet under that circumstance, either.
At that point CBS reverted to the "modified limited hangout." CBS created an "independent commission" to make a show of investigating the matter - and to conclude that it was not possible to conclude that those patent forgeries were forgeries and to conclude that CBS's fanatical pursuit of the flimsiest "evidence" for the Democrat and against the Republican was not politically motivated.
So much for the good faith of CBS; with malice aforethought they aired a vicious, fraudulent hit piece in an attempt to manipulate the electorate and produce the election result they favored. And when caught, they stonewalled shamelessly. No objective journalist could fail to know that that is what happened. And no journalist who wishes to be considered "objective" by establishment journalism - including but not limited to CBS - dares to state the obvious truth.
Only a journalist like Rush Limbaugh - a journalist who is dedicated to the truth rather than to a staying in the good graces of go-along-and-get-along Establishment journalism - would tell the obvious truth of the matter. And the "conservative talk show host" journalists like Rush learned the obvious truth from the Internet. Ultimately, from Free Republic.
CBS gave Senator Kerry a pass on an amazingly thin record as a politician in the past thirty years but pursued the merest possibility of evidence of mal/nonfeasance by Lt. Bush in the distant past
Generally true.
The story of "Lieutenant Bush skipped Guard Duty" collapsed under the weight of the evidence of the fraudulence of the supporting "documents
No it didn't. Quite the contrary...but proof that would stand up in court never surfaced.
My experience and reading tell me that whether or not clever young men serve in the armed forces and/or fight in combat is a matter of choice. That's even more true when the men are from rich and powerful families.
Viet Nam was a very unpopular war. All sorts of clever young men avoided service and combat. So when people tell me that young George obtained entry to a well-known rich-man's safe-haven, that he avoided duty when he felt like it and some of his officers refused to criticize him for it, and that he got out the same way - all through family influence I believe it. When some of the principals - such as the guy who claimed to have actually done the family's bidding and the former TANG secretary - confirm it, I believe it.
Nor was this kind of thing limited to VietNam. It occured in all wars. Sometimes it was blatant when people avoided service by buying substitutes to take their place. More often, the dodges were more subtle; 4-F, special assignments, vital national work at home, etc. I'm not fooled by any of them.
Only a journalist like Rush Limbaugh - a journalist who is dedicated to the truth rather than to a staying in the good graces of go-along-and-get-along Establishment journalism
That's hilarious since Rush presents himself as a partisan entertainer and always has.
Don't fool yourself. Being objective when reporting the news is probably beyond human capability. Some are much better than others, no doubt about it. But everyone is biased by self-interest and limited vision.