JOHN KERRY'S "TWO AMERICAS":
Those who eat at Wendy's vs. those who only go to Wendy's for photo ops
Posted on 09/09/2004 7:55:59 AM PDT by pabianice
On a previous thread the author makes excellent points about the anachronism error in the "memos" the Liberals have recently "discovered" regarding George Bush's alleged "desertion" and "dereliction of duty" while in the Texas ANG.
A look at these memos shows another problem. A big problem. To understand it, you have to understand a bit about the military. In official documents of any kind, proper rank abbreviations are strictly enforced, to the point that, if they are incorrect, the document has to be destroyed and rewritten. A document forwarded with incorrect acronyms is returned for resubmittal.
The "memos" the Liberal Gang has "discovered," showing Bush to have been a shirker, all carry a consistent incorrect abbreviation for his rank. The only acceptable abbreviation for a USAF or ANG first lieutenant is "1LT." I have also seen, rarely, it written "1/LT," although this is the exception. All the "recently discovered" memos about Bush say "1stLt." While I am Navy and not Air Force, to the best of my knowledge, this is not allowed, let alone a mispunctuated memo addressed to Bush as "1stLt.3244754FG."
I am willing to bet a week's pay that these memos are forgeries.
For that matter, when exactly did the phrase "CYA" enter the lexicon? Was it commonplace in 1973?
Regardless of any documents that the left is using, Rush just went over the points that Bush earned each year of guard duty and proved that he earned more than enough points each year to satisfy the requirements.
She was a good listener.
Beyond the proportional spacing, there's also the use of tiny superscripts in memos 1 & 4.
Hahahahahahaha. That's great. Thanks for the laugh.
Bump for bookmark.
Hmmmmm.
Normally, they would have launched this attack within the last 2-3 weeks of the capiagn, not allowing for adequate iunvestigation and rebuttal. That they launched now is a sign of desperation.
Concur. I have been out of the Navy for 16 years, and the military date format of DD MMM YY is so ingrained that I still use it exclusively. Any other date format just isn't "natural".
The structure of the first letter is also wrong. First, this would be typed on squadron letterhead. Second, ALL USAF correspondance follows a standard format. The first item on the left margin would be the date. Then there would be a TO line and President Bush's name and rank would be entered. Next would be a Subject line that would summarize the content of the letter. Last would be a From line that would NOT be the sender's name but rather the sender's unit followed by the office symbol. If it was from the Commander it would be the unit number followed by a slant and the abbreviation CC (for Commander). If it was from the Executive Officer for the unit the office symbol would be CV.
The second letter is what is called a Memo for Record. I have written many of them where I documented counselling a person on their appearance, job performance, etc. But it is lacking a signature or even the initials of the writer. Without those, there is no way of knowing who wrote the document.
The third memo has an incorrect signature block. A correct signature block would have name, rank, and position, e.g. John Smith, Capt, USAF, Commander. Again, for every piece of correspondance that I wrote, whether a memo, letter, directive, etc., the signature block would be the same.
The fourth memo has the same problem as the second, no signature or set of initials to say who wrote the document.
I haven't seen it mentioned, but when I was in the service, the format for any date was ALWAYS "month, day, year", period. I've had several people remark that I must have been in the military because I still use the "month, day, year" date format.
JOHN KERRY'S "TWO AMERICAS":
Those who eat at Wendy's vs. those who only go to Wendy's for photo ops
Several questions
May 4 memo…. Part of the address (5000 Longmont #8) is blacked out but is still clearly readable under the blackout… normally if you blackout something on and original then copy it not going to survive if at all past the first copy… makes me think that the pdf scan was done on a copy that just freshly (still wet and transparent) blacked out the first time for that scan….just strikes me as odd for this old of address
May 19 memo….Refers to "Bush, 1st Lt Bush"…. Is this supposes to imply that this person talk to W and also his father? Why the double reference then in the body it just “Bush” no 1Lt Bush the whole tone is flippant and somewhat unprofessional and just unclear
Aug1 memo…. It all in past tense “as of this date I ordered” not “I order” (and what date? The Aug1 of the memo?) if you give and order to suspended someone from flight status would that be in writing and would that be it own documentation ...why write a memo the same day of that order, documenting you own order (and in past tense ) is this the norm?
Thing that just seem odd to me….
Interesting. That abbreviation is used by the Marine Corps, but I don't know about national guard. Doesn't look right for them.
Ours was the opposite in the Marine Corps. It was always day, month, year. Still do it to this day.
Thanks,
I'm thinking they were available but limited to very well funded operations and not likely to be had at a NG Sqd'n or Wing headquarters or at the LtC's home.
I've got some FBI documents from 1969 that contain proportionately-spaced type. Of course the FBI is a big agency you'd expect would have a pretty good operating budget. On the other hand, I work for a fairly small unit at an Air Force installation, and I'm continually amazed by the amount of money we have available to spend for gee-gaws and contraptions that we don't really need. When the "fallout money" comes around, you either spend it, whether you need to or not, or else next year, when you might really need it, it won't be there. A pretty stupid system, to be sure, but that's the way the military works.
1stLT is not a correct abbreviation. Any LTC would know that.
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.
