Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (35345)	5/26/2005 9:29:25 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 90947

Prove your charges. On another thread.

To: American Spirit who wrote (35345)	5/26/2005 9:47:15 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

the idea that the Killian memos haven't been exposed as fakes is so disingenuous as to be an outright lie. Even the CBS/Thornburgh-Boccardi report's appendix contains a statement from an independent document examiner that clearly shows on typographical, linguistic, military format, and factual bases that the memos could not have been written by Jerry Killian at the time the memos were dated. captainsquartersblog.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (35345)	5/26/2005 9:51:43 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Professor Hanson: I read your article in the Washington Post today, and was astonished by your assertion, concerning the 60 Minutes documents allegedly relating to President Bush's National Guard service, that: "Many people think the documents were proven to be forgeries and the gist of the report false. But in reality, no one has demonstrated conclusively whether the documents are fake, or whether or not Bush disobeyed orders to shirk flight status as alleged." Perhaps you are privy to information that no one else has. What is your rebuttal to the opinion of document examiner Peter Tytell, who concluded without qualification or reservation, in an appendix to the Thornburgh Report, that the documents are fakes? Tytell listed a number of reasons for his conclusion, but one of the simplest is that the documents are all produced in Times New Roman, which was never licensed for use on any typewriter, but is common in contemporary word-processed documents (like your article in the Post, if I am not mistaken). Can you explain how Times New Roman font showed up on Texas Air National Guard typewriters in the early 1970s? Also, how do you explain the fact that one of the 60 Minutes documents, which purports to be dated August 1973, refers to "pressure" being exerted by Brigadier General Buck Staudt--who had retired from the Texas Air National Guard in April 1972? Further, how do you explain the fact that another 60 Minutes document, supposedly dated May 4, 1972, purports to order Lt. Bush to take a flight physical no later than May 14, when in fact, under TANG regulations, the earliest date on which Bush could possibly have taken his physical was May 2 (90 days before his birthday) [Ed.: I should have said, 90 days before the last day of the month in which his birthday occurs], and he had until July 30 (the end of the month in which his birthday occurs) to do so? The source of the 60 Minutes fakes was Bill Burkett, a notorious Texas Bush-hater and crank with a history of mental problems. He first said that he received the documents from a Mr. Conn, who promptly left for Europe. When the story started to fall apart, and Dan RATHER traveled to Texas to interview Burkett--for the first time!--Burkett changed his story. He now said that he had gotten a phone call from someone named "Lucy Ramirez," a name with which he was not familiar, who instructed him to go to the Texas Livestock Show. He said that he went to the show, and a man he had never seen before walked up to him, handed him an envelope, and disappeared. Burkett says that the CBS documents were inside the envelope. He says that he took them home, made photocopies, and then burned the originals. Do you think that Mr. Burkett's account of the documents' provenance is credible? As to your assertion that President Bush may, indeed, have "disobeyed orders to shirk flight status as alleged" in early May 1972, how do you reconcile that statement with the fact that Lt. Bush's evaluation dated May 26, 1972 said in part: "Lt Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer. He eagerly participates in scheduled unit activities. During the past year he participated in several target force deployments and an F-102 aircraft element deployment in Canada. His conduct and professional approach to the mission were clearly exemplary and apparent to observers. His skills as an interceptor pilot enabled him to complete all his ADC intercept missions during the Canadian deployment with ease"? I suppose you could be a radical philosophical skeptic who believes that we can never really "know" anything. As a trial lawyer, I do not find this approach particularly useful. It seems to me that if anything in the world can be known--and we all act, every minute of every day, on the assumption that a great many things are known--then the fact that the 60 Minutes documents are fakes has been proved and is known. I will reproduce any response you make to the questions in this email on Power Line. Thank you. John Hinderaker powerlineblog.com