The allegedly falsified documents pertaining to Bush.

Sliding into the realm of conspiracy theory.

Published on September 22, 2004 By Jamie Burnside In Current Events

Among the bigger news stories recently was that of the apparently falsified documents pertaining to President Bush's National Guard service.

This general who decided to create these documents made the mistake of not using an actual typewriter to create (re-create?) them.

I wonder: if one is going to perpetrate a hoax, wouldn't he try harder than that? I mean, that's a pretty big mistake. Considering the recent "forensics boom," I'd doubt that anyone wouldn't "try harder" to make something at least appear to be more authentic.

Forgive the conspiracy theory but: Could this be "Black Ops" carrying out an obfuscation campaign in support of the current president?

By manufacturing a poorly conceived hoax, it makes the president seem under seige. Ignoring this hoax (and being seemingly "victimized" by it) puts Bush "above the fray." By being "above the fray," Bush's operatives have been able to nullify one of his nagging weaknesses (questionable participation in the National Guard during the Vietnam war.) This allows media outlets to equate the anti-Kerry "smallboat" ad attacks with these false documents. In the public's eye, this all comes out as "a wash", meaning basically that Bush wins.

I think that had these falsified documents actually been a conspiracy against Bush (rather than in support of him), they would have been done much better.

Comments (Page 2)

citahellion

on Sep 23, 2004

believe the point that Jamie Burnside is trying to make is, this whole CBS ordeal takes President Bush off "the hotseat" and deflects the topic of discussion to CBS.

I think you're only seeing the first half of the point he's making; the second half is that, since being "off the hotseat" is so clearly beneficial to Bush's campaign, it must have been Bush campaigners that arranged the whole thing. And that is a conclusion that I believe is completely unsupportable.

My main question still is, "where are these darn Military Records?"

Bush released all his military records. Apparently either the file is incomplete, or people didn't file information for the time period in question because there was nothing of note going on during it.
Kerry has not released all of his military records. Many remain under seal that apparently have something to do with his time on active duty. Why not wonder what's in those documents, that are known to exist but are purposely being withheld from public scrutiny?

bakerstreet

on Sep 23, 2004

Another point to consider is that even if everything these accusation relate are true, Bush still wouldn't be in the "hot seat"...

I could post links to literally dozens of discussions where lefties around here related how none of this mud-slinging really matters, but do I really have to?

CrispE

on Sep 23, 2004

Everyone:

One of the things people don't understand is that all news organizations are in contact with both campaigns 24/7 and shared information is a commodity everyone deals with. The question is what you can and cannot prove. In the CBS case, they probably asked the RNC for their response to the charges, got none, and made the validity of the documents content something they could believe in.

CBS's mistake was that it didn't independently verify and thought they had a major "Scoop". CBS knows that 60% of the voters think Viet Nam era service is important and the Bush campaign has not helped to lessen it's impact. That is why some think CBS was "set up." But the real set up was that CBS wanted the story so bad that it didn't verify. This constitutes being incompetent but ultimately, Mr. Bush could answer the charges and settle the matter. He won't so the controversy will continue.

Insightful

on Sep 23, 2004

citahellion

Of course I don't believe that there was any collusion with the Rublican party in his article. That part is fiction. It might make a great novel someday, but not today.

Re: Military Records. I'm referring to the official Pentagon Records. I read a report on MSNBC, that they, (Pentagon) could not find any official record of where the President was during this period. The Alabama Guard is not actually sure either. IF he was not where he was assigned, they have no record of that either or why he was excused.
I'm sorry, I wish that I would have kept the article. It was published way before I joined the JoeUser community.
I do apologize for that.

Please, do not read into my reply that I am in favor of Mr. Kerry. I still believe the Dems chose the wrong guy.
Regarding parts of Kerry's military records being sealed? I'm not sure how much you know about the Vietman War.
We were in places that we were not supposed to be, depending on the dates on a calendar. Also, we were involved in some things, that we were not supposed to be doing.........according to public record.

So, a part of me can comprehend why parts of Mr. Kerry's military record might have been sealed.

Now I don't care if President Bush was sitting in front of his barracks, cleaning his toenails. There has to be a record of what his assignment was.

We are not idiots here. It was a blogger that first brought the attention to the media, that the 60 Minutes piece was, less then honest.
We do not need to be told how to think.

Bunnahabhain

on Sep 26, 2004

Insightful:

There are no heroes in war.

Bullshit.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!