Go to the following article written by Byron York at National Review on GWB Air National Guard service. All the docs the Dems drag out or the MSM treats as factual makes no difference.

https://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402101529.asp

Bottom line, service points were measured in a 12 month period, not so many points per month. GWB met his ANG commitment and then some!

Could this document have been typed with the same typewriter in 1972?

https://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc2.gif

It is Bush’s request for a transfer.

it has proportional type. Looks like it is in Times Roman (New? I don’t know) and the letters are kerned.

Also it has the same closed 4.

Why couldn’t Killian have used this typewriter to make those docs?

One issue that’s not been questioned yet, to my knowledge, is the issue of the "background noise" or dots covering the Bush documents (e.g., the 04 May 1972 document). Does repeated FAXING or copying white blank areas actually produce such a dot field, while still leaving letters reasonably sharp? I am doubtful..

I can imitate the dotfield effect with Paint Shop Pro’s "special filters...add noise" function (I only have an old version, 3.12-32, but imagine current versions work likewise).

Was the "aging" of these documents done via the same computer that produced them?

By the way:

Rather is fighting a losing battle. As numerous websites (and probably everyone with a computer and half a brain by now) have superimposed a copy of the "memos" from CBS onto a print copy of the same text entered into MS-Word using default settings, and found an exact match, pixel-for-pixel....

I predict Occam’s Razor is going to slice Rather’s figurative throat for "sexing up" Bush’s Nat’l Guard Dossier!

Like all other GOP bloggers covering the Guard doc stew, you’re dishonest in not reporting that Sandra Ramsey Lines is NOT an "independent" doc examiner -- she’s a frigging Republican and with a little smarts, you could have found this out via the following link:

https://www.publicintegrity.org/527/docs/9558307.pdf

It’s an IRS reporting form for Wish List, a Republican pro-choice org, and the so-called "independent document examiner" is right there as a contributor, name, address, and all.

Elections seem to make otherwise decent people morph into raging lunatic liars.

And now the desperation sets in. Those documents can’t be forged, because Sandra Ramsey Lines is a REPUBLICAN!

Could this document have been typed with the same typewriter in 1972? https://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc2.gif It is Bush’s request for a transfer. it has proportional type.

Look closely. That’s not proportional type--each character occupies the same amount of space. Moreover, the "th" in "187th" isn’t superscripted, in smaller font, the way the forged Killian letter is.

Of course, I’m a Republican, which according to Larry Bailey disqualifies me from commenting on anything.

I had an opinion, but then found out that because I’m a Republican, it isn’t "independent" and lacks "smarts". Therefore, it doesn’t count and I won’t bother.

Maybe CBS should change its name to DNCBS.

The BS would, of course, not stand for Broadcasting System. :-)

Moser & Naum:

Of course party affiliation doesn’t disqualify you from commenting, but it DOES require you say what you are and not try to pass yourself off as "independent". Gosh, I shouldn’t have to be teaching you folks that. You should have picked that much up from Sunday school.

Larry Bailey

Sorry, Larry, but one can be a Republican and still be independent. Sandra Ramsey Lines is self-employed as a forensic scientist, and is a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. That she donated $345 to a Republican pro-choice organization hardly makes her a shill for the Bush/Cheney campaign. Heck, Planned Parenthood of Arizona--hardly a right-wing organization--made a donation to this group as well. Are you suggesting that they’re not independent either?

https://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf ("^0 Minutes Busted" animation) shows it all.

Don’t even know if it was created by a Republican or not.

However, as in Isaac Newton’s laws of gravitation, it doesn’t matter.

No, sorry to you John, for we’re not talking about Planned Parenthood. PP was not cited as an "independent" doc examiner in a national news story.

Sandra Ramsey Lines is the person in question and if the shoe was on the other foot, you Repubs would be going nuts with that one piece of info (and it’s only one piece -- so far), using it to discredit everything ever said or done by the person. That’s the way you guys operate -- heck, your Swifties even created a stir vs. Kerry without a shred of documentation, just rumors by a bunch of guys long working for Republican causes. The beauty of the Internet and the Dems’ new love for it is that your paper trails hang out there and finally Dems can fight fire with fire. By the way, you guys have fun next week discrediting old Kitty Kelley. She’s going to lay some mud straight from the mouth of Sharon ex-Bush, and has Sharon’s former publicist (who heard Sharon say what Kelley quoted her as saying -- that W was doing coke at Camp David in the early 90’s, among other gems) to verify that Sharon let some secrets out while negotiating with Dynasty Bush on her divorce settlement with Neil.

Politics has always been a bit nasty, but the stuff you guys laid on Clinton, then Gore, and now Kerry went beyond anything any of us ever imagined you’d do, and now it’s coming back to roost.

Bailey: If party affiliation requires one to state who they are and not attempt to pass themselves off as independent, then shouldn’t Dan Rather and every other "news" anchor on network television do so or lose all credibility? This is your position, now defend it. After all, isn’t this what your side has been whining about with FoxNews for so long? Why should an expert forensic scientist suffer a credibility gap over a few bucks donated to a liberal republican organization while the democratic mouthpiece who initially ran the story should be unquestioningly trusted and believed? And if he should not be so trusted, then what on earth is the problem with a somewhat right-leaning expert questioning the offered premise?

On a slightly different note, spare us all the cute little lectures. I’d be fascinated to know if Sunday School is or ever has been anything more to you than a punchline in a petty barb born of childish posturing. Based on your comments, I would guess that is isn’t and hasn’t - which would seem to prima facie disqualify you from commenting on what I may or may not have learned in my Sunday School experiences.

Naum tries the GOP’s tired old if-we-can’t-defend-it-let’s-change-the-subject device. And Sandra Ramsey Lines remains a Republican document examiner who has masqueraded as an "independent", with plenty of support for this media fraud among the otherwise righteous-pretending Right Wing present here.

More to say later on the big old bad liberal media elite (the same one that took trash from the Right Wing and dutifully reported it for years during Clinton), and on your attack on my personal religious training (you need to re-read my earlier post). Right now, though, we all have to go turn on The Today Show and hear what KKelley has learned about all those pre-45 years Bush wants to keep us from knowing about. Something tells me that’s going to be the hot topic among all us in the foreseeable future.

Cheers.

Bailey tries the tired old democrat I-can’t-or-am-too-afraid-to-answer-a-simple-question device. Very Kerry-esque.

Now, Kitty Kelley on the Today Show with Eva Braun: That’s independent journalism! Enjoy the usual tripe from the left. I don’t have time.

"Eva Braun"? I assume you’re referring to the person who did NOT conduct the interview. Shows you didn’t watch, covered your eyes, afraid to learn what others are learning -- that your Boy God was just another spoiled rich kid doing what rich kids do until reality bites: drugs, drink, and ducking responsibility. More to come today. So, keep those ear plugs in and those blinders on.

I told you I wasn’t going to watch. You’re very adept at picking up the obvious - though quite inept at deciphering subtle references and allusions. I never cared who was conducting the interview and never refered to it. I’m further unphased by your insults, and afraid of very little - as my profession does not afford that luxury. My earplugs tend to drown out gunfire and explosions, and my blinders toward network television only exist because, well, there is no network television here. As for my God (there you go again), He was once a Boy, yes, but died a Man and still lives (though never physically in Texas nor in the White House - thankfully, though, I believe He actively works in both). He never was a rich man, nor did He do drugs or shirk His responsibility. I believe He was inclined to imbibe once or twice, though - even turning water into wine on one celebrated occasion. You know, I shouldn’t have to teach this to you, as you should have learned this in Sunday School.

As for your righteous indignation toward adolescent college students who do drugs, drink, and duck responsibility, I guess we can safely agree that we should never elect one. Fortunately, we never have - and the Constitution makes this very difficult, ingoring the possibility of a 35 year old fraternity brother in the mold of Will Ferrell. Now, we have unshockingly elected two former college students in consecutive administrations. Again, thankfully only one (though sadly, one)of them has acted like a fraternity brother while in the White House. At the end of the day, when reality bites (and it bit pretty hard 3 years ago and won’t seem to lessen its grip), I share the sentiment of most of America that the grown-up rich kid we’ve got in the White House right now is the right grown-up rich kid for the job.

Now, will you ever answer the simple question to which you opened yourself? Or will you continue to avoid that responsibility like a former rich kid college student? Should everyone, including network anchors (and whomever happend to interview a Kitty yesterday - who cares?), publicize their party allegiances or risk losing all credibility?

Oh, and speaking of the tired old device of changing the subject, how did we ever get on the topic of Kitty Kelley and Bush’s life prior to the White House from a posting on the subject of Dan Rather? I believe that was your tactic, Bailey. Welcome to the GOP.

You been spending all this time and energy waiting on an answer to that question? Well, if it means that much to you, then I say...sure, everyone anchoring a network show ought to reveal their biases (it would sure give the lie to Fox’s claim of fair and balanced). And while we’re at it, let’s have a few other folks reveal their biases: starting with the owner and publisher of every daily newspaper; the owner and general manager of every radio and television station; and even the CEO and senior management of every firm (especially pharmaceuticals, consumer products) selling anything to the public. Let it be known who and how much they contribute to, and how they’re registered politically, etc., so we can all decide what we read, hear, buy, etc., on the basis of the political affiliations of the people putting it out there. Betcha there’d be some quick switches in party affiliation, depending who markets where.

Seriously (SERIOUSLY, if you’re only scanning for bait), we all need to realize something about the so-called Big Bad Media: these are first and foremost business people, selling a product amid other products (news with commercials). When these folks get a hold of a story that they think will attract viewers/readers/listeners AND advertisers, they don’t give a rat’s patooty about the effects of their broadcasts or which party gains as a result. They care about the bottom line. If they (as you like to whine) really cared more for the Dems than the GOP, we would have had a 2-term Carter, a far less turbulent Clinton 8, and a Gore succession (come to think of it, we might not have had Bush I either). You folks on the Right Wing like to think that you overcame them to achieve your political victories. You don’t seem to know (or won’t admit it, lest you lose your Big Media whipping post) that you and the other side are nothing more than a part of their business plan.

Well, it’s Kitty Time.

Actually, we didn’t overcome anything. The American people are simply too intelligent to allow you democrats to dictate to us what we think and what we believe. Even the media couldn’t purchase another term for a terrible Carter, or cover up a shameful Clinton, or convert Constitutional law for the sake of Gore.

As for time and energy, it takes very little of either handle a hack. Thanks, though, for finally answering the simple question - though I’m certain that you don’t desire the consequences of what you propose. Now, you bore me. We’re through here.

Well, that wasn’t very imaginative.

And why such a bad mood, compatriot? You been watching Kitty or something?

Hack Bailey

Okay, I’ll continue this skirmish if you need it for your adrenaline rush:

A have some compatriots. You’ll never qualify. Please don’t include me on your list of the same.

Who said anything about a bad mood? It’s a beautiful day. I have a great job. I’m winning a war, defending your right to watch and believe "independent" network television. How could life be any better?

Once again, and pay attention now (I’ll type really s-l-o-w-l-y): I don’t watch TV. As for watching Kitty Kelley - I’m not sure anyone did. Haven’t heard one word mentioned about her in any forum - save this one. Tell the truth now: You’re her nephew, or "research" assistant, or fan club president, or hair stylist, right? ’Cause ... nobody but you cares about what she says ...

If you’ll please excuse me now, there’s a great big world of reality that I have to face everyday. I suggest you try it, too. It’s enlightening.

There you go! And why, specifically, is it that we can’t be compatriots? I thought we Americans were all compatriots. You guys on the extreme right thinking something the rest of us are not thinking? (I’m truly interested in your response. So, avoid glib retorts, attempts at personal attacks, and references to self-glory. I can get that anywhere on the Net. You’re obviously brighter than some, so let it shine.)

Hack The Hair Stylist