Bush Texas Air National Guard Memos are Forgeries

[Noztradamus]

I was just about to clarify my post. I see a significant amount of evidence he was in Cambodia in Jan and Feb, less clear about Christmas. Is Christmas specifically "the time'" you refer to?

The January 1969 timeline would also match up with Nixon's Presidency.

You are really making the baby Jesus cry.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Senate_floor_speech_of_March_27,_1986_-_John_Kerry

Finally, President Nixon, 1970. "In cooperation with the armed forces of South Vietnam, attacks are being launched this week to clear out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border."

Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia,

I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me,

He claimed it, learn to live with it.

 

[Beerina]

That's pretty damning. Provenance and chain of custody mean a lot.

The source was Lt. Col. Bill Burkett. From the Wikipedia article:

Burkett admitted that he misled CBS about the source of the documents, and then claimed that the documents came to him from "Lucy Ramirez", whom CBS was unable to contact or identify as an actual person. Burkett said he then made copies at the local Kinko's and burned the original documents.

Highly unlikely. Burn the original smoking gun documents? Unless...they were not really originals.

 

[Giordano]

You are really making the baby Jesus cry.



He claimed it, learn to live with it.

Gee Baby Jesus cries easily. I quickly came back to clarify my post. I acknowledged that the evidence for Kerry's memory of it being Christmas was not nearly as strong as the evidence for it having been in January of February. So I asked you what time period you meant in your own post. If his real time in Cambodia was January or February I can see this as a quirk of Kerry's memory and that he associated his later service in Cambodia broadly and likely (?) in error with the Christmas session a month or so earlier.

Why would being a month or two off in his memory be a central point as to Kerry's character and legitimacy, in all things a thread about Bush's National Guard memos? Are you stating that Kerry was never in Cambodia in his Swift Boat capacity, and if so, what is your evidence? That would be, in my mind, more clearly a lie if proven false. As it is you and I appear to be reiterating a discussion I often have with my wife: "We last saw Fred Christmas 5 years ago." "No, it wasn't Christmas it was your birthday in February." "It can't have been my birthday, I was in Washington DC on my birthday." "No it was your birthday- you were in Washington DC the following year on your birthday." "No, I remember Fred near the Christmas tree." "You know, I think it was New Years and we hadn't thrown out the tree yet." "Yes, that was probably it…" Are we lying scum as a result?

 

[Noztradamus]

That is just another Christmas
This would be the one Christmas Eve he spent in an active war zone

"No snow, no sleighs, no fat jolly Santa Claus on a corner with frosted lips and frozen hands and an outstretched arm that begs for the little more that people have at this time of year. Indeed, there is no familiarity with the date"

Totally memorable: it would be seared, seared into his memory

 

[PixyMisa]

Highly unlikely. Burn the original smoking gun documents? Unless...they were not really originals.

We've got all kinds of red flags at Red Flag Warehouse!

 

[cmikes]

Highly unlikely. Burn the original smoking gun documents? Unless...they were not really originals.

So a rabid anti-Bush partisan copied them, then burned the originals that Texas and national reporters had been desperately searching for for more than a decade since George Bush had first ran for governor in Texas?

Makes sense to me.

 

[novaphile]

Or he just wanted everyone to go away.

 

[sunmaster14]

Truth - a movie review

Well, Truth finally came to the PRC (i.e. People's Republic of Cambridge). I saw the 11:15am showing today at the Kendall Square Cinema. As my wife bagged out on me at the last minute, I went stag, which is the first time I've gone to a movie alone since the summer of 1987, when I saw a double feature of Dragnet and Spaceballs (and literally walked out of Spaceballs in the middle because it was so unbelievably bad).

Anyway, the truth is I really enjoyed the movie. The dialogue was a bit hokey at times, but otherwise it was a fascinating look into the business of investigative journalism. It was also fascinating to see the story from Mary Mapes' and Dan Rather's perspective and to see how the truth about the memos dawned on them, and, in particular, how Mapes came to realize that she had cut so many corners she was left with nothing but circular logic to defend.

I honestly don't know if the director meant to create a movie like this, but I think it does actually tell the truth at a sort of meta level. For any moderately discerning viewer, it comes across very clearly how utterly shoddy the journalism was. Gross negligence would be too weak a description. Almost all of the logical fallacies that we accuse each other of here at the ISF were on display - confirmation bias, most of all.

Perhaps I just know too much about the story, or perhaps I am too accustomed to thinking about things critically, but I thought Mary Mapes and Dan Rather came off very, very poorly in the movie. They must be completely delusional to think that they didn't. Sure, their avatars give hackneyed speeches about the importance of asking questions and finding out the truth and fighting the power and doing their duty to the American public. Blah blah blah. But to me at least, it just comes off as sanctimonious blather to cover up their base motivations. Maybe the director thought he was making them look good, but I like to think he put one over on Rather and Mapes, and managed to communicate the truth with their enthusiastic permission.

There were many enjoyable moments in the film for me, and not just for their schadenfreude aspect. I think they were dramatic and meaningful. The reaction of higher-up CBS executives as they learn about the deficiencies in the report, one by one, was very poignant and effective. Especially the executive producer Josh Howard as he realizes with each new admission of misfeasance by Mapes that his career at CBS was over.

Another enjoyable part was when Mapes' researcher Matt Smith is told that he's no longer allowed on CBS property. Smith gives some hokey convoluted speech which insinuates that Viacom, CBS's parent, is punishing those involved in the report in order to placate the Bush administration, whom it has successfully lobbied to scale back pending media regulation. Everybody on the floor (literally dozens of people) stop what they're doing and just stare at him silently in disbelief, and then at the end of his rant, the executive ordering him out just says something like "That's right. We're all evil, and we're all just part of this vast conspiracy to shut down heroes like you." It was a great moment, but I find it hard to believe the director designed it to be one for Matt Smith (or for Mapes or Rather).

There were only a handful of moments of dishonesty in the film, that I can remember. One was in not somehow explaining to the audience that former Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes, who claimed that he made a call to get Bush into the Texas Air National Guard, was a Democratic partisan, and, in fact, Vice-Chairman of John Kerry's Presidential campaign. The film also elided over Bill Burkett's long history of making unsubstantiated claims about George Bush, thus leaving out some important context that made Mapes and Rather look even worse (and the Thornburg-Boccardi investigative panel look even more reasonable). Finally, there was a moment where the investigative panel points to the use of the acronym "OETR" in one of the memos as evidence that the author did not use standard Air National Guard lingo. Mapes wins a small Pyrrhic victory in pointing out another official ANG document which appears to corroborate its use. However, in the official Thornburg-Boccardi report, there is testimony by Major General Hodges that it was still a non-standard usage, and there were many other non-standard abbreviations and words (e.g. the use of the word "billet," the abbreviation for Fighter Intercept Squadron, and the reference to a flight review board).

Overall the acting was very good. Cate Blanchett was fantastic, and I think she probably did nail Mapes' persona pretty well. I really wonder what she thinks of Mapes. She certainly made her look human, but not the kind of human I would want anywhere near a position of authority in a newsroom.

In short, I give the movie two thumbs up. It's hard for me to judge how well it would work for a viewer who doesn't know a considerable amount of the story, however. The plot is perhaps too complex for a complete novice to grasp.

 

[Giordano]

Well, Truth finally came to the PRC (i.e. People's Republic of Cambridge). I saw the 11:15am showing today at the Kendall Square Cinema. As my wife bagged out on me at the last minute, I went stag, which is the first time I've gone to a movie alone since the summer of 1987, when I saw a double feature of Dragnet and Spaceballs (and literally walked out of Spaceballs in the middle because it was so unbelievably bad).

Anyway, the truth is I really enjoyed the movie. The dialogue was a bit hokey at times, but otherwise it was a fascinating look into the business of investigative journalism. It was also fascinating to see the story from Mary Mapes' and Dan Rather's perspective and to see how the truth about the memos dawned on them, and, in particular, how Mapes came to realize that she had cut so many corners she was left with nothing but circular logic to defend.

I honestly don't know if the director meant to create a movie like this, but I think it does actually tell the truth at a sort of meta level. For any moderately discerning viewer, it comes across very clearly how utterly shoddy the journalism was. Gross negligence would be too weak a description. Almost all of the logical fallacies that we accuse each other of here at the ISF were on display - confirmation bias, most of all.

Perhaps I just know too much about the story, or perhaps I am too accustomed to thinking about things critically, but I thought Mary Mapes and Dan Rather came off very, very poorly in the movie. They must be completely delusional to think that they didn't. Sure, their avatars give hackneyed speeches about the importance of asking questions and finding out the truth and fighting the power and doing their duty to the American public. Blah blah blah. But to me at least, it just comes off as sanctimonious blather to cover up their base motivations. Maybe the director thought he was making them look good, but I like to think he put one over on Rather and Mapes, and managed to communicate the truth with their enthusiastic permission.

There were many enjoyable moments in the film for me, and not just for their schadenfreude aspect. I think they were dramatic and meaningful. The reaction of higher-up CBS executives as they learn about the deficiencies in the report, one by one, was very poignant and effective. Especially the executive producer Josh Howard as he realizes with each new admission of misfeasance by Mapes that his career at CBS was over.

Another enjoyable part was when Mapes' researcher Matt Smith is told that he's no longer allowed on CBS property. Smith gives some hokey convoluted speech which insinuates that Viacom, CBS's parent, is punishing those involved in the report in order to placate the Bush administration, whom it has successfully lobbied to scale back pending media regulation. Everybody on the floor (literally dozens of people) stop what they're doing and just stare at him silently in disbelief, and then at the end of his rant, the executive ordering him out just says something like "That's right. We're all evil, and we're all just part of this vast conspiracy to shut down heroes like you." It was a great moment, but I find it hard to believe the director designed it to be one for Matt Smith (or for Mapes or Rather).

There were only a handful of moments of dishonesty in the film, that I can remember. One was in not somehow explaining to the audience that former Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes, who claimed that he made a call to get Bush into the Texas Air National Guard, was a Democratic partisan, and, in fact, Vice-Chairman of John Kerry's Presidential campaign. The film also elided over Bill Burkett's long history of making unsubstantiated claims about George Bush, thus leaving out some important context that made Mapes and Rather look even worse (and the Thornburg-Boccardi investigative panel look even more reasonable). Finally, there was a moment where the investigative panel points to the use of the acronym "OETR" in one of the memos as evidence that the author did not use standard Air National Guard lingo. Mapes wins a small Pyrrhic victory in pointing out another official ANG document which appears to corroborate its use. However, in the official Thornburg-Boccardi report, there is testimony by Major General Hodges that it was still a non-standard usage, and there were many other non-standard abbreviations and words (e.g. the use of the word "billet," the abbreviation for Fighter Intercept Squadron, and the reference to a flight review board).

Overall the acting was very good. Cate Blanchett was fantastic, and I think she probably did nail Mapes' persona pretty well. I really wonder what she thinks of Mapes. She certainly made her look human, but not the kind of human I would want anywhere near a position of authority in a newsroom.

In short, I give the movie two thumbs up. It's hard for me to judge how well it would work for a viewer who doesn't know a considerable amount of the story, however. The plot is perhaps too complex for a complete novice to grasp.

Sunmaster-thanks for the review! Now I will definitely try to see it if I can.

 

[BenBurch]

Um... Spaceballs was *supposed* to be unbelievably bad.

 

[Crossbow]

Well, Truth finally came to the PRC (i.e. People's Republic of Cambridge). I saw the 11:15am showing today at the Kendall Square Cinema. ... snipped for brevity ...

Well it is nice to see that you actually saw the movie that you have been bitching about for the last 18 days.

 

[sunmaster14]

Um... Spaceballs was *supposed* to be unbelievably bad.

You mean like "Springtime for Hitler"? I'll admit that my opinion of Spaceballs is not popular among my friends (well, former friends), but I just can't shake the idea that humor aimed at 10 year olds shouldn't have so many jokes about testicles.

 

[sunmaster14]

Well it is nice to see that you actually saw the movie that you have been bitching about for the last 18 days.

In the OP, I was mostly bitching about the NY Times interview of Blanchett, Redford, Mapes, and Rather, which I had in fact already seen. I'm still confused about what the director was trying to do in the movie. Mapes and Rather clearly were happy with their portrayal. I thought that allowing their avatars to give sanctimonious speeches about truth and duty while committing obvious journalistic malpractice made them look hypocritical to the point of delusion. If the director's intention was to make them out to be heroes, then he failed miserably. If his intention was to present them as they probably were in real life, then I think he succeeded brilliantly.

 

[johnny karate]

In the OP, I was mostly bitching about the NY Times interview of Blanchett, Redford, Mapes, and Rather, which I had in fact already seen.

You weren't, actually. (You know people can go back and read your old posts, right?) You don't even mention the NY Times article until five paragraphs in, and then only spend three sentences discussing it.

First, you falsely accused the forum of never having before discussed the memos, and then proceeded to criticize a movie you hadn't yet seen, using such colorful descriptors as "revisionist" and "whitewash". Again, to describe a movie you hadn't yet seen.

Then you brought up the NY Times article briefly before launching into an impassioned defense of Bush's service record before bringing the whole production back around to the movie you hadn't yet seen in rather dramatic fashion by scolding both liberals and Hollywood as being "delusional" and "ruthless".

Not much in the way of accuracy and perhaps a bit overblown, but an entertaining read nonetheless. You should check it out, since your memory of it seems to be a little off.

 

[sunmaster14]

You weren't, actually. (You know people can go back and read your old posts, right?) You don't even mention the NY Times article until five paragraphs in, and then only spend three sentences discussing it.

Five paragraphs vs three sentences? Nice obfuscation there, when those paragraphs consist of either one or two sentences. Also, arguably the entire rest of the OP, starting from the "fifth paragraph" (or, equivalently, the "seventh sentence") discusses the NY Times video.

First, you falsely accused the forum of never having before discussed the memos, and then proceeded to criticize a movie you hadn't yet seen, using such colorful descriptors as "revisionist" and "whitewash". Again, to describe a movie you hadn't yet seen.

If you read my OP very carefully (and think very carefully) you will see that (a) everything I claim is correct; and (b) I qualified my movie descriptors with the word "apparently."

Then you brought up the NY Times article briefly before launching into an impassioned defense of Bush's service record before bringing the whole production back around to the movie you hadn't yet seen in rather dramatic fashion by scolding both liberals and Hollywood as being "delusional" and "ruthless".

Scolding? I was just asking questions, wasn't I?

Not much in the way of accuracy and perhaps a bit overblown, but an entertaining read nonetheless. You should check it out, since your memory of it seems to be a little off.

I did. My memory of it was accurate.

 

[johnny karate]

Five paragraphs vs three sentences? Nice obfuscation there, when those paragraphs consist of either one or two sentences.

In what way did I "obfuscate" by correctly counting paragraphs and sentences?

Also, arguably the entire rest of the OP, starting from the "fifth paragraph" (or, equivalently, the "seventh sentence") discusses the NY Times video.

You actually only discuss it in three sentences, as I already pointed out. The only room for argument is a fourth sentence since you attempt to rebut one of Rather's claims when you segued into defending Bush. But that's out of 15+ sentences. Perhaps you could perform a Bayesian analysis which demonstrates how that constitutes "mostly".

If you read my OP very carefully (and think very carefully) you will see that (a) everything I claim is correct;

Nope:

It is certainly weird that this forum of skeptics haven't addressed this topic before...

It didn't take very long for other forum members to demonstrate this claim was incorrect.

...and (b) I qualified my movie descriptors with the word "apparently."

Nope:

But now is as good a time as any to discuss it because of a new, revisionist movie that is about to be released called, ironically enough, "Truth".

Nary a qualifier to be found in that sentence. Which criticizes a movie you hadn't yet seen.

Scolding? I was just asking questions, wasn't I?

Your questions were asking to what degree Hollywood and liberals are delusional and ruthless. Which starts with the presumption that they are already delusional and ruthless. So no, you weren't "just asking questions".

I did. My memory of it was accurate.

Yeah, not so much. As anyone who reads your OP can see.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Memo validity aside, does anyone doubt GW got out of going to Vietnam because political strings were pulled?

 

[Brainster]

John 11-35. There's no great mystery. You just have to match the movement of Kerry's little boat detailed in the Boston Globe extract of his war diary for 24 December 1968 with a large scale map of Indochina. No way he could have made it to Cambodia.

Kerry was a fabulist. He would see a movie and then say that some dramatic scene in the film happened to him.

Christmas in Cambodia? It's from Apocalypse Now.

What amazes me to this day is the other tall tales that got ignored in 2004. You mention the Boston Globe book; in the introduction to that they note Kerry's tall tale about helping a Vietnamese woman deliver a breech-birth baby on his boat. What drama! Except that Brinkley, who covered seemingly every minute of Kerry's (brief) Vietnam service, never mentioned this incident.

Some friends of mine indicated that a similar scene appears in the Big Red One, a WWII drama although I cannot confirm that as I have never seen the movie.

Kerry also claimed that one time he was going through a car wash and that suddenly water began gushing into the vehicle from everywhere. I joked about that incident by noting that if it were true, then both Massachusetts Senators had experienced the phenomenon of their cars suddenly filling up with water. But it sure sounds like something from a movie.

Kerry also told Maureen Dowd about an encounter he had with a deer one morning that was quite profound. Of course, this is the last scene in the Deer Hunter before Vietnam.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Kerry was a fabulist. He would see a movie and then say that some dramatic scene in the film happened to him.

Christmas in Cambodia? It's from Apocalypse Now.

What amazes me to this day is the other tall tales that got ignored in 2004. You mention the Boston Globe book; in the introduction to that they note Kerry's tall tale about helping a Vietnamese woman deliver a breech-birth baby on his boat. What drama! Except that Brinkley, who covered seemingly every minute of Kerry's (brief) Vietnam service, never mentioned this incident.

Some friends of mine indicated that a similar scene appears in the Big Red One, a WWII drama although I cannot confirm that as I have never seen the movie.

Kerry also claimed that one time he was going through a car wash and that suddenly water began gushing into the vehicle from everywhere. I joked about that incident by noting that if it were true, then both Massachusetts Senators had experienced the phenomenon of their cars suddenly filling up with water. But it sure sounds like something from a movie.

Kerry also told Maureen Dowd about an encounter he had with a deer one morning that was quite profound. Of course, this is the last scene in the Deer Hunter before Vietnam.

While I don't dismiss the possibility of this crap, I also can't readily find a reliable source. And given the Swift Boat fraudulent attack, well, needless to say I'm skeptical.

So do you have a source besides the right wing lie-osphere?

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

It didn't take very long for other forum members to demonstrate this claim was incorrect.

I believe that was for the JREF Forum, not this one.