Bush Texas Air National Guard Memos are Forgeries

[sunmaster14]

Weird how you've gone from being dead certain there was no such thread and wondering why skeptics didn't discuss such an important issue, to being dead certain there was a thread that the mods deleted for nefarious purposes. (Of course, the mods left the various other threads on the subject because they're as incompetent as they are dastardly.)

There is someone here with egg on their face, but it's not the "Bush detractors."

At 12am ET, Sep 9th, 2014, less than four hours after the 60 Minutes II broadcast, the conservative blogosphere came alive with allegations that the memos were generated on a computer and were therefore obvious frauds. By the evening of Sep 9th, it was the biggest internet sensation in history, and there were .gifs flying around that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the memos had been printed in Microsoft Word using the default settings. Surely there was a central thread, a central discussion, that started at JREF before Sep 12th?

That is what I'm referring to. Not this detritus which is mostly about the aftermath.

 

[plague311]

Sorry, I missed this post before. No, I am not calling anybody here a liar. I am quite certain that there was a vigorous discussion at the time, no doubt beginning the very night of the broadcast in question, i.e. Sep 8, 2004. I have reason to believe though that that discussion has been deleted from the forum. Perhaps the deletion was accidental. But it could have also been seen as convenient as well. I can imagine that a lot of Bush detractors were memo defenders, and therefore ended up with egg on their faces and would have been very happy to see the threads disappear.

The memos are like...a fraction of the reason why Bush sucked ass as a president and as a person. No one needs to lean on those for any reason.

 

[DavidJames]

I hope this thread doesn't get conveniently deleted. It's a great example of detritus.

 

[bruto]

Weird how you've gone from being dead certain there was no such thread and wondering why skeptics didn't discuss such an important issue, to being dead certain there was a thread that the mods deleted for nefarious purposes. (Of course, the mods left the various other threads on the subject because they're as incompetent as they are dastardly.)

There is someone here with egg on their face, but it's not the "Bush detractors."

I do, however, like the new definition of "not calling anyone a liar." We should all take it as a lesson on how to make reckless accusations without actually ever having done so. That goalpost doesn't just have a motor, it has wings.

 

[gregthehammer]

If I recall, Bush won re-election in 2004. I'm guessing the impact of these forged documents were zero to nil. But what do I know.

 

[johnny karate]

The merit of the topic aside, I just think it's hilarious that the OP is offended and all fired up over a movie he hasn't even seen.

 

[Ziggurat]

If I recall, Bush won re-election in 2004. I'm guessing the impact of these forged documents were zero to nil. But what do I know.

In the end, yes. But they were also quickly debunked before the election. Had that not happened, then perhaps other events would have also unfolded differently as well.

 

[gregthehammer]

In the end, yes. But they were also quickly debunked before the election. Had that not happened, then perhaps other events would have also unfolded differently as well.

Right, exactly. They were debunked, Dan Rather was exposed as a purveyor of fraudulent information. Which is why I am confused to why exactly the OP is complaining about what may or may not have been discussed on this board over 10 years ago.

 

[Ziggurat]

Right, exactly. They were debunked, Dan Rather was exposed as a purveyor of fraudulent information. Which is why I am confused to why exactly the OP is complaining about what may or may not have been discussed on this board over 10 years ago.

That I couldn't tell you. I was even part of some of the discussions, so I know they took place. But it does feel like some of it got lost in the forum reshuffle. No matter. I look forward to this latest cinematic oeuvre imploding.

 

[Ladewig]

At 12am ET, Sep 9th, 2014, less than four hours after the 60 Minutes II broadcast, the conservative blogosphere came alive with allegations that the memos were generated on a computer and were therefore obvious frauds. By the evening of Sep 9th, it was the biggest internet sensation in history, and there were .gifs flying around that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the memos had been printed in Microsoft Word using the default settings. Surely there was a central thread, a central discussion, that started at JREF before Sep 12th?

That is what I'm referring to. Not this detritus which is mostly about the aftermath.

If you really want to discuss that we can strip this post from this thread and start a new thread in the conspiracy theory sub-forum. ETA unless you are kidding around, in which case a smiley would help us humorless liberals.

What particular aspect of the original event do you wish to discuss? We all agree Rather made an error. We all agree that if it had not been discovered quickly, it might have influenced an election. How can we keep this thread from derailing?

 

[Giordano]

If you really want to discuss that we can strip this post from this thread and start a new thread in the conspiracy theory sub-forum.

What particular aspect of the original event do you wish to discuss? We all agree Rather made an error. We all agree that if it had not been discovered quickly, it might have influenced an election. How can we keep this thread from derailing?

Perhaps if this is to discuss the movie, the thread could be in History, Literature, and the Arts. If this is to discuss some conspiracy to delete posts that are embarrassing to Dan Rather, then I agree this should be in Conspiracy. If this is to discuss that newspapers and TV news shows, whatever their political leanings, often get facts wrong, then I am not certain if it is worth discussing, any more than the fact that water is wet.

 

[cmikes]

Good actors cannot save a bad script. I'm positive it will be a bad movie.

But it might still pick up an award.

With the obvious caveat that I've yet to see the movie, from what I've read online, it seems to be in a similar vein to Stone's "JFK". In other words, none of this is true, but dammit it should be!!!!

 

[Trebuchet]

The whole event reminds me of the best analysis I ever heard of the OJ Simpson trial: "The police framed a guilty subject."

 

[Giordano]

The whole event reminds me of the best analysis I ever heard of the OJ Simpson trial: "The police framed a guilty subject."

That's great! May I use it?

 

[sunmaster14]

If you really want to discuss that we can strip this post from this thread and start a new thread in the conspiracy theory sub-forum. ETA unless you are kidding around, in which case a smiley would help us humorless liberals.

I don't really want to discuss a conspiracy theory about the admins deleting the Bush memo threads. I was hoping that people could help me track down the original threads because I was interested in reading them. I have since found some evidence that there was a massive database failure that wiped out everything from that time period.

What particular aspect of the original event do you wish to discuss? We all agree Rather made an error. We all agree that if it had not been discovered quickly, it might have influenced an election. How can we keep this thread from derailing?

I'm setting up to discuss the movie and its implications. I find it rather horrifying to see history being rewritten before my very eyes, history that I witnessed and followed in real time. It is, I imagine, a lot like 9/11 trutherism, except that truthers have never amounted to more than a fringe element in US politics. If this forum can spend tens of thousands of posts debunking 9/11 trutherism, my hope is that it can tolerate at least one thread debunking Bush memo trutherism. I also hope that it will stay in USA Politics, since that is the appropriate place for it.

 

[sunmaster14]

The whole event reminds me of the best analysis I ever heard of the OJ Simpson trial: "The police framed a guilty subject."

Well, except for the fact that OJ wasn't framed, and Bush wasn't guilty, it's almost exactly the same.

 

[cmikes]

I'm setting up to discuss the movie and its implications. I find it rather horrifying to see history being rewritten before my very eyes, history that I witnessed and followed in real time. It is, I imagine, a lot like 9/11 trutherism, except that truthers have never amounted to more than a fringe element in US politics. If this forum can spend tens of thousands of posts debunking 9/11 trutherism, my hope is that it can tolerate at least one thread debunking Bush memo trutherism. I also hope that it will stay in USA Politics, since that is the appropriate place for it.

Rewriting history is part of Hollywood's job, at least according to them. See JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, Good Night and Good Luck, Platoon, and about a million other movies.

I especially love JFK, where a vast right wing conspiracy, which includes a couple of thousand members of the US government, get together and kill a more classical liberal in order to put his much more progressive Vice President in office. It's like they were smart enough to pull of a conspiracy with literally thousands of moving parts, but yet were too dumb to check the line of succession.

 

[Giordano]

Well, except for the fact that OJ wasn't framed, and Bush wasn't guilty, it's almost exactly the same.

One definition (Merriam Webster) of humor: the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous.

Oddly, most humor is not factual in all details. And of course what is funny to some is not funny to others.

My real problems with OJ are not whether or not I am convinced that some in the police may have tried to frame him, but relate more to the incompetence on the police's part.

My real problems with Bush are not with his National Guard service (which of course had nothing to do with the political influence of his family) but his actions as president.

 

[johnny karate]

I find it rather horrifying to see history being rewritten before my very eyes, history that I witnessed and followed in real time.

Oh good grief... Get a grip.

No one is rewriting history.

It's just a movie (a movie which you haven't even seen).

As has already been pointed out, Hollywood and historical accuracy don't exactly go hand-in-hand. That someone made a movie about a historical event and might have taken liberties in recounting that event is nothing new, nothing shocking, and certainly nothing about which to get hysterical.

Relax. Take a deep breath. Go outside and take a walk. And maybe find something more worthy of your shrill and overwrought outrage than the earth-shattering revelation that Hollywood movies aren't historical documents.

 

[logger]

in which case a smiley would help us humorless liberals.

Lol

And thin skin too.