Bush Texas Air National Guard Memos are Forgeries

[cmikes]

3 of the 4 movies you mentioned are Oliver Stone movies. Maybe you just have a bone to pick with that one (very good) director.

Possibly. I acknowledge that Stone is a good director in the fact that he can make his historical lies look almost convincing, but just because he's a great liar doesn't make the lies any more correct. But obviously, he has the right to make whatever movies he pleases and he's been very successful at it, good for him.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes, let no one here offer their unsubstantiated opinion. Especially in a thread based on a movie that no one has yet to see.

It seems to be a theme here.

Have you seen room 237? That has more substantial arguments than this thread.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

How about not assigning any blame until you have evidence of involvement. As it is, you are not saying you ha e any evidence of his involvement.

Perhaps I have less invested emotion in the subject than you have, or maybe I just haven't had enough coffee. I'm not particularly excited by the subject, carry on.

 

[DavidJames]

I'm hoping you said that in jest. I think you are, but, well, Poe.

If not, the idea suffers from the same flaw that the Princess Diana assassination theory does: why would anyone engage in such an elaborate conspiracy when it could be defeated by such simple, elementary measures on the part of the victim? Had Diana worn a seat belt, she wouldn't have died. Had Rather or Mapes noticed that the document obviously doesn't look typewritten, they might not have aired it. The subsequent observation that they failed to take these measures is not something that could have been relied upon during the planning.

Jrrarglblarg in the spirit of the OP, may simply be exhibited that same level of critical thinking. You know, let's all play the same game with the same rules.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Possibly. I acknowledge that Stone is a good director in the fact that he can make his historical lies look almost convincing, but just because he's a great liar doesn't make the lies any more correct. But obviously, he has the right to make whatever movies he pleases and he's been very successful at it, good for him.

It could be 100% lies. It isn't a factor in judging his film making (insert triumph of the will discussion here). Not that this is the discussion here. But it can get murky.

 

[Trebuchet]

It doesn't matter to me in the slightest what Bush did in the National Guard, but why are you trying to reverse the burden of proof? If it matters to you what Bush did at the end of the Vietnam War, find your own proof.

The thread topic is about what Bush did or didn't do during Viet Nam. The memo was fake. His avoidance of his obligations was real.

 

[Crossbow]

Historically inaccurate is not the same as historically reversed. From information and belief, "Truth" is akin to making a movie about the Germans liberating France from an Anglo-American occupation (after bombing Pearl Harbor probably).

Furthermore, those movies above were made for entertainment purposes, not to further a political agenda. It remains to be seen if "Truth" is entertaining.

I expected as much ...

You are bitching and complaining about a movie that you have not even seen yet.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yes, let no one here offer their unsubstantiated opinion. Especially in a thread based on a movie that no one has yet to see.

I linked to a 90 minute long TimesTalk interview of Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Robert Redford, and Cate Blanchett where all they did was discuss the movie. I suggest you watch that before accusing anybody of having unsubstantiated opinions, lest you be accused of the same.

 

[Cleon]

Someone generated an obviously fake memo. I blame Rove. Irrational perhaps, but I'm willing to reassign blame in the light of new facts.

People generate fake crap all the time. Even in 2004 it wasn't hard to do. Might've been Rove, might've been some ******* wearing a trilby in his parents' basement. I doubt we'll ever know for sure unless someone comes forward.

I blame CBS for not doing due diligence to verify & authenticate before running with it.

 

[Crossbow]

Uh, it seems that he is looking to discuss several aspects, including the recently published interview which took place just last week.

Any comments about that interview?

He is bitching and complaining about a movie that he has not seen.

As for the interviews that you all so terribly vexed about, the only comment that I have about them is that such interviews are always used as just another publicity tool. This has been the case for about the last 40 years, so I do not know how you all could be so very unaware of such a basic fact.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

People generate fake crap all the time. Even in 2004 it wasn't hard to do. Might've been Rove, might've been some ******* wearing a trilby in his parents' basement. I doubt we'll ever know for sure unless someone comes forward.

True. The entire Cheney/Rumsfeld administration kept making me feel like a conspiracy theorist. Stuff like the Valerie Plame affair didn't help.

I blame CBS for not doing due diligence to verify & authenticate before running with it.

As do I. This event was my first indicator of how badly Professional Journalism had already decayed.

 

[The Big Dog]

He is bitching and complaining about a movie that he has not seen.

As for the interviews that you all so terribly vexed about, the only comment that I have about them is that such interviews are always used as just another publicity tool. This has been the case for about the last 40 years, so I do not know how you all could be so very unaware of such a basic fact.

Interesting use of the Rule of So! Nevertheless clear example of a completely ridiculous strawman. Unfortunately, I have to knock off points because it is so utterly unbelievable as nothing that I wrote would even remotely suggest that I was unaware of interviews as part of a publicity campaign.

We get it, you have nothing to say about the substance of the interview. No problem, and certainly no need to make up foolish strawmen arguments, or bitching and complaining about a movie that You have not seen.

 

[Crossbow]

Interesting use of the Rule of So! Nevertheless clear example of a completely ridiculous strawman. Unfortunately, I have to knock off points because it is so utterly unbelievable as nothing that I wrote would even remotely suggest that I was unaware of interviews as part of a publicity campaign.

We get it, you have nothing to say about the substance of the interview. No problem, and certainly no need to make up foolish strawmen arguments, or bitching and complaining about a movie that You have not seen.

I did not present any strawman arguments.

 

[The Big Dog]

I did not present any strawman arguments.

'k.

 

[Giordano]

I linked to a 90 minute long TimesTalk interview of Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Robert Redford, and Cate Blanchett where all they did was discuss the movie. I suggest you watch that before accusing anybody of having unsubstantiated opinions, lest you be accused of the same.

Yes, that is what you said earlier in the post. So you are critiquing the interview, not the movie itself, having not seen the movie itself? Okay! You do realize that movies are shot at (at best) where 9 to 90 minutes of film are discarded for every 1 minute that shows up in the movie? And that scenes are included and pieced together very much out of the order in which they are filmed, so that the same raw footage can create very, very different final movies? It is often very chaotic, where the actors film 5 takes in front of different camera angles, and have no clue which, if any, will appear in the final film. As a result the actors and their real life characters may or may not know (or remember) the final points that made in the final film. Or their memories if they did see a rough cut of the film may be distorted by their political biases.

Sometimes I've been confused by things that people appeared to post about the movie itself, but I must have been confused. You are only referring to the interview with the actors and ex-60 min producer. Got it.

By the way- the movie may be just as inaccurate as some here have claimed. I will wait and see, and then determine if it is entertaining enough to see whether accurate or not, the points it makes, and if it presents itself as accurate or not.

Can I presume that you intend to see the movie itself once it comes out? Or do you plan to not "give them my money" and therefore rely on additional, second hand accounts? it can be a dilemma!

 

[sunmaster14]

Yes, that is what you said earlier in the post. So you are critiquing the interview, not the movie itself, having not seen the movie itself? Okay! You do realize that movies are shot at (at best) where 9 to 90 minutes of film are discarded for every 1 minute that shows up in the movie? And that scenes are included and pieced together very much out of the order in which they are filmed, so that the same raw footage can create very, very different final movies? It is often very chaotic, where the actors film 5 takes in front of different camera angles, and have no clue which, if any, will appear in the final film. As a result the actors and their real life characters may or may not know (or remember) the final points that made in the final film. Or their memories if they did see a rough cut of the film may be distorted by their political biases.

Sometimes I've been confused by things that people appeared to post about the movie itself, but I must have been confused. You are only referring to the interview with the actors and ex-60 min producer. Got it.

By the way- the movie may be just as inaccurate as some here have claimed. I will wait and see, and then determine if it is entertaining enough to see whether accurate or not, the points it makes, and if it presents itself as accurate or not.

Can I presume that you intend to see the movie itself once it comes out? Or do you plan to not "give them my money" and therefore rely on additional, second hand accounts? it can be a dilemma!

I do intend to see the movie, and pace Ziggurat, I expect it to be well-done. I think that I would even enjoy it if I had no knowledge of the events in question. For the record, many people have already seen the movie (including all of the people involved in the TimesTalk). It has been previewed in many places, and there are already reviews out on the internet. So I don't think there will be any surprises as to its content or the spin it provides to historical events.

 

[Giordano]

I do intend to see the movie, and pace Ziggurat, I expect it to be well-done. I think that I would even enjoy it if I had no knowledge of the events in question. For the record, many people have already seen the movie (including all of the people involved in the TimesTalk). It has been previewed in many places, and there are already reviews out on the internet. So I don't think there will be any surprises as to its content or the spin it provides to historical events.

Good- I honestly look forward to your take on the movie.

My understanding is that the movie will not be in general release until Oct 16 in the USA, but has been screened at the Toronto Film festival and for a variety of film critics. As you stated, the critical response has been good, if not great. So who knows, I may actually see it when it is released to us general public.

I will be particularly interested in how the film portrays the forged documents: from what I read in the reviews the film does not try to argue that these "documents" were real ones (which I gather would be impossible) but to try to present a story of why the participants were fooled by them. But this too is second hand and I will need to see the movie myself.

 

[johnny karate]

I do intend to see the movie...

Hopefully you'll find a theater that provides you a fainting couch.

 

[CORed]

Dan Rather and the reputation of 60 Minutes never really recovered, and the published use of forgeries destroyed any chance of discussing Bush's NG record, so Rove's plan worked.

At the time, because the memo was such a clumsy forgery, I wondered if it could have been planted by someone in the Bush camp, for the purpose of defusing the issue of ush's Air National Guard service. No evidence supporting that scenario ever surfaced, so it probably belongs in the realm of conspiracy theories, and the people who forged really were that incompetent. Still, I haven't completely abandoned the idea.

 

[sunmaster14]

Hopefully you'll find a theater that provides you a fainting couch.

Good idea. I also plan to buy a jumbo size popcorn. Not for the popcorn per se, but so I have an improvised barf bag at the ready.