Here's how FOX news reports Bush guard issue

Talk about bias…

WASHINGTON — While new memos suggest President Bush (search) may have failed to meet standards for the Air National Guard and may have received preferential treatment years before he was elected to the White House, a new documentary released Thursday attacks John Kerry (search) for his anti-war actions during the Vietnam era.

The firestorm over Bush's Guard records took a new turn Wednesday night after the White House released memos saying a younger George W. Bush was suspended from flying fighter jets for failing to meet the standards of the Texas Air National Guard.

The White House is charging that Kerry's campaign is behind the new allegations that Bush shirked his Guard duties.

Republicans have accused Kerry, a decorated combat veteran, of fabricating Vietnam-era events which led to his five medals. Democrats point to gaps in Bush's stateside Air National Guard service in 1972 and 1973 and say Bush shirked his duty in the war.

Previously, Bush's aides have said the president was suspended simply because he decided to skip his annual physical exam, which was scheduled during a year in which Bush left Texas, where he had been flying fighter jets, to work on a U.S. Senate campaign in Alabama.

Democrats held a news conference Thursday morning to showcase the new documents. They say the issue is how the president's Guard service has been characterized, and that the old documents speak to current credibility.

Notice the report barely even talks about the CONTENT of the memo's. It just goes on to cloud the issue by talking about the Democrats which were NOT responsible for these documents coming out. The doc's came out because of the Freedom of Information act (which I would be surprised will be changed by the Republicans if they remain in control).

All other reports I saw, actually discuss the content of the documents & what it means.

Pete - where are you when we need you to point out REAL bias?

Mike… would you like copies of the documents? I suggest you read them over before you jump on this bandwagon. I have them if you can’t find them.

Riddle me this, Batman… how did they manage to do proportional fonts in 1972 and 1973? Or even better… how did they manage to do superscripts? ON A TYPEWRITER?

This one is stupid and blatent. Watch it explode. All over you.

edit

Where am I? Elsewhere, Mike. You know how to reach me.

Yes I have the original documents & they look like a type-writer to me. I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about?

Answer me one question Pete - based on what you know, did Bush forfill his obligation under the guard or not?

The version of the story on Fox News’s Web site has about 25 more paragraphs to it. This is supposed to be an example of barely covering this story? The headline says that both Bush and Jo.Ke. are under fire and consequently each angle receives a similar amount of coverage in the story.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
The doc’s came out because of the Freedom of Information act


This wasn’t a spontaneous occurrence. For some reason the Associated Press actively sued the government to release additional Bush records. Are they taking a similar approach to uncovering the rest of Jo.Ke.'s military records?

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Answer me one question Pete - based on what you know, did Bush forfill his obligation under the guard or not?


Not answering for Pete, but for myself - yes. How well he fulfilled that obligation is rather trivial, since Bush received an uncontested honorable discharge and his National Guard service has not been trumpeted as the foundation upon which Bush’s campaign is built. Contrast this to Jo.Ke. who exploits his military experience by orchestrating a river crossing with a few fellow seamen and then melodramatically “reports for duty” at the convention, while several questions remain unanswered about the events leading to his medals and ribbons (at least the ones that weren’t actually discarded after the war).

How well he fulfilled that obligation is rather trivial, since Bush received an uncontested honorable discharge and his National Guard service has not been trumpeted as the foundation upon which Bush's campaign is built.
Well if this is the case, then Kerry served honorably in Vietnam & his medals and record should NOT be questioned then.

I agree it was a political move on Kerry's part to run on his war record & it may not have been the right choice, but that's what politics is all about isn't it?

If Jo.Ke.'s honorable discharge was the end of his Vietnam activities, I would agree with you.

Could you elaborate a litte more?

Quote (MidnightToker @ Sep. 09 2004,13:37)
Yes I have the original documents & they look like a type-writer to me. I don't have a clue what you're talking about?

Answer me one question Pete - based on what you know, did Bush forfill his obligation under the guard or not?

CBSNEWS LAUNCHES INTERNAL INVESTIGATION

The source, who asked not to be named, described CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather as being privately "shell-shocked" by the increasingly likelihood that the documents in question were fraudulent.


Jeff

I’m sure they would be shocked if the doc’s were forged.

Is the documentary mentioned - the one attacking Kerry’s Vietnam protests - the DVD that the RNC is giving away? Probably not, since that one is about Kerry’s position on Iraq. FWIW, I just got a copy of the RNC one in the mail, and it does not demonstrate what the RNC says it does, AFAICT. Anyone else see it? ???

By the way, why do many of you rely on things like the drudge report, or on web based “news” services that are intentionally partisan in the most inflamatory way? Do you think those sources are likely to be better than the AP or CBS or the like, where there is a certain degree of scrutiny of what they say? Granted they make mistakes, but the process of filtering is much more robust than it is on the drudge or other sources of that type.

Pete, this was the problem with the “boos” “ooohs” article - the sources were all less than credible, intentionally biased ones with little in the way of filtering. I’ve not seen anything new on it today. What is up there?

By the way, why do many of you rely on things like the drudge report, or on web based "news" services that are intentionally partisan in the most inflamatory way?
I look at Drudge everyday (for sheer entertainment)!
Quote (pete @ Sep. 09 2004,13:33)
Mike... would you like copies of the documents? I suggest you read them over before you jump on this bandwagon. I have them if you can't find them.

Riddle me this, Batman... how did they manage to do proportional fonts in 1972 and 1973? Or even better... how did they manage to do superscripts? ON A TYPEWRITER?

This one is stupid and blatent. Watch it explode. All over you.

**edit**

Where am I? Elsewhere, Mike. You know how to reach me.

Pete, below's the link to the rebuttal from CBS. (1) typewriters did have super and subscripts, and one of those was used on a legit document in Bush's file 1968; the font Times New Roman we all love and cherish has been around for more than 70 years.

The hubub about the doc's authenticity was raised by less than credible sources, and looks to be on a par with other Repub tactics - e.g., when Bush's campaign spread rumours about McCain. At this point the most reasonable conclusion is that the docs are real.

And that fits with all of the info we have from other sources about which no one has raised any questions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories....1.shtml

:)

Look Here


…The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to “sugarcoat” George W. Bush’s military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo supposedly was written, his service record shows…


… A CBS staffer stood by the story, suggesting Staudt could have continued to exert influence over Guard officials. But a former high-ranking Guard official disputed that, saying retirement would have left Staudt powerless.

Authenticity of the memo and three others included in Wednesday’s “60 Minutes” report came in for heavy criticism yesterday, prompting an unusual, on-air defense of the original work. Experts on typography said the memos appeared to have been computer-drafted on equipment not available at the time. …


… And the widow and son of the officer who supposedly wrote them, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984, have said it wasn’t his nature to keep detailed personal notes.

In its news broadcast yesterday, CBS said the documents were supported by both unnamed witnesses and others, including document examiners.

CBS anchor Dan Rather earlier told The Dallas Morning News that he had heard nothing to make him question the legitimacy of the memos. He attributed the backlash to partisan politics and competitive journalism. …


Jeff

Jeff, I’m not saying that we know the answer here yet, but look at the original source of that article - not the Seattle paper, but a Dallas paper. A conservative one? And the writer? Also, note that it came out before CBS replied. FInally - have you seen the documents in question?

:)

Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. And he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS News have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS News started with.