Why do we refuse to admit that the memos COULD be forgeries?

[Flammable Materials]

When I saw them, the first thing I thought of was that they looked like they were done on MS Word. I didn't immediately dismiss them as complete fakes, though. I thought that they could have been transcribed from handwritten copies or an earlier typewritten copy. I've got tons of things on my hard drive that I've transcribed from handwritten and typewritten notes.

I just don't understand why my compatriots here on the left all seem to be chanting the same mantra about these memos. I'm not even sure that most of the people who are in the vocal "THEY'RE REAL" camp have convinced themselves that they are real - but figure that if the GOP is going to play "by all means necessary", then so are we.

I just worry that we are going to look incredibly foolish when the person responsible for these leaks the originals to the press and they're shown beyond all doubt to be bad forgeries. I mean, I'm not even hearing a single bit of skepticism on AAR. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

(And please don't accuse me of being a right-wing troll. I've been on here for some time as "Citizen Daryl". I just decided I wanted a different name.)

EDIT: Grammar.

[ET Awful]

1. I've always said they COULD be, not that they were, but I've also said

that it doesn't matter. The questions about Bush's complete disregard for his obligations still stand, regardless of those memos. In fact, every question about his time in the guard remains the same, whether or not those memos ever existed.

[jumpstart33]

37. Forgeries of copies? or copies of forgeries?

How about the memos are "re-produced" transcripts of handwritten notes or typewritten notes?

[shanti]

39. thank you

that's what i think too.

[Uzybone]

46. Exactly my position.

n/t

[republicansarewhores]

66. Flammable Materials...

Thank you for starting this thread. I've been arguing the same point in other threads ad nauseum to only be attacked by other DUers. Heads up guys! I can't stand Bush either, isn't it evident in my tagline? However blindy following a partisan line without questioning the possibility they are forgeries based on a prepondernace of evidence is going to make a lot of libs look just as brainwashed and frothing at the mouth as the neocon freeper whores.

If they are forged, it does not diminish the FACTS already proven that Bush was AWOL. But holding onto something as proof of this which is probably a a forgery is only going to continue diverting attention from the real story. It already has.

RAW

[TexasSissy]

72. That's pretty much my position. The issue isn't settled yet, but

it doesn't really matter. There's no doubt, and there's other evidence, as to the substance of the memos. I wish CBS had checked the memo out more thoroughly though, or at least reported that some experts had concerns about their authenticity. That would've prevented this onslaught attack and total hijacking of the news.

[mmonk]

2. I really don't care

The information is real. Our country is also in a crisis that its population, for the most part is unaware of. I'll take anything that makes people attempt to find things out for themselves.

[Rockholm]

10. Exactly. The INFORMATION IS REAL.

Think about it. Nobody (repeat NOBODY) is disputing what is in the memos. Not bush, not cheney. NOBODY!!!!

[cthrumatrix]

15. BINGO -- It's all about smear .... cloud the real issues and smear CBS/dem

[Zorra]

54. Yep. And besides that, these memos are just a needle in a haystack.

Bu$h has been proven, indisputably, to be a DESERTER by other official government documents whose origin and authenticity are beyond question. And then there is the testimony of so many people that were in contact with ol' AWOL at that time.

This controversy over these memos is downright silly - but something really, really great has come out of the controversy.

The freepers have, to use a figure of speech, shot Bu$h and themselves point blank in the in the face with a double barrel blast of 00 buckshot by giving the Bu$h AWOL question all this constant media attention. The controversy over these irrelevant memos has put the rest of Bu$h's records right out there on page one, day in and day out.

Cheers to our "good friends" at freerepublic for helping us finally get the fact that Bu$h is a DESERTER the full on media attention it deserves.

Bu$h is now just so much burnt toast. The tide has turned.

Thanks, freeps! Way to go!!! Kiss kiss!

Bwaaahaaahaaahaaaahaaaahaaaa!!!!

[Stephanie]

3. who is this "we" you speak of?

YOU are the only one who thinks "we" will look "incredibly foolish" - and that tells "us" everything we need to know about "you". Your post has a familiar ring to it. I've heard it all somewhere before.

[thebigidea]

12. geez, I've posted here thousands of times... and yet -

I can never quite muster the gumption to use this royal we crap that new posters sometimes start blurting immedeately. It makes me awfully suspicious.

[Stephanie]

16. It's a tip-off

Other tip-offs:

bad spelling

Alarmist fear-mongering: "we" must stop this or "we" will look foolish!

[kayell]

27. Please don't include spelling in that list

I am a notoriously poor speller, yet a born and bred left Dem, and even reasonably well read. Have pity on those of us who are spelling challenged.

"Plaice knot yore trussed inn spilling chequers."

[Demoiselle]

33. "Plaice knot yore trussed inn spilling chequers"....!!!!

Can I get a t shirt with that on it? It's BRILLIANT! LOL

[kayell]

42. Probably, its an old joke. At least by internet standards.

I first saw it around 1995.

I wish I could claim credit, but it's just another wonderful submission from that literary genius Anonymous.

[Stephanie]

34. It's a generally reliable clue, when alongside others

Such as, for instance, a screenname that presumes the poster will be flamed?

[Flammable Materials]

61. Wow, Stephanie must have the hots for me or something.

The name, "Flammable Materials", is the name of the new publishing company I'm getting started:

http://www.flammablematerials.com/

Of course, I'm not quite sure why I'm taking the time to explain this to you.

[EST]

48. Creative spelling

is the mark of artistic genius, is it not?

[Flammable Materials]

60. Bad spelling?

Point out all the "spelling errors" in my post, Stephanie.

I dare you.

:eyes:

[Flammable Materials]

59. If you had bothered to read my original message ...

... you'd have read that I'm not a new poster. I'm just using a new account because I wanted a new name.

Sheesh, some people's children.

:eyes:

[Flammable Materials]

58. Holy crap, forgive me for having a divergent opinion.

You're beginning to sound like a Freeper.

But I guess there's a few Freep types in every crowd.

:eyes:

[republicansarewhores]

68. Wow Stephanie. US vs. YOU

Sounds like a line most neo con WHORES would use at Free Republic.

Aren't WE supposed to be different from THEM when WE have a DIFFERENCE of OPINION?

RAW

[ClintonTyree]

4. Perhaps they are..........................

it's the message that can't be refuted. The method may be suspect but the message remains undeniable. That point seems to be overlooked by all of the pundits.

[wurzel]

5. It is the difference between "forgery" and 'fabrication".

I thought they were "forgeries" and still do. But they were not "fabrications". These docs were "reconstructions" of original memos. The content was true. The speed of the Republican reaction made me think they must have known these memos were "forgeries" because they planted them. After Ms. Knox I now think the Republicans knew because they had destroyed the originals.

[GoldenOldie]

11. Dan Rather keeps asking the Questions???

Dan Rather never did say they were authentic memo's and always includes the original questions that the majority of Americans want to know. Did George W. Bush fullfill his commitment to ANG. If he received preferential treatment to enter the ANG, did he receive preferential treatment in disobeying orders and then receive an honorable discharge??? Dan always concludes his report with the statment that if CBS becomes aware of any further information they will report it.

I thought that this is what "Investigative Reporting," meant.

FOX, CNN, Limbaugh, NBC, ABC, etc., should tell us where they get their information. Is it the daily script coming from the WhiteHouse???

[slor]

6. Bush is a pampered punk-

ass punk. That is why the memos are important, forged or not. Got it?

[Spinzonner]

7. Anything without a documentable chain of custody could be a forgery

and these are copies for which no originals have been identified.

However, all the technical arguments that proport to prove that the supposed originals could not have been produced with the technology available in the time-frame of their supposed preparation have been debunked.

And people who claim the the supposed originator - based upon the signature - would not have done so have been discounted by their distance from the process of the TANG or the operational habits of the supposed writer.

None of those prove authenticity. It is likely impossible to prove in this case. But the contrarians have not proved their case that they are forgeries either.

[wishlist]

8. Where have you been all week- there has been lots of debate

We have already had this debate ad nauseaum on other threads where lots of skepticism has been voiced. What's the point of trying to solicit even more exclamations of skepticism?

The burning question is why aren't more people and the media pressing for more answers from AWOL on his missing service records instead of just harping on the forgery issue which only obscures the real issues. Because if these docs are forgeries but the content is accurate, then what happened to the original records that should be in AWOL's official files explaining what really happened?

Is it true that Bushco had records purged to protect him and has stonewalled to keep other records they couldn't purge from being released? These questions are at least as important as who typed those memos and when, since the content of the memos seems accurate.

[WildClarySage]

9. I don't know and I don't care if they're real or not

because what they say is true. CBS had Killian's former secretary on the other night. She said she believed they were forgeries b/c they were not typed by her, but that there were original documents she did type that were in fact practically identical to these.

Isn't it funny how the republicans can spot a *bashing forgery, but not a Nigerian yellowcake one?

*ed for clarity

[dumpster_baby]

13. my thoughts, from another thread

my thoughts, from another thread



Burkett MUST have the originals
Edited on Wed Sep-15-04 10:32 PM by dumpster_baby


The memos were signed by Killian, and the signature did fool his son, at least initially. Look at this quote:
"Mr. Killian died in 1984; his widow and son have said that they did not find any memorandums among the private effects they cleared from his office after his death. Mr. Killian's son, Gary, who also served at the squadron and who initially thought that the signatures on the documents matched his father's, has come to believe they are fakes, and said he doubted Mrs. Knox's account, though he recalled her fondly."
from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15g ...

Now that tells me that Burkett must have had access to Killian's signature. So, he likely has the originals, which he probably pulled out of the trashcan. And, as Marian Knox pointed out on 60 mins tonight, the docs appear to have been changed slightly so as to ensure that the person who gave them to CBS would not get in trouble by giving out Military records to the press without permission. THat is why Burkett copied over the originals: to somehow avoid possible legal consequences.

Now, we know from other reports tonight, that the white house is now planning to release other heretofore unreleased TANG docs from Bush's record. They are probably doing this in order to get out in front of any possible release of new records by Burkett.

I sure hope this all works out OK, but it just might not, and if it does not, then Bush will likely win. I think Burkett and Rather just might both go down on this.

The best possible scenario is that this is going to force Bush to release other docs from his record that are going to do him more damage.






A NOTE OF APPRECIATION FROM THE RICH --> http://www.namebase.org/richnote.html

Alert Printer Friendly | Edit | Reply | Top

Proud2BAmurkin (860 posts) Wed Sep-15-04 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. The only effect this will have on the election is exposing AWOL



the cloak and dagger stuff will have about as much effect as the debate tapes in 2000

Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top

NRK (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-15-04 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. What if Killian typed them himself?



That would explain why they differ from Knox's memos in format but not details or content. If the documents are "CYA", I know I would want backups in a secure location...away from my office.

It's certainly the simplest explanation for how a genuine signature appeared on a document typed and copied in the early 70's, containing accurate details and in the writing style and sentiments of Jerry Killian.

Bush Flip-Flops

Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top

dumpster_baby (991 posts) Wed Sep-15-04 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. But what about the Army type language used in the Docs?



As Killian's secretary pointed out, the Army-style language was probably put in there to change the docs from the original.

Burkett probably forged the sigs. He probably got advice from his atty on this matter. He probably knew that as long as he did not copy the docs directly or copy them for money, he would be ok legally. But Dan Rather goes down on this. THe docs are forged, very likely. ANd Burkett did it to burn Bush, while keeping himself in the clear. But Dan Rather gets burned.

Hopefully this interesting story will catch on in the news. The best case scenario is that other tv outlets start interviewing the secretary. If she gets a lot of interviews, and there is not much other news (ie., hurricane news dies down, etc), her interviews alone could scrape a few points off of Bush's lead, in combination with Kitty Kelley.

A NOTE OF APPRECIATION FROM THE RICH --> http://www.nameba

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. They "look like they were done on MS Word"....

except that they might've been done on an IBM Selectric...the Times Roman font was developed in 1931 for the Times of London, and as Times New Roman was licenced by IBM in the early 1960's for its Selectric typewriters as an alternative proportional typeface to IBM's own Univers...so the "looks like they were done in Word" argument doesn't really fly. If these are supposedly originals, then there are ways to determine their authenticity, including chemical analysis of the paper, spectrographic analysis of the ink, and graphological analysis of the signatures...and until those analyses have been performed it's a little silly to make a firm statement either way regarding their authenticity.

[TahitiNut]

45. I didn't know "MS Word" was a kind of printer or typewriter.

Gosh! What kind of paper does it use? :eyes:

[Flammable Materials]

63. I've seen people try (and fail) to duplicate these documents ...

... on a Selectric.

[ObaMania]

17. I think they are fake and somehow planted by KKKarl..

as a distraction from idiot-boy having to address the real issues. When this blows over, time permitting, the SBV issue will come back.

The key is to keep the issues at the forefront and to somehow expose KKKarl for what he did.

Where's Larry Flynt when you need him?

[zeemike]

18. You ask to prove a negative

That the documents are not a fake.
If there is any fairness it must be the burden of proof for them to prove that they are a fake. It is imposable to prove the negative but not imposable to prove the positive. So where is it?

[Cravat]

30. Come on, what kind of statement is this?

What if I cook up some "Official Naval" documents about Kerry? How about a NJP for participating in a gay goat porn movie shot while in Cambodia? It will play to what a lot of right wingers are thinking. I can then run down to kinko's and fax it to Fox. Now O'Reilly can do an hour long segment on "Kerry and the Beastiality Documents."

Come on.

The reality is starting to look like Rather was had. Now we need to find out who duped who. If we let the media get away with lying to us(intentionally or not) then we have lost. The best thing for Rather is to apologize and move on. The media keeps the government in check. If we can't depend on them to keep the faith then the problems are larger than Election '04.

[EST]

52. The depth of your penetration to the heart of this issue

is only exceeded by your grasp of the effectiveness of the media objective.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

57. Another "we" post

Since when must "we" depend on the media. That's already well established as foolishly placed faith.

[Cravat]

70. So true.

And yet, I wish it were not so. Who do you believe? Who should I believe?

[robcon]

19. I think they are fake and planted by Burkett

It doesn't change the conclusion that Bush ducked out of his NG obligations.

Burkett has motive, opportunity, and there is some circumstantial evidence (Kinko's) that he did it. The quicker CBS joins the rest of the world, and admits that they published fake documents, the better off we will be, IMO.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

64. I agree...

CBS is being really defensive, and they are starting to look like shmucks....

[Cocoa]

20. look at the source of the forgery allegations

that's why I never gave it much heed, it came from freepers.

And the fact that the mainstream media picked it up doesn't mean much either. They enthusiastically reported a whole bunch of crap about Clinton that turned out to be made up.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

44. .

:eyes:

[rman]

22. Why do repubs refuse to admit the docs could be the real thing?

"Probably forgeries" might be good enough for some, but i'd hope that most people care more then that about truth and untruth.

[tinanator]

23. how stupid are we supposed to be?

stupid enough to believe these files werent entered into a computer database? Stupid enough to believe that an original handtyped document is the only legitimate proof of a situation we already knew existed? Stupid enough to go along with a desperate campaign of sidetrack and disputing the obvious?

[mark414]

24. olbermann said last night they were probably forgeries

but that the content in them is absolutely true

that's the problem, everyone forgets the main issue and focuses on the little shit

[MUSTANG_2004]

56. On forgetting the main issue

The main issue isn't the memos or the Guard service (or a silver star or purple hearts). This election is about Iraq, how to succeed and/or how to exit. All these side issues are a distraction.

[Carson]

25. It's the nature of the political beast

"We're" hardly ever wrong, and "they're" hardly ever right. Fanaticism goes both ways.

IMHO.

[Cogito ergo doleo]

26. There's rational plausible doubt on both sides of the issue.

It's never foolish to question- especially under these circumstances.

[Skittles]

28. because we know the bastard was AWOL

nt

[Ducks In A Row]

29. The info is real, and the forgery talk distracts from that

pound bush with the traitor deserter title

[EndElectoral]

31. Why can't the media admit they might be real and address the content?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. The whole thing is a farce. There are real issues to be addressed.

This whole military service BS is a meaningless sideshow. Military service (or lack of it) doesn't qualify either of these guys for anything other than VA benefits.

Kerry was a fool to play the war hero as a qualification for the presidency, it got him the nomination because a bunch of gullible Democrats thought that it would trump the "soft on defense" nonsense that the pugs are using - it hasn't. Bush's "favorite son" status was, and is, a given. So what? Millions of kids in the '60s used any means they could to avoid Vietnam.

I'm no great fan of Kerry, but that he would be a better president than the Boob-in-Chief is unquestionable on almost all of the issues.

While the media entertains us with charges and counter charges about swift-boats and typewriters, the killing goes on in Iraq, the deficit expands, people go without health care, the environment is trashed, the gap between the poor and the rich grows, etc, etc, etc.

The house is burning down and we're arguing about who did what 40 years ago.

[TahitiNut]

35. Why not call them "reproductions"??

To address the original question, however, I submit that the overwhelming balance is on the side of CBS News and the legitimacy of the memos.

Virtually every 'expert witness' claiming they're forgeries has been fulsomely impeached as a liar and a fraud themselves. Those who've bought into those lies are ignorant fools.

When I see such a position taken almost exclusively by liars, I'm inclined to agree with the opposing position.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shanti]

38. my position isn't popular

but i feel that the subject of the memos is valid and correct, but "they" re-did them to make them APPEAR like forgeries. this means that "they" have the originals...or had them. pretty clever if you ask me.

(ok, taking off my :tinfoilhat:)

[2Design]

40. The story is about the content - it is the message not the messenger

that matters

The TRUTH is what matters.

[wuwei]

41. i feel this is a smokescreen issue

You know I do not know if they are real, reproductions , or fakes. We all know they address unanswered questions and attention needs to be drawn to these events - especially since the Bush administration has decided to attack Kerry's military record through their proxies.

My question is though if you read this article

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/politics/main643838.shtml

"Forty members of the House signed a letter accusing the network of deception. The letter asked CBS if the documents are authentic, and why the network won't say how it got them, reports CBS News Correspondent Wyatt Andrews."

Why on this earth - do we not *every* single member of the house doing the same thing to find out why Valerie Plame was outed? Is not a violation of our national security and a felony level crime more important than Bush being a deserter who got special treatment by his friends?

This is the whole Monica Lewinsky thing in reverse - they are making the hugest deal out of the smallest issue, while ignoring the incredibly large important issues. This issue is a smoke screen for bigger issues.

I'm in no means saying this is not a legitimate problem - it sucks that our supreme court selected "president" is either AWOL or a deserter, but whats more serious is this administration are felons and we are not exposing that properly in my opinion.

How do we get a left wing echo chamber that is effective as the right wing echo chamber? How do we push up issues that are legimitate impeachable issues?

How do we push back against these 40 repubplican house members who are trying to squelch the freedom of the press?

Serious issues that I don't have anwswers to, but if we dont find them we're all going to get deeper and deeper into the mess we are in right now in the years to come.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

43. Hmmmmm. Who is "WE"?

[EST]

47. Yeah, right.

Everybody believes you. AND you have, unfortunately, missed the point.

[EST]

49. What WAS the name that you used to post under?

Can't blame the bunch of experts here who have developed enormous expertise at detecting freeper smell. If you would like to post your previous handle, we can do a search and find out where you stand on the issues we have previously discussed.

In other words--SHOW US THE MONEY!!!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

50. It's pretty bad when they're so obvious that you know their last 3 handles

:eyes:

Creativity is not their forte.

[EST]

55. Yes.

It's kinda like when I was a little kid and was so puzzled the adults could figure out so quickly when I tried to BS the system! It made perfect sense to me. These rascals just don't get it that they can be treated sooo seriously, for the sake of an argument, when nearly everyone here is giggling behind their hands at the obvious attempt at protective coloration.

Unfortunately, some disrupters are very good at being sleepers.

[Flammable Materials]

67. I posted it in the first message.

"Citizen Daryl".

If you'd like to read my blog and see where I'm coming from, you're free to visit it. It's at http://www.thisistheshit.org

Margaret Cho seems to like it enough to link to it from her site.

Oh, by the way, I was also the person who registered http://www.ofrankenfactor.com for Al Franken to keep it out of the hands of FREEPERS.

Should I post a scan of the personally-autographed copy of "Lies" that he sent me as a token of thanks for my effort?

[gollygee]

51. They don't look like they were done on MS Word to me (m)

except of course that they're both typed.

You are aware that word processors were invented to make documents that look like they've been typed on a typewriter?

[Flammable Materials]

65. I thought ...

... that word processors were invented to make editing easier.

And I thought that TrueType fonts were designed to make documents look like they were done on a printing press.

EDIT: Of course, there are 'typewriter' TrueType fonts, as well. But the reason I bought a laser printer was for the professional quality of the output.

[AlFrankenFan]

53. They COULD be

Let's go ask the dead guy. Things are just SO convenient these days.

BTW, random, but have y'all noticed the undying determination in the media and among RWers to disprove this stuff? It wasn't like this with the SBV4W vs. Kerry thing. :shrug:

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

62. Given Mrs Knoxes interview its pretty clear they are fake, now...

....we know too much now to really believe them....

So, the question becomes...whodunit and why....

[Samantha]

71. Ms. Knox' statements do not prove the documents are forgeries

She simply asserted she did not assist in their preparation. That does not exclude the fact he asked someone else help him prepare the documents. It's a pretty common practice when those in charge are creating documents of a super sensitive nature to exclude their secretaries or assistants from participating, especially if the support personnel are gregarious types.

The fact that these documents appear to have been generated on Word also proves nothing. All successful word processing packages comport to previously existing standards existing within the industry. A user must have the capability to produce documents, if he or she so desires, that meets rigorous publishing guidelines. For instance, you work in an office and must generate a memorandum to a file, it is your prerogative to use whatever layout you select. Next to you sits a professional writing a paper intended for publication. For it to be accepted for print say in a professional journal, it must, repeat, it must meet the pre-existing guidelines, which for space (and paste)reasons, are very rigid. When MS Word was programmed, it comported by necessity to the previously existing standards. When the IBM composer and various typewriters were put on the market in the 70s and 80s were manufactured, this equipment also by necessity had to have the ability to produce documents similarly comporting to industry standards. Thus it is no coincidence that a document produced in the 70s by an IBM composer and one produced today by WordPerfect or MS Word to the naked eye appear very similar. It's not a coincidence because it is by design.

The typewriting arguments which Republicans have used to say these documents obviously could not have been produced by the equipment in existence at that time are simply ignorant. People making these arguments have no real expertise (or history) in forms design but more importantly, they were not there when the documents were created. They are at best speculating. By if they say often enough the documents are forgeries, the public generally will start to believe it. It's simply brainwashing and has nothing to do with the literal truth.

This question can only be resolved with the production of the actual originals for examination. To date this has not happened, but this is not what the Republicans truly want. They want to know the name of the source. And that's what this is all about.

[Dem_Loyalist]

69. I don't think it really matters

Where the information came from. Who cares how we learned about it, the important thing is we have it. In this case I think the ends justify the means no matter how it turns out. He's a liar and a cheat. Thats what we have to focus on.

[skygazer]

73. Because the argument buries the real issue

I'm not going to waste energy debating whether or not they are real. It doesn't matter and simply deflects attention from the actual issue which is the FACT that Bush did not complete his obligations, did not obey a direct order, never took the physical he was required to take, etc.

Why is it so hard to understand that arguing either way ("they're fake", "no, they're real") is a waste of time? Focus on the content which is real and has been known all along and has NEVER BEEN ADEQUATELY ANSWERED by Bush.

THAT's the issue.

[Blue Wally]

74. I don't see.............

Why "we" concentrate so hard on Vietnam and whether or not Kerry was a war hero and Bush was a draft dodger. We just set ourselves up for mudwrestling like this. Iraq, health care, social security, jobs, and the deficit are all sliding under the radar and it is our fault.

"We" are just so intent on painting Bush as a deserter and as AWOL that "we" are wanting this to turn out to be the "silver bullet" for the election.


1. Bush did NOT desert under the meaning of the term in the UCMJ.

2. Bush was NOT AWOL within the scope of the UCMJ.

3. Bush did NOT disobey a direct order to get a flight physical in 1972 as defined by the UCMJ.

4. Bush DID play fast and loose with IDT drills during 1972 and 1973 timeframe.

5. Bush DID through neglect or with malice fail to get a flight physical within the windwo within which he was supposed to get one.

The "punishment" for both 4. and 5. is administrative. Failure to get the flight physical and failure to fly during 1972 would result in suspension of flight status, this was done. The penalty for missing IDT drills is either transfer to the Standby Reserve or (if obligated as Bush was) being involuntarily called to active duty. In 1972 and 1973, the services couldn't handle more people on active duty because they were cutting back. Bush and a lot of other "reluctant warriors" in the guard and reserve took advantage of this circumstance to bail out on their committments and suffer only transfer to the Standby Reserve.

The kind of memos which CBS had were not the kind of things to be placed in Bush's personnel files. If failure to get a physical or missing drills was to go into his file, the commander would address a letter to Bush as a "non-puntive letter of reprimand" and place a copy in the personnel files.

Memoranda such as these would be placed in Killian's CYA files which he would keep in his desk (or at home if he was worried about retaliation. When he retired, he would either have taken the files home or destroyed them. If he died while still using the desk, the office would have destroyed the files.

Certainly, the absences and failure to take the physical were discussed in the office unfavorably to Bush, but when Killian died Bush was pretty much a dead issue and no one would have had a motive to keep them in 1984. I can't see Killian keeping memos such as these more than a year after Bush left the TANG.