We could help Rather with his suit.

52. Immediated after the Broadcast, internet bloggers began to attack the authenticity of the Documents. Many also accused Mr. Rather of being personally biased against President Bush. The next day some elements of the mainstream press also began questioning the authenticity of the Documents. Few, if any, of the blogs or media stories disputed the substance of the story that Bush received preferentail treatment in connection with his Air National Guard Service.

http://www.glcq.com/me.htm

HOW DID HE DO IT?

I started out trying to answer one question. Why did a key document (http://www.glcq.com/docs/point_sum_73-74.htm )that the White House asserted “proved that Bush fulfill his duty” appear to contradict that claim. The basis of the White House claim was the “Lloyd memo” that asserted that as long as Bush got 50 points toward retirement, he had a good year. The document in question shows that while Bush got 40 total points, he only received 38 points toward retirement. Obviously, there was something in the laws and policies that excluded two of the 40 points from being considered “retirement points”, and if I could find out what that was, I could show that the White House was lying.

The deeper I dug, the more questions were raised about other aspects of Bush’s records. One of the first things I discovered was that there was no such thing as a 50 point requirement when it came to Bush fulfilling his obligations to the United States Armed Forces as a member of the Air National Guard. There is no requirement that Bush have a “good year toward retirement”, a “good year toward retirement” was inevitable as long as Bush met the actual requirements as established in the laws and Air Force policies. (i.e. meeting his obligations solely as a member of the Air National Guard would result in Bush accumulating a total of at least 74 points per fiscal year, and that number does not include the additional points he would have been awarded for meeting his flight time requirements as a pilot.)

Another thing that became obvious is that Bush could not be a pilot without meeting the qualifications for a pilot. In other words, Bush had to have that physical for as long as his “job title” was “pilot.” Regardless of whether he flew or not, being qualified to fly was an absolute part of his obligations as someone whose job was “pilot” in the Air National Guard. And until he was given permission to stop being a pilot by the Air Force itself, even if he wasn’t flying for some reason he was required to get that physical.

A NOTE TO MEDIA TYPES

Although there is a whole arsenal of “smoking guns” in the Bush military files, the single most damning document is the one that I linked to above, the Retirement Credit Summary dated Jan. 30, 1974.

Find out :

1) What “Inactive Status” actually means
2) Why and how Bush was placed in an “Inactive Status”
3) Why that “Inactive Status” was effective September 15, 1973
4) Why the document was dated January 30, 1974

…and you will have figured out what these records have to say about George W. Bush’s military career.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1081070

BOSSHOG (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-03-04 12:12 PM
Original message

A Question for my Fellow Veterans

Are there any questions about your attendance record? Are your muster records filled with obfuscation and confusion? Would a Sergeant or a Chief play havoc with your life if you were "in absentia?" How long would it take you to prove that you served honorably? Could you whup out a DD-214 faster than zell miller could lie about being a democrat? - okay, thats a tossup!

My fellow liberals, poke a conservative in the eye with the above scenario. george bush wasn't there. Call it desertion, call it AWOL, all it UA, just CALL IT!!! Call it loud and call it every day until the election. The last thing the white house wants is for you and me to tell the truth about george bush.

CLINTON DID NOT SERVE - BUSH SERVED DISHONORABLY.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3538812

Speaking about Dan Rather accusing CBS brass of being in cahoots with the White House, this is what CBS chief Sumner Redstone, had to say about the 2004 elections:

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry," he went on, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

Reported by the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669

Need I say more?