GW: here's proof you forgot on MTP that you did AWOL time in Texas. ..

[TruthIsAll]

George,

Everything is OK. Here's the proof you put in the time.

It's obvious that the blacked out Social Security # is yours.
It's obvious that your name and ID# was on the torn part of the document.
It's obvious that this evidence was scoured. We believe you on that.

Maybe the SS# was unintentionally blacked out.
Maybe it was unintentionally torn.
Maybe it was unintentionally left out of your original file.
Maybe.

You have always told us the truth. So we believe this is authentic proof. Not.

Jeez, George, you could have done a better job than that.
Just how stupid do you think we are, George?


http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003189.html

[Spiderm0n]

1. I can't make heads or tails of that document

how is it obvious that it is Bush's?

[Old and In the Way]

5. In a court of law, that would not be "proof"

it is meaningless.

I wonder if Dmson has the torn part under lock and key?

[zbird]

9. Exactly. It's not obvious. We're supposed to take *'s word that it's his

From the cited piece:

"Rather, back in 1999 the nascent Bush campaign, which was apparently already worried about his service record, hired Albert Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel director, to help make sense of Bush's file. Lloyd "scoured" the archives and found the document above, which he says contains Bush's Social Security number beneath the redaction. It has since been inserted into Bush's file. (In fact, there are two versions of this document. If you're really a masochist, see here for more details.)

So that's the story. The torn document wasn't originally part of Bush's service file and is basically laughable as a piece of evidence since it contains no names or dates. What's more, there's specific evidence that his superiors in Texas say he wasn't around for the entire period from May 1972 through May 1973. (On the other hand, as TomPaine.com points out, the last date on the torn document and the first two dates on Bush's 1973-74 attendance record seem to match up with the dates on this document ordering him to attend drills during May and June of 1973. That's the best evidence there is that the torn document is genuine.)"

A piss-poor attempt at CYA, but for some reason, it appears to have been accepted as proof of *'s service. FWIW, I'm not buying it for a second.

[TruthIsAll]

11. This is the SMOKING CANNON....

...

How come we don't here about it in the media?

We will. We better.

[Robin Hood]

10. The real point is,

Show us the proof that he wasn't awol. The burden of proof is now on Bush, and the longer he stonewalls this the more obvious it becomes. You can't tell me that the military has no concrete proof of his military records.

[efhmc]

2. Please explain this form to me. Couldn't this have been done by anyone

and for anyone?I want this to be something we can use but I don't see that it is.

[jeffreyi]

3. It's Obvious this is *'s!

check out the upper right corner, it says "CHPY"!!!

[efhmc]

4. Cute, but don't call Reuter's.

[TruthIsAll]

6. It's Sunday, so meet TIA

.

[ewagner]

7. Take a look at the upper right hand corner

If I am reading it correctly, there are the letters L9CHPY 48

I was Air Force personnel and if I'm not mistaking, those numbers are the "authority cite" for the document. I wish I had an old manual around. Anybody else got an idea.

[NNN0LHI]

8. From Calpundit

From the awolbush page, the alt tag for their gif of the torn document states:

"L9CHPY in the upper right is in fact the correct PAS code for the 111th Fighter Intercept Squadron, Bush's unit."

But waitaminute: Why is there a date of 'May 24' on the 72-73 document? May 24 should go on the 73-74 list. (The ANG years go from May 1 to April 30)

[Karenina]

12. What about ANYONE coming forward

to say they s/he him anyplace at anytime? Cricket chirp...
cricket chirp.

[JPace]

13. I wonder if a large reward were offered for people

who were there and know some of the facts
to come forward with their statements if
in fact there would be takers. People who
served and who were around AWOL during that
time know things......money might help
bring the truth out.

Remember Paula Jones and how repug supporters
surrounded her and supported her to humiliate
the WH?

Dirty repug tactics but highly effective!

[nannygoat]

14. The Daily Howler has run a couple of good articles about this doc

in the last week. The Daily Howler is saying that some pundits accept the torn document as really being proof that * wasn't AWOL and others discount it (some mention it to support * and others don't mention it all). Some pundits have even flipped flopped on using it (once they wrote articles that talked about it and now they don't even mention it).

The Daily Howler's point is that in its usual lazy biased fashion no one in our our media is willing to really verify its legitimacy because it might come out that the * administration, the folks who originally brought forth this document as proof that * made up some of his missed meetings, has been using a fraudulent document to support *'s claims. Interesting...that may be an even bigger story than the AWOL...

http://dailyhowler.com/dh020504.shtml
http://dailyhowler.com/dh020604.shtml