Another Pre-Release Teaser: Kerry Website Seems to Have Previewed Forgeries... in April

Newsmax on the case:

The Kerry campaign made an explicit reference to information in at least one of four forged military documents broadcast 14 days ago by CBS's "60 Minutes" - in a detailed campaign press release attacking President Bush's National Guard service dated months before the Sept. 8 "60 Minutes" broadcast.

Appearing in Kerry campaign literature on April 27, 2004, under the headline "Key Unanswered Questions on Bush's Record in National Guard" was the reference to "verbal orders" to recommend Bush's suspension from flying because he missed a physical - issued by Bush's commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian on Aug. 1, 1972.

One of the forged Killian memos broadcast by CBS is also dated Aug. 1, 1972, and chronicles Killian's "verbal orders" to suspend Bush:
"I conveyed my verbal orders to commander, 147th [Fighter Interceptor Group] with request for orders for suspension and covening a flight review board IAW AFM 35-13." [END OF FORGED KILLIAN MEMO EXCERPT]

The April 27 Kerry campaign press release cites Killian's "verbal orders" for suspension as a "Fact":

"FACT: The order suspending Bush from flight duty stated: 'Verbal orders of the Comdr on 1 Aug 72 suspending 1STLT George W. Bush from flying status are confirmed Reason for Suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination. Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13. Authority: Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13. (Aeronautical Orders, Number 87, 29 September 1972)'" [END OF KERRY RELEASE EXCERPT]

In the next paragraph, the Kerry campaign cited a provision in the Air Force Manual that served as a guideline for Killian's decision to suspend Bush:

"AFM 35-13: ... After reviewing the findings of the investigation, the local commander may convene a Flying Evaluation Board or forward through command channels a detailed report of the circumstances which resulted in the officer's failure to accomplish a medical examination." [END OF KERRY RELEASE EXCERPT]

The forged Aug. 1, 1972, memo alludes to the same Air Force Manual provision, with Killian saying he's considering "covening a flight review board IAW AFM 35-13" to handle Bush's case.

Newsmax goes on to allow for the possibility that this is just another in a long string of "coincidences."

Well, perhaps.

But at some point the Coincidence Defense becomes mathematically untenable. If you flip a coin and it keeps coming up heads, you eventually dismiss simple chance or coincidence as an explanation and begin exploring the possibility that you're dealing with a quarter that innately favors one side.

posted by Ace at 03:15 PM

Comments

This is suspicious, but the most likely explanation is that the forger used the note about verbal order from the September 1973 suspension report because it was an obvious hole in the paper trail.

The original, obviously legitimate document:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif

Posted by: SomeJoe on September 21, 2004 03:40 PM

Ace, Donald Sensing says that there is no AFM 35-13. AFM means Air Force Manual. There was an AFR (Air Force Regulation) 35-13, which was superseded in 1990 by AFI (Air Force Instruction) 36-2605 - but that's a rule about extra pay for foreign language competence:

Link to Sensing: http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/09/more-format-and-content-analysis-of.html

Quote begins:

"So I browsed over to the Air Force's official web site for its publications, http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/. There I searched for AFM 35-13 without success. The intelligent search engine recommended using only the numbers, so I searched using only 35-13. Result:
35-13 has been rescinded or superceded by another publication. Additional information is available at Obsolete Publications.
So I went there and discovered, sure enough, that there was an Air Force Regulation 35-13, but no AF Manual 35-13 is listed. AFR 35-13 was superceded in 1990 by AFI36-2605 (Air Force Instruction, i.e., the same as a regulation).

So I Googled AFI36-2605 and voilá! Here it is.
This instruction implements Air Force Policy Directive 36-26, Military Force Management, and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 7280.3, Special Pay for Foreign Language Proficiency. It prescribes all procedures for administering the Air Force Military Personnel Testing System and Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) program.
Which is to say, this publication has nothing to do with flight physicals."

Quote ends.

This is getting weirder all the time.

Posted by: Patrick on September 21, 2004 04:03 PM

I should have read Sensing's post all the way to the last update - I've now found this on the same post I linked to above:

Quote begins:

"Update, 9-10: It seems there really was an AFM 35-13 after all. Scott Forbes comment-linked to a page that reproduces orders from 1970 that cite AFM 35-13. Also, Cecil Turner comments about how a manual could be relevant to this matter.

So it seems now that citing a manual could well be valid"

Quote ends. Sorry about the bum steer, Ace.

Posted by: Patrick on September 21, 2004 04:18 PM

Oh, what a tangled web we weave....

Posted by: Thales on September 21, 2004 05:15 PM

Move on, nothing here, folks!

Burkett was active in 2000 claiming his same "refusal to follow lawful orders from his commanding superior schitck".

The Dems last fling was back in February, when Burkett and his author friend, James Moore, made the media rounds at CBS, Hardball, CNN, Bill Mahre's HBO show alledging the same thing. The Dem's charge in March was derivative of what Burkett and Moore spewed, but back then no one was talking about 6 "smoking gun" documents.

BTW - James Moore is an ex-CBS reporter, flaming Democrat, and a frequent acquaintance of Max Cleland, interviewing him for 2 books - "Bush's Brain" and "Bushes War for Re-election", the latter of which is 1/5th about Burkett's allegations.

For added fun Link to a whole bunch of Bush was AWOL articles from a Lefty Site, some mentioning Burkett's charges in 2000, 2002, 2004, and one written by Burkett himself;

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=George_W._Bush's_military_service/External_Links_1999-2003

Posted by: Cedarford on September 21, 2004 05:26 PM

But baring a subpoena from someone, I can't see what kicks this can farther down the road. Lockhart continues to say it was only a 4 minute phone call and now the MSM is saying that "we know it was only a 4 minute call". NO. We know that Lockhart said it was a 4 minute call, but without phone records it will become an urban legend that it was only a 4 minute call.

Posted by: Wendell on September 22, 2004 11:05 AM

You know, I am quite tired of the "forgeries". The fact that there are forged signatures did not escape me. However, can we all start calling this "spade" a "spade". The documents are a fraud. No such documents exist except the ones made up and have a forged signature on them. This whole mess is a fraud, not a forgery. Unless of course we want to parse the statement"depends on what the word is is". Face it folks, CBS aired a false story,using false documents, with forged signatures on it. ABC, NBC, CNN, and the rest of the ilk would have used them too, if they only could have.
Anyone who believes that those documents were checked, and believes Dan is truly sorry for using them, well I live in a swamp, I'll be glad to sell some of that prime swamp land for a mere song.
Dan says he is sorry for using documents not authenticated. UH, Dan? How about apologizing for just making up the story to begin with and having someone hand over some documents to base your lies on, and of course make sure someone forges a dead man's signature on it.

Posted by: Fred on September 23, 2004 01:37 AM

Has anyone noticed that the city of Houston did not take ownership of Ellington Field until sometime in 1984? That fact alone would dictate that the letterhead of the "bogus memo" would have properly used Ellington Field, Texas as opposed to Houston. Furthermore, Ellington would have had a different Zip Code than the one referenced in the memo. A little research with the Post Office could confirm the Zip Code error.

Jimmy W. Creekmore
MSgt, USAF (Retired)

Posted by: Jim Creekmore on September 27, 2004 12:29 PM

Where is the proof that this is a forgery, looks authtenic to me. I'm a 20 year vet, I served during this time frame the print on these memos look like they came from and IBM Selective typewriter, and these were carbon copies. I beleive these are the real thing and we all know that Bush is a deserter, that goes without saying.

Posted by: AL on December 10, 2004 03:38 PM

Give it up, AL. You're too late. Bush was re-elected. Soros, Moore, and the rest of you fuckwits on the left failed. Your memes have been discredited. Don't go away mad, just go away.

Posted by: zetetic on December 10, 2004 04:51 PM