The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest

Vol: 36 Issue: 10 - Friday, September 10, 2004

''Dumber Than a Bag of Hammers?''
by Jack Kinsella

When the Swift Boat veterans launched their first ad claiming John Kerry's
exploits in Vietnam were, at best, wildly exaggerated and at worst, a
complete lie, the Kerry campaign launched a advertising counter-offensive.

But the ads never directly addressed any of the charges. Instead, they
claimed the Swift Vets were really Republican operatives working at the
behest of the Bush campaign.  Kerry's people were everywhere, telling
everybody what a dirty trick it was.  The Kerry website even has a page
called "Fact Check" using John McCain to 'prove' that questioning his
military service was 'dishonest and dishonorable'.

It goes on to complain; "[the]Swift Vets Funded By Longtime Texas Bush
Contributors" and they are 'operated' by the "Same People Who Tried to
Discredit McCain in 2000."  Kerry's 'fact check' page also alleges that,
"Swift Vets Hire Private Investigator to Dig Into Kerry's Past" and then
proceeds to trash the reputations of each of the vets involved in the ads.

Needless to say, liberal news organs like CBS News and the New York Times
were all over the story of how the Republicans were 'trashing a war hero
through a surrogate group' (the Swiftees).

Indeed, the networks were so outraged that they began to dig, with the
enthusiastic support of the Kerry campaign, into George Bush's National
Guard service.  It was bizarre, to say the least.

The network concensus was that 250-plus Vietnam veterans are all liars and
Republican flacks. And that impuning Kerry's Vietnam service was a low
blow.

On the other hand, the networks find nothing wrong with DNC Chairman Terry
McAuliffe's announcing to the voters that George Bush was AWOL from the
Guard -- not because there was proof he was -- but because Bush hasn't
proved he wasn't.

The latest documents to 'suddenly surface' about George W. Bush's National
Guard service allege that Bush did not quit flying jets in 1972 at the
behest of or with the support of his commanding officers, as the
administration has implied.

Rather, the documents purportedly show, Bush was "suspended" after flatly
refusing to carry out a direct order to undertake a medical examination.

None of this information showed up in any of Bush's other military
records, all of which say he completed his National Guard service
honorably and was given an honorable discharge.

A good deal of the latest round of this story is based on the accounts of
a "once powerful Texas Democrat" who confesses to having "abused his
power" to help get numerous young men positions in the Texas National
Guard - including, he alleges, George W. Bush.

Former Texas Lt, Gov Ben Barnes is now an advisor to the Kerry Campaign,
so we know his motives are pure and his claims are the unvarnished truth.
According to the NYT:

"Mr. Barnes maintained, as he has since 1999, that he had contacted his
friend who headed the Texas Air National Guard, Brig. Gen. James Rose, not
at the behest of anyone in the Bush family, but rather a Houston
businessman, Sidney A. Adger, a friend of the Bushes who has died.

"Yes, I called Rose to get George Bush into the Guard, I've said that,"
Mr. Barnes said in his office last week in Austin. "I called Rose for
other sons of prominent families, and I'm not proud of it now."

What were the odds that the request to help Bush get into the Guard would
have come from a family friend who was still living? The Times also fails
to mention that the other witness to this tale General Rose, is also
deceased.

So based on the confession of a once-powerful Democrat who admits to
abusing his power and is now an advisor to the Kerry Campaign, and his
accounts of 30 year-old conversations with two men are now dead and can
provide neither verification nor refutation of the claim, the Times
concludes that Bush used influence to get his Guard posting.

The next twist in the story comes in the form of a former lieutenant
colonel in the Alabama Guard by the name of Bob Mintz.

Mintz says he doesn't believe that Bush ever showed up for Guard duty
during his Alabama assignment because he was looking for him and couldn't
find him.

Mintz had heard, "that Lieutenant Bush was a fellow bachelor who might
like to party with him and other pilots. Col. Mintz said "neither he nor
his friends ever saw Lt. Bush."

"In a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, Mr. Mintz was pressed
about his recollections and whether he might have missed seeing Mr. Bush,
possibly because Mr. Bush was no longer flying at that point and was
working in an office position. Mr. Mintz said repeatedly he never saw
Lieutenant Bush," the Times gleefully reported.

The Times also make mention of a series of memos featured on 60 Minutes
broadcast. The memos, critical of Bush's performance, are allegedly from
the files of Bush's National Guard Commander Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian.

Assessment:

The problem with the memos is that they display some fairly advanced
typesetting -- given when they were allegedly created. The most telling is
the use of superscripting.

In the alleged 'memos' used to 'prove' Bush was less-than-honorable in his
Guard service, the document refers to the 111th Guard Unit.  The 'th' is
superscripted (half sized fonts set halfway above the 111) -- something
that was impossible to do using standard typewriters in 1972.

At an anti-Bush website, 'bushawol.com' are a number of other documents,
including one from Col. Killian (whose signature is also on the suspect
documents) including a copy of Killian's response to Bush's request for
discharge.

That document, presumably written on the same typewriter, does NOT have
the superscripted 'th' beside the unit numbers 111 and 147.  Instead, it
renders them as all typewriters of the period did, as the 111th and 147th.

A memo from Aug. 18, 1973, according to CBS, has Killian saying Col. Buck
Staudt, head of the Texas Air National Guard, is putting on pressure to
"sugar coat" the evaluation of Lt. Bush.  The memo continues, with Killian
saying, "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job."

Except Col Staudt RETIRED in the year before, in 1972!  How much
interference can a retired officer exert?  (We have a lot of former and
retired military among our subscribers.  What are YOUR thoughts? I look
forward to reading them in the discussion forum.)

Clearly, this does more than suggest that the documents are forgeries.
So, where is the outrage?  Where are all the political leaders, letter
writers and party activists, who just a few weeks ago were shouting as
loud as they could that the evildoers - better known as Republicans - were
behind the attack ads produced by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?

The mainstream media outlets continuing to cover the documents as though
there was no question of their authenticity, even while reporting that
there is.

When ABC News did finally report the suspected forgery, it did so first by
repeating all the charges against Bush made in the documents as if they
were legitimate.

Having read them all into the record one more time for the viewers, it
admitted there 'might' be a problem with them -- but not until they got
one more airing in public.

As of yesterday, CBS continued to stand behind their story, with
spokeswoman Kelli Edwards saying to the Washington Post, "As is standard
practice at CBS News, each of the documents broadcast on '60 Minutes' was
thoroughly investigated by independent experts, and we are convinced of
their authenticity."

A CBS web site story yesterday said, "60 Minutes consulted a handwriting
analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."

On the CBS website this morning, CBS did acknowledge that the documents
are questionable.  Having done so, it defended the autheniticity of the
memos, saying its experts who examined the memos concluded they were
authentic documents produced by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

CBS then went on to outline the contents of the memos again --  as if it
had never admitted they were questionable in the first place!

The New York Times carried the story of the Bush memos the morning after
the Wednesday night  '60 Minutes' broadcast on its front page.  The next
day, the story about the memos possibly being forged was buried on the
Times' inside pages.

For its part, the Kerry campaign continues to damn the GOP for the
Swiftees' ads, while openly and officially questioning the Bush military
record, as if one is fair game, and the other is not.

The Kerry campaign has built itself around three central elements; Kerry
is a war hero and Bush is a coward who not only avoided service in Vietnam
but didn't even complete his Guard service; that Bush is a deceiver who
misled the nation and Kerry will restore truth to the Oval Office; and
finally, that the GOP is running a dirty smear campaign against Senator
Kerry and the DNC is trying to 'rise above' negative politics.

The AWOL charges have been repeated by officials from the Democratic
Party, the Kerry campaign, elected Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Charley
Rangel and so on, not to mention directly from the candidate himself.

In contrast, the White House and the GOP talking heads have repeatedly
denied questioning Kerry's military record and have said that Kerry's
Vietnam service was 'noble'.

There is no record of any administration official questioning Kerry's
military service.  The Swiftees are not affiliated with the Bush campaign.

On the other hand,  Ben Barnes, Terry McAuliffe and Ted Kennedy are
actively working FOR Kerry.  And officials with the Kerry campaign ARE
directly connected to many of the 527's attacking Bush, like moveon.org
and others.

The Kerry campaign has concluded that the American electorate are dumber
than a bag of hammers.  Sadly, given the muted reaction to this latest
outrage, they may be at least partly right.

According to Scripture, the most telling hallmark of the impending advent
of the antichrist is world-wide deception.  When asked what would be the
signs of His return, the FIRST thing Jesus said was, "Take heed that no
man deceive you." (Matthew 24:4)

Speaking of the coming antichrist, the Apostle Paul wrote:

"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and
signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in
them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that
they might be saved." (2nd Thessalonians 2:9-10)

I am not saying that John Kerry is the antichrist.  PLEASE don't get that
idea.

What I AM saying is this is a textbook example of how well propaganda
works with people who are predisposed to a specific worldview.

There are people who want to believe George Bush was both a chicken for
joining the National Guard and then went AWOL.  (That George Bush was a
fighter pilot whose test scores showed him to be highly skilled and
motivated is irrelevant)

Suddenly 'evidence' appears to confirm that predispostion.  The 'evidence'
is in the form of questionable documents presented by a Kerry campaign
advisor whose case is built around thirty-year old recollections of
conversations with two now-dead officers.

Even while acknowledging the documents might be forged, the propagandists
in the mainstream media continue to put the tainted and damning charges
before the public as if they were concrete facts.

Those people also want to believe the John Kerry is a war hero, despite
the testimony of every officer in his Vietnam chain of command to the
contrary.  Unlike the AWOL memos and recollections of uncorroborated 30
year-old conversations, the Swiftees are alive and testifying in person.

But their testimony is discounted with the same vehemence with which they
defend the obvious lies about Bush, while calling BUSH the deceiver?

Up is down, and black is white.  Truth is what people want to believe, not
what is true.

"And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him
privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be
the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matthew 24:3)

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive
you." (Matthew 24:4)