On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:16:26 -0400, Jerry McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 11 September 2004 03:03 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Saturday 11 September 2004 06:12 am, R. Myles Green wrote:
> > > > > Sorry, recent events have overtaken us. The Kerry operatives have
> > > > > just hit an all-time logic deficit (not that the Bush campaign
> > > > > won't catch up, politics being what it is): all who believe that a
> > > > > document using current word processing techniques was typed in the
> > > > > 1970's by a military officer who didn't know how to type (per his
> > > > > wife) please go to the end of the line and try again.
> > > >
> > > > Where'd we'd find the bush campaign huxters with their 'official'
> > > > documents of his military record that uses a font that didn't exist
> > > > at the time.
> > >
> > > http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/09/10/bush_memo040910.html
> > >
> > > I think you'll find that the "font" question is in reference to the
> > > same documents Collins was talking about, according to the article at
> > > the above link. At least, that's what I got from article.
> >
> > You can see the same phenomenon in official Bush military records,
> > released by Bush himself in February.. Go to
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-02-14-bush-docs.htm
> >
> > and open "Miscellaneous." On page three of that pdf (you'll have to
> > rotate it), on the second line is a superscript "th." It's dated 4 Sep
> > 68. On the ninth line is a non-superscript "th." So, go figure.
>
> How about the fact that the officer that signed the document was already
> 18months retired? Just heard that one on FOX News. The dems really scraped
> the bottom of the toilet on this one. I'm curious to see if Kerry will try to
> run with it anyway...
>
Last I heard, the DNC was running from this one as fast as their
little legs can carry them. Everyone in a political campaign loves a
successful hoax, but this one is just a hoax.
--
/\/\
(CR) Collins Richey
\/\/ "I hear you're single again." "Spouse 2.0 had fewer bugs than
Spouse 1.0, but the maintenance ... was too much for my OS."
- Glitch (tm)
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsub/Pause/Etc -> http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
