Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Great, now we are going to spend the next 30 days talking about Bush’s military record.

Sebastian, I got a real question for you. You state that source protect does not apply to sources who provide forged documents. Than why hasn’t the Bush administration withheld the source who leak the CIA agent name to the media?

Thats a felony! Your mistermeaner is a lesser offense. Both might be wrong, but given up an agent’s name while they are in the field by people who know better is unexcusable and violates national security.

Henry,

I don’t see how the two are connected.

Anyway, the ‘CIA agent’ was hardly in the field. She was working a desk job for the some time before her name was given out. The reason the issue gets tossed out there was because the law protects the agent’s identity for 5 years after she stops field work.

I wouldn’t expect much of a retraction from CBS. If anything it’ll be a small print ‘we were tricked and we’re sorry’.

-D

RE: Plame, I have suggested that the journalists involved ought to out their source.

Sebastian, you have done a very good job of enunciating what is known, and who is willing to speak up in obviously partisan “understandings” of what all this means.

But, as they use to ask, ‘Where’s the beef’? The question is not aimed at you, only at the heresay, second person conjectures and opinions and doubts. The only real evidence so far is the tentative results that the typed memos appear to be computer generated. (Perhaps scanned and reprinted to make copies while preserving the original?)

The only appropriate response so far to all of this is to say more investigation is warranted. The fact that these memos were obtained from the DoD could be evidenciary, or not. I saw 2,3, and 4 star generals testify on the Abu Ghraib investigation and they used sophistry to attempt to hide what was obvious from the facts and data, namely that cuplability and command responsibility are not, in this case, distinctly separate issues requiring completely different investigations and focus.

Because information comes from the DoD or Pentagon does not make it true and valid by anymeans. That is one of the reasons our Intel community is being radically overhauled.

The only conclusion to be reached on this story so far is that there is insufficient information to draw any defensible or rational conclusions.

This may just spell the final doom of Kerry’s candidacy. I have a feeling that this will go down as the event that destroyed Kerry’s chances to win this race.

The liberal media’s attempt to ramrod this story down the public’s throat at precisely the time the Kerry campaign wanted and desparately needed it to, along with what I’m sure will be copious evidence of DNC and Kerry campaign links, connections, and fingerprints on this story— as well as to Texans for Truth, Kitty Kelly, and et al. All of these attacks are going to fully innoculate Bush from any kind of Liberal slander and criticism for some time to come.

As I said before, I predict a landslide.

More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian… .

A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.

“The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush’s file that had Killian calling Bush ‘an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.’ And someone who Killian said ‘performed in an outstanding manner.’ Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different.”

The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. “This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn’t show it,” says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program. spectator.org

60 Minutes did reveal that the source of the documents were the personal files of the late Lt. Col. Killian and not from DoD records. They were also not part of the files released by the DoD during their digging of the files (of course some say there is a cover-up being carried out over there). Killian’s widow and son have denied that they were the source and don’t know who would have removed them from their late husband/father’s files.

IF you can believe the spectator story that Eric links above, then CBS ran with an unvetted story handed to them by the Kerry campaign. It was also coordinated with a Boston Globe story on the same subject. If so than this is also the death nail of McCain-Feingold as CBS has all but killed the media exemption provision.

But I agree with you that there are still a lot of “ifs” out there. Some have already proven that it was physically possible to produce that document in 1972. Since that’s all that is needed (no one has to produce the actual typewriter) it might be enough to survive that part of the theory. But the source will have to be revealed to completely put this to rest, and if it is the Kerry campaign or the DNC it is huge.

These guys are having fun with this stuff!

Good O’l Bob

George said: “60 Minutes did reveal that the source of the documents were the personal files of the late Lt. Col. Killian and not from DoD records.”

Thank you George, I stand corrected. Now I realize I will have to pay a lot closer attention to the details of this breaking story, just what I need as I try to sift through the Army’s General staff testimony and reports regarding Abu Ghraib. Ughh!!!

For the past couple of days I’ve been wondering which WatchBlogger would by cynical enough and irresponsible enough to write a “AHA, GOTCHA!” post either regarding the bad-for-Bush Ben Barnes/60 minutes story - or the good-for-Bush forgery story - before the story had time to really be vetted by real experts.

Would someone on the left side post “Aha, here’s the final proof that Bush was AWOL!”?

Would someone on the right say “Aha, here’s the final proof that the Democrats are crooked!”

Of course, just like in the mainstream, the Red column is always where all the rumors and unsubstantiatated claims first appear around here. Thanks, Sebastian, for lowering the quality of the American political debate once again.

-Cf

CF, as you know, I often have a tough time finding common ground with perspectives in this column. But, I think your critique of Sebastian’s article is a bit overboard. This is an issue that is steamrolling through major media and bloggersville. It is likely to have an effect on November 2, regardless of validity or lack of substantiation of the merits of the story.

Sebastian did WatchBlog a service in raising the issue here. There is a partisan slant to his article, but, that cannot be an indictment of anykind, on this web site, by virtue of its obvious format.

Hm, on second read I see more “ifs” up there then I thought I did when I first read it. Sorry, Sebastian, I guess you’re not as credulous as I first thought. I, too, hope that CBS explains itself or apologizes.

-Cf

Well, if the Letters are forgeries, I want to know who produced them and why. One thing, though- The typeface won’t fly. I’ve had a look at the font styles between MS Word and the Letter, courtesy of daily, and there are differences that even my untrained eye can see, especially in the infamous superscripted “th” Microsoft Word lines it up, the letter doesn’t. The Eights are different, as are the l’s.

I don’t mind dropping a bad source, but I don’t want to be fooled going either way, believing, or disbelieving. I want to trust and distrust evidence on the facts, not on somebody’s ill informed opinion.

Delzario-
She had a Non-Official Cover for a reason- she was a WMD investigator who needed to be able to investigate WMD information without the onus of an official government or diplomatic identity being put on her.

Regardless of where she was, it was illegal to out her, and potentially dangerous to her and her sources. It’s most decidedly lethal to her career as well. I am not so craven as to allege that you are for the risking of US intelligence assets and lives, and the destruction of civil servant’s careers for political purposes, but given what you’ve said, it almost sounds that way. The powers that be don’t get to step on folks just for their own political gain. I would think that you’d find that reprehensible. Should I prepare to be disappointed?

Stephen-

Certainly not, I’m all for national security. I don’t think her name should have been released. I also don’t think her husband should have used her to get a position that he could then use for his own political advantage. I think he used her position to get the job, and then when he saw the opportunity, he used the job to make a name for himself. He gets a sweet pay-off for the book, and would have gotten a nice position in a Kerry administration if he hadn’t of lied all the way home.

I’m not foolish enough to suggest the wrong by someone in the White House to out him rights the wrong of him lieing and twisting the truth for his own selfishness with no regard for the truth.

-D

I’m waiting around to see how this shakes out—but so far it doesn’t look good for CBS at all. And it’s downright strange that they haven’t offered any sensible, cogent explanation for why we should believe these documents are real. If they are real, couldn’t they explain what their forensic experts based their judgements upon? A little explanation other than “Because we say so?” Couldn’t even that be done without divulging and compromising sources? I mean, I’d be perfectly to willing to believe they’re not forgeries if presented with a reasoned explanation—but the questions raised should at least be addressed, shouldn’t they?

Even if the Democrats aren’t behind it, Bush will now be effectively innoculated from all the other attacks being cooked up by the Democrats and the media to be trickled out over the next two months.
And the negative stuff is Kerry’s only chance to climb back into the race at this point, as I see it, because his so called postive message is clearly not resonating with voters. You can say it should be—but it’s clearly not.

Anybody who might possibly be influenced by further attacks will always have in the back of their mind the possiblitily that it’s all just another dirty trick.

It was bad enough that CBS trotted out one of Kerry’s top fundraisers and a former Democratic Lt. Governor to suddenly tell a story that there’s no way of verifying and which even his own daughter says is a lie. But that coupled with forged documents?

Christopher, it’s more than a little rich to talk about how the “quality of the debate is being lowered” by discussing what at this point looks like a pretty compelling defense against a heavily negative charge. Your position seems to be that a smear is okay, but questioning that smear is below the belt. It seems to me that we’ve talked a great deal about the contributions to our political debate by Michael Moore and a certain comedian on Comedy Central, but this is to you is lowering the quality of the debate?

Okay, so now Drudge is reporting the following: “CBS EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER to address, in detail, the issues surrounding the authenticity of the documents broadcast in the 60 MINUTES report on President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard.”

So good for CBS—but this had better be good. At any rate, for one night at least their ratings are sure to come out of the tank!

Martin, my position is that I want evidence for something before I say anything about it, and I wish everyone else thought that way, too. I certainly do not want to eat my words, and I don’t think other people should take such risks either.

I was mistaken in reading Sebastian’s post, I misread it as if he totally beleived the speculations instead of what he was really saying, which was a discussion mostly about what if’s. I hope that explains my position - it’s not hypocrisy, it was a momentarily clouded misreading and I apologized for it.

If Rather didn’t check those documents out and they turn out to be forgeries, then you bet I’ll be among the first to condemn the incompetant losers at CBS. And damn right I’ll want to know who did it. And if Kerry had anything to do with it, boy will that deflate his sails in my eyes.

-Cf

Well then, on that we’re agreed. Let’s wait and see what happens…

Ethics are clear. If the documents are forgeries, journalists have no obligation to protect the source. In fact, the journalists own credibility (and credulity) is on the line. In the case of the CIA employee (agent is the wrong word – U.S. citizens cannot be agents) the situation is different. The information was evidently accurate, so the source remains protected. Whether or not there is a criminal investigation is a separate matter.

There remain many questions, but one thing is clear – CBS News did not subject the documents to the high standards of scrutiny. Otherwise they would have been able to quickly put the allegations to rest, or at least explain the discrepancies, since they would have asked and answered the same questions during their internal due diligence. Since so much of the media has done such a thoughtful job debunking Kerry critics, I would have expected higher standards for this evidence too.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

Here’s the response from CBS.

Dan Rather is such a whore for the Dems. Is it no wonder that America has decided that CBS is about as useful as a Yugo?

Thanks, Julia

The explanation sounds reasonable. I will wait to see what else shakes out.

I still don’t let CBS off the hook, however. They made a big story based on thin documentation that, even if valid, don’t merit very much attention. Would they do the same with Kerry?

Well, the report used to discredit Joseph Wilson, reveals that she suggested him for the job He wasn’t aware of it- couldn’t be aware of it- to lobby for it. Not only that, it reveals the nature of his mistake, which I will concede to you took placed: he took the authenticated conclusions of the IAEA report on the letter, and conflated it in memory with his own experiences on this assignment. The Document the 16 words were based on has not been proved authentic, and remains a forgery in the eyes of all credible intelligence circles.

Martin-
You yourself are guilty of former Ambassador Wilson’s mistake: conflating different streams of information. Barnes, and much of the other documentation regarding Bush’s absence remain tarnished only by association, not by fact. Have you any answer to that that doesn’t start with “liberal lies” or “the left’s hypocrisy”?

I think the question here is “are the facts more behind one person or another?” I’m saddened by how much your defense of Bush and offense on Kerry are based on arguments from personal disbelief. You know, you bring out some person that says, “oh no, so and so wouldn’t have said that” And really, that sort of testimony proves nothing. If the letter turns out to be authentic (the jury, I’ll concede, is out on that) then all the other concerns about whether family members would believe certain things don’t carry much weight.

There’s a lot of uninformed opinion flying around, and I’m looking to avoid getting hit by it.

-Jack
Note the almost instant reaction in the media. Don’t worry about media bias, the networks worry about it for you. That’s why Republicans like to charge that so much. Makes news publications slant their way to avoid getting tarred with that label.

CBS may have screwed the pooch on this, but I would counsel you not to get on their buts about the time it takes to prove it authentic. Authenticating these documents will be a research heavy job, because there are so many particulars to be weighed, right down to whether the ink was jetted or slammed into the page.

As for expectations and standards, I’d say that it’s only human and only to be expected that we put our faith in that which damages the other side easier than that which damages us. The ultimate question, though, is whether one side or the other is closer to the truth and how they’re not.

The memo hoax is a perfect climax to Dan Rather’s twenty-year career as a liberal cheerleader masquerading as a news anchor. Today, we learned from Dan that the fake 1972 documents, obviously produced using a recent version of Microsoft Word and easily reproduced on personal computers - right down to precise character kerning - were authenticated by handwriting expert and San Francisco resident Marcel Matley! Well, I’m certainly glad they checked the signature before accusing the President of the United States of lying. When confronted with this obvious mistake, Rather’s transparent response is beyond pathetic and he only digs himself a deeper hole. It will soon be confirmed, of course, that copies of these documents were at one point in the hands of the DNC and Kerry campaign. Most of the media, of course, will look away. But let’s all mark the date: Sept 10, 2004. The Presidential election is over now, and so is Dan Rather’s career. You gotta admit, both campaigns will enjoy perfect endings.

Delzario,
The leak of an active CIA agent deals with our national security. The papers you want to question deals with Bush being were he was suppose to be 35 years ago. Now, I’m no rocket scienctist, but give me a break. Our national security must out rank where some drunk pilot was is 72.

Well, it seems to me that this topic presents us with an unusual problem. We’re all used to the normal give and take of arguing differing points rhetorically based on our different values. But to intelligently debate this it looks like we need to become experts in a hurry on the arcania of type-fonts, kerning, proportial spacing and all the technical details of seventies era typewriters!

Who knew, at the beggining of this election season, that we’d all be immersing ourselves in such a geeky obscure subject! I must say I’m amused.

I know it’s a right-wing site, but I’ve found the conversation on littlegreenfootballs.com to contain a wealth of relevant data. Yes, there’s a partisan angle to it, but I should think that even left-learners could overlook that and mine it for information.

Who will debunk the debunkers?

I was highly disappointed by Rather’s response on CBS News because it utterly failed to address the real issues, and Rather was way out of line in attacking the “blogosphere” in such a patronizing elitist way (as if, unless you’re collecting a check from a major network, you are incapable of evalutating facts and asking questions that deserve a straightforward answer).

Reliance on a handwriting expert to confront questions about typescript isn’t even the least of the problems with Rather’s defense (and it was even admitted that CBS’s handwriting expert was only looking at photocopies—how hard it is to photocopy a signature?).

What was so disappointing was Rather’s dwelling on the fact that superscript was available on typewriters at that time and that the Times font also existed—as if this was any revelation.

These facts were admitted by those questioning the documents early on, and are entirely irrelevant to whether any typewriter in existence at that time actually used the Times font AND was capable of superscript AND had the capacity to execute proportional fonts. All of the experts I’ve seen (including typewriter manufactures) deny that any machine had all three features.

Logically, what Rathers is doing is exactly like saying that because horses exist, birds have wings and some animals have horns, there MUST be unicorns fluttering around in the sky.

Joseph, thanks for the dailykos.com link.

He is one that has definitely tried to do from the left what littlegreenfootballs is doing from the right. I’ve been reading both, and they have a real debate going on between them. I encourage everyone to check them out and decide for themselves.

I was surprised to see the CBS expert announced as Marcel Mately, a ghost of the Vince Foster debate. I can’t think his name will do anything but fuel the fires of this situation. I just keep hearing members of the Kerry compaign groaning nooooo when they heard the name of the expert.

This whole election is (becoming?) a joke. Fonts, kerning, and baseline shift as election debate? Ugh! I wouldn’t be surprised if it were all another right wing ploy to promote voter apathy, but to preserve what little integrity this election might have left, I won’t mention it.

D’oh!

I’m still trying to bone up on typographical authentication, but I know for a fact that you can not reliably authenticate handwriting samples based on photocopies.

Pressure, smears and smudges, hesitation points (which would indicate someone looking at a sample signature and imitating it) are all KEY elements necessary for authenticating a handwriting sample. (Yes, I’ve read my share of espionage novels).
And you HAVE TO KNOW, for goodness sake, if the paper is something from the era or question or something somebody bought last night at Staples! This is just elementary forensics.

I ask any of you—should somebody be allowed to cash a check against your bank account with a photocopy of your signature but not the real thing?

And if not, why should it be okay to level serious charges against someone—whether you, I or a public figure—on the basis of something that you couldn’t even cash a check with at your neighborhood bank?

This goes beyond the serious questions raised about typograpical questions. CBS has already done something entirely unethical in my opinion by authenticating documents based upon photocopies. The only question now is how far and how deep the rot has settled in.

Look guys. We allow supermarket rags, and politicians to lie to us on a regular basis. How can you all find this so surprizing? How is this even newsworthy?
The media, …all of the media has decided that haste is better than accuracy. There isn’t one network or blog or talk show host that wouldn’t jump at the chance to scoop all the other outlets.
If their wrong let them admit it. What are you going to charge them with, lying?

Running with the story on such a weak case on such a weak subject was a mistake, for CBS, for Rather, and for the Kerry campaign (with or without collaboration). I hadn’t touched the SBVT junk since you (Martin) mentioned it when it first came out; I was hoping the rest of the left would do the same. And I was desperately hoping the left wouldn’t touch the Bush Guard tar baby. But here we are.

It’s such a stupid strategy, too. Whoever came up with the idea should be fired. From whatever his job is. Bush’s qualification for Commander in Chief? Um… the last four years? Duh. He may have been incompetent at it but don’t try to point it out by his National Guard duty from 30 years ago.

Yep, with lying. And I don’t think that’s a small charge.

Also, CBS didn’t scoop anyone on a story, so there’s no way they can defend themselves on the basis of being rushed. This is a VERY old story which has been revived ONLY on the basis of supposedly new and exclusive information which suddenly and mysteriously surfaced out of nowhere.

And what’s worse, they claim to have thoroughly vetted it over a period of six weeks. And what’s even worse than that, they claim to have vetted it on the basis of forensic techniques that would get any case tossed out of any court of law without even a hearing (and this is entirely before even CONSIDERING the typographical questions, which look to prove even more damning).

I sympathize with what you’re saying, Joseph. If I were a Kerry supporter I’d be livid right now at seeing an attack against Bush which had very limited potential payoff morph into a Watergate-type scandal that could sink not only Kerry but CBS News, one of the left’s best friends in the media.

And even though I’m not a Kerry supporter, I’m not happy either. I watched the CBS story when it aired, and I was totally willing to accept that Bush pulled strings to cut corners while he was in the National Guard all those years ago. Lots of people played whatever angle they could back then to game the system, and I think most voters know and accept this—it’s a lot like the way ALL of us trim the facts here and there during tax time. It may not be angelic, but it’s hardly a huge deal.

But now we’re at a place where any attacks against Bush in the media will be second-guessed and questioned by voters because of CBS’s highly suspect actions. CBS just supplied Bush with some heavy duty double-plated armor.

The bloggers attack here is kind of reflective of the Internet in general. There is a whole lot of bad information and just a little bit of good on both sides.

I’m waiting on the WaPo’s analysis tomorrow as well as other experts.

But of all the arguments I’ve seen, the one that sways me towards fakes the most is the centered text at the top. Whoever typed those had to have measured each line perfectly, then duplicated the exact measurements again months later.

George, agreed, there may be good and bad information and just a little good here or on the internet in general.

But the impressive ramification of this story (yes, this story in particular) is that trade in “good and bad” information reflects the nature of information in the public domain in general, and the mainstream media is no better and perhaps much worse in some instances at getting it right. Big media is NOT just, judicious and inherently fair and right. Like kings of old, they represent small coteries whose positions of power alone have allowed them to control perception on the part of the masses. Imagine if Stalin would have been forced to deal with blogs and message boards. History might have been very different—perhaps Communism would have even enjoyed more success instead of collapsing from abuse and overreaching (I don’t think so for a second, but it’s one idea).

I believe that the internet is a huge revolution with implications which we haven’t even begun to fully grasp. Some bad and some good will inevitably come of it.

Twenty years ago, CBS and its allies could have controlled this story with an iron fist, totally dictating how the content would be shaped and received, and there would have been absolutely nothing a dissenting voice could have done about it. The observation that perhaps these documents were forged would never have gotten significant play unless the powers that be DECIDED to allow it. Whether something was true or not would have been secondary to who was holding the megaphone.

This is an amazing advance in the democritization of information and ideas and I for one am thrilled by it. In this instance, it’s the left and their allies that seem to have been burned. In other instances, I’m sure the tables will be turned on conservatives. This is a great equalizer, really, and whatever you think of this particular story, I
think it’s a good thing in general.

This story demonstrates exactly what we (on the left) accuse the Bush administration of: questionable intent, poorly thought-out strategy, and pitiful execution. And yeah, it will bring suspicion on any future real and relevant charges.

I don’t know if I’m livid, yet. Distressed is more like it. The left needs to focus on our strong and valid arguments. This Texans for Asshattery crap and dimwits like Michael Moore do more harm to Democrats than any Republican attack.

Seriously, if CBS actually wanted to help Kerry, they might have put, I don’t know, five seconds into thinking about the possible consequences and implications of airing this non-issue and posturing as if it matters.

Okay, maybe I’m a little livid.

To: Joseph Briggs- You are dead, smack on. I know a few people who are self-described “Yellow-Dog Democrats”. When the marchers appeared in New York…they cheered, when that Policeman was attacked…they cheered, when the War in Iraq runs into difficulty, You Got It…they cheered (no kidding).
In times of national distress people want, and probably need, someone they view as stable. Right now they have two (O.K., maybe three) choices and they are making their decision(s) right now. Leftist antics (including fake documents and sloppy reporting) only serve to damage the Democratic cause.
Being a Paleo-Con this, of course, doesn’t keep me up at night. I do wonder, however, if everyone wouldn’t be better served by two hardcore candidates who hammered away at the issues and at each other !!?!
Just some food for thought…..

Martin, I think it’s premature to start making connections to Kerry or conspiracy theories about Dan Rather. The real question here is who these documents came from, and whether the forensics are conclusive on it’s authenticity. As for the centered (or seemingly centered parts) it’s a all a matter of setting up the tabs, or using the Tab Key a set number of times. In my screenwriting, I have tabs set for the formats on names, and dialogue, which look centered, but actually aren’t. Typewriters have tabs too. Heck, that’s where the convention of it came from.

Also, It’s important to point out that if this is all about doubts as to typewriters and fonts. Fact is, Times New Roman is very common, now and in the Vietnam War era. These are fonts made to mimic the typed equivalent. Of course it will look similar. From the source material alone, it’s clear that the font isn’t MS Word Times New Roman. Is it some other kind of font, on another word processing program?

As for Rather, if he gets the sense that some blogger is just dismissing the story based on this faulty comparison, he might be inclined to snap back at them. This is somebody calling him a liar or a bad reporter at the least, And that’s certainly not the best way to gain his sympathy. The question is, are we confusing analogical doubts about the memos with well founded ones? I don’t want some argument from personal incredulity, It brings to mind Wallace Shawn’s character in The Princess Bride, who keeps on saying “inconceivable!” everytime something doesn’t go as expected. I think the Blogosphere, like many instant communications, media shares the liability that with great speed of publication comes the ability to shoot one’s mouth of without full consideration of the facts. Neither side is immune.

As for the whole triumphalism of gatekeeping on the message, I don’t think you should be so happy with it. It’s stung your side on many occasions. It’s not the liberals you have to worry about. It’s the corporations running these things. Years ago, Iraq would have been the subject, not Bush’s war record.

Stephen-

It’s a proportional font (meaning you won’t know how the long the lines are until you print it unless you have memory)yet each line is perfectly centered. Even if you set a tab dead center, you have to space back one for every two charaters on the line. For us who had to take typing class on the old Selectrics this was always a horrible task and that was with a proportional font.

This person got it dead perfect on all three lines. He/she also got it dead perfect months later when they did the second letter. Someone has gotten close with that IBM Composer, but he took about 2 hours trying to do it.

The guy also dupilcated it perfectly in Word in about 30 seconds.

George-
They’ve duplicated certain aspects of it, not others. The letters in the font are different. I know this because I’ve had a look at that comparison at Kos, and the difference, even with the pixellation, are obvious. The way the letters printed, while similar, have significant differences. I’ll conceded to you that it eliminates one font, but not potentially others, but there would be few fonts that so resemble this one, so that’s elimination from a small pool. Then again, it may not have to be Microsoft Word for this to be done. There are other programs, maybe even other kinds of machines. I think we should have the originals verified as to the kind of machine they were produced on. Do you have the indentations and ink patterns consistent with a typewiter? What’s the chemical composition of the ink? These and additional questions should be answered. I am not so rabid in my dislike for Bush that I’ve lost the sense not to build my case against him on bad evidence. But I am also not so naive as to believe that the other side may not have people that are willing to jump on whatever contrary evidence seems to present itself. So, I wait for the evidence to make my decision on it. If it’s proven (not just alleged) that it’s fake, I’ll trust that. As of right now, though I’ll tell you that if the provenance of the letter is in doubt, then I must hold the four memos involved in this as being in doubt.

One question that comes to my mind- are all these letters from the same source?

As for the tabs issues, I just wander if the tabs could be set up on a column by column basis in the old days, because when I was being taught screenwriting format, there were actually particular column numbers that came up, and they weren’t perfect tabs either. If that arrangement of formating was used in those days for screenwriting, doesn’t it follow it could done elsewhere?

It seems that the documents may indeed be real.
From my local newspapers website:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/11/MNGO68NEKR1.DTL

Now, (much as the Right did with the SBVFT) the Left can get on with discussing what the documents actually say, what light they shed on Dubya’s character, and what significance they might hold for the election.

It appears that Mr. Philip Bouffard is very unhappy with that Globe article. http://www.indcjournal.com/

Perhaps both The Globe and CBS will have some retractions to print soon.

Dan Blather and C-BS news has a problem of their own making.
At best they used “sloppy” research before their story, at worst they “knowingly” aired a story based on forged papers supplyed by someone with a biased political motive.

Now poor Dano is in a pickle, he can reveil his sorce and demand the origionals be checked by REAL experts.
He could refuse to reviel his sorce, but admit, that he may have been duped, and apoligise.
He could just retire and try to save whatever credibilty C-BS has left.

But Dano choses to just say that BLOG’ers have no right to question the papers because they are only looking at photocopys.
Sorry Dano, C-BS news said they have never seen anything but photocopys that cant be checked.

Retire Dan….Its time !!

You assume, Beagle, that he’s lying. It’s a big assumption. It’s one thing to say that he’s wrong. If Mr. Broussard is correct, then you would be correct in saying that. However, you’ve failed so far to provide any evidence that Rather himself knowingly put out false information. You may think that this is just one liberal covering for another, but really, I’m saying this because I’m sick to death of the partisan B.S. on all sides. The people who have my respect right now are the ones who are sticking to the facts, and are not jumping to conclusions. I think what’s happening right now is people just reading stuff or saying stuff or assuming stuff at a split second, and not taking the time to form opinions that are not dogmatic positions.

Dan Rather is sticking by his story, and so long as there is no definitive evidence to the contrary of his documents, he is right to do so. People should prove these documents are forgeries before they are declared so. Otherwise, it could potentially become a standard political practice simply to site forgery on documents.

If I were him, I’d take the old Yeller approach. If anybody’s going to shoot this dog, let him do it himself- If he’s right, he can clear CBS of negligence in their reporting. If he’s wrong, he redeems his news organization of it, perhaps even finding a new story on top of that- namely, who set him and CBS up?

If it’s Kerry campaign, that’ll be news, if it’s the Bush campaign, then it gets very interesting. If it’s just a bunch of political hacks or other sorts of idiots, anything is possible.

Whatever’s the case, I’d like to know.

Stephen,

I fail to see in my post where I said Dano was lieing ?
Dan Rather is sticking by his story, and so long as there is no definitive evidence to the contrary of his documents, he is right to do so. People should prove these documents are forgeries before they are declared so. Otherwise, it could potentially become a standard political practice simply to site forgery on documents.

How could anyone “prove” forgeries if Dano wont produce origionals ??

Is it now standard political practice to make up insipid nicknames for those you disagree with?

Not that I’m free from guilt in this matter.

Beagle-
“…at worst they “knowingly” aired a story based on forged papers supplyed by someone with a biased political motive.”

Knowingly airing a story based on false documentst constitutes a pretty heavy lie.

As for the originals, are you quite sure they’re not making the originals available?

Stephen

The originals have not been shown to anyone outside CBS as of 5:00 on Saturday.

I don’t know enough about text and typewriters to make a judgment about the authenticity. But it is clear that reasonable people question them. CBS tells us that they are right because they say so. Can others examine the evidence? No. CBS tell us that when if they find out they are not right they will tell us. This is more like Pravda during Soviet times than an American news organization.

What we know about HOW 60 Minutes developed the story and WHEN it broke leads to questions of motivation and professionalism (specifically ignoring the objections of the Killian family, who said their father didn’t write those sorts of things nor keep those kinds of records, using a prominent Kerry supporter and partisan Democrat, whose own daughter says he changed his story, as the main source)

Liberals ask for examples of media bias. This is one. Building a story on flimsy evidence. Running it at a critical time in the election. Would CBS do a similar thing to Kerry? This is bias, especially because there is no story. Even if all the memos are valid, it shows very little new in a story that was vetted four years ago. When a news organization beats such an old drum, you have to ask why.

GW Bush never claimed to be a hero. He told us that Kerry’s service was much more distinctive than his own. He claims nothing special about his military experience other than he said only that he served honorably. The honorable discharge indicates that his superiors agreed. That’s all it takes. Would you question my high school diploma if you discover I didn’t actually finish “Paradise Lost” in senior English (but they still gave me the diploma)it ? Can I question your right to drive if I discover credible evidence that you exceeded the posted speed while driving across Texas (but the police didn’t issue any tickets)? If I claim to be an expert on Milton, you have a case. If you frequently brag that you never speed, I can question you. Otherwise we could both say, “Get off my back!” Or maybe in a phrase lefties understand, “move on!”

Oh my gosh ! Don’t tell me that Dan Rather, of all people, might be biased ? Is this the same Dan Rather who insulted his minority viewers when he made a wisecrack about them not being able to see “over the watermelon and tacos”!!! Now that’s what I call fair and balanced….Okay, maybe thought provoking….stunning ??!?….Okay, let’s just admit that it pissed everyone off except for the KKK.
Seriously, you do think that CBS would spend a little more time investigating a classic “questioned document” prior to making it public. You can bet, however, that they are NOW spending a LOT more time trying to figure out how to cover their asses. To paraphrase Chuck Yeager, They lost their (presumed) objectivity, but they’re keeping their story !!

Jack-
5 PM yesterday or last week? They’ll give the documents to people sooner or later. They’ll have too. As to the whole pravda thing, I think you’re taking the hyperbole too far.

As for the children or whoever saying “they’re not like this”, that’s rather poor evidence. Families can be unfamiliar with different sides of their member’s personalities and actions. As for Ben Barnes, His daughter is a Bush supporter. The Real question is “has his story changed?” And if so, towards the truth or away?

So far, your only strategies have been to try and discredit him, not to prove what he said untrue.

As for the honorable discharge, if he had support from higher ranked folks pulling strings for him, it means nothing. If he did indeed miss all that time, fall below standards so far, then the only reason he got that early honorable discharge, was because he was born into the right family. It’s a circular argument- He got the honorable discharge, so he earned the honorable discharge. You have yet to prove that point on legitimate premises. Bush can say he arranged something, but currently we can only take his word for it.

Samaritan-
Politics is dirty. If some incriminating document comes out, and there issues about authenticity, true or not, why not go after it? The News organization, though, has an obligation not to simply fold in the face of political pressure. If the Washington Post had done that during Watergate, the Nixon administration would have gotten away with a number of felonies.

Just because a political group says its fake doesn’t mean it’s so. Now, I want to know whether these things are forgeries. I don’t want to be somebody’s fool, to base my opinions on information that becomes discredited. But I don’t want to be gullible towards my political oppownents. Informationn is freedom.

Steven said:

Dan Rather is sticking by his story, and so long as there is no definitive evidence to the contrary of his documents, he is right to do so. People should prove these documents are forgeries before they are declared so. Otherwise, it could potentially become a standard political practice simply to site forgery on documents.

I couldn’t disagree more. In the position Mr. rather enjoys, he should have the impetus to prove without a doubt that what he puts forth before millions of people (the whole nation,indeed the entire WORLD!) as fact, Rather than going the extra yard to scrutinize them properly. Otherwise, it could potentially become a standard political practice simply to spew out of their mouths anything that will help their agenda. aka propaganda. As far as I have seen, the documents have not been declared forgeries,just questioned. Evidently, with reason. His rebutal is calling nay sayers partisan. Talk about the pot calling the kettle!!

David said:

Sebastian, you have done a very good job of enunciating what is known, and who is willing to speak up in obviously partisan “understandings” of what all this means.

But, as they use to ask, ‘Where’s the beef’? The question is not aimed at you, only at the heresay, second person conjectures and opinions and doubts. The only real evidence so far is the tentative results that the typed memos appear to be computer generated. (Perhaps scanned and reprinted to make copies while preserving the original?)
The only appropriate response so far to all of this is to say more investigation is warranted.

I couldn’t agree more. But all of this should have been cleared up (by cbs) BEFORE this story (or non story) was put on the airwaves as substantiated fact.Just bring forth the originals, have them verified (or not) and be done with it.

What suprises me most is that with the general public it wasn’t even a story that is a (smoking gun)anyway.At that time, as good as I can remember (I skipped school& made bad grades & wasn’t a cantidate for college, so my draft card said “1A”) everybody was jockying around trying to positioning themselves to get the best situation they could, fleeing to Canada, deferments,etc. Didn’t Kerry apply for a deferment & get denied so he went after the least of all the assignments
or was that rumor? Nobody cares. That was the first time I heard that Bush had close to 300 flight hours in. I’m in the process of getting my pilots license and know how much work that is in just a Cessna! It makes me proud that our President can fly a fighter jet! Missing a physical and all that isn’t that important since he wasn’t going to Vietnam. Kerry protesting with Hanoi Jane deserve a 60 minute story more than that.

If they want to test a story before they put it on the air,all they have to do is post it on watchBlog. The bad part is that Rather has used his position influence the electorate.Sadly only a small percentage of people are ingrossed into politics like we are. Therefore the millions of people who don’t, or can’t search all the different outlets available for gathering all the sides of the stories, only hear the news that Dan decides they need to hear.The story was an hour, if necessary,the apology will be a footnote that no one will see.Most people,especially the millions who can’t afford, or just don’t have cable,or internet access, don’t even know this discusion is on! A lot of these people are the undecided voters they are after.The serious voters are informed enough that their vote between these two cantidates is already set in stone. Using tactics like this one and last elections 30 year old DUI charges in the eleventh hour are getting tired.

I, like a lot of people I know are getting tired of the two parties disagreeing with virtually everything the other party says.They are supposed to reflect their constituants, not their party. It says a lot when a cantidate can’t win their own state. I agree with a lot of the Democrats views, but they have THEIR cantidate shifting with the polls totally and won’t take a firm stand on anything. As we all know that the polls shift like the wind, and when you shift wirh them all the time you appear to flip flop. I didn’t like Clinton’s decisions that he made personally,
but he did have a personality and wasn’t just a robot manufactured to run for president, like these last two the democrats put forth.

We have two separate issues. One is GW Bush’s record in the Guard. The second is the integrity of the journalism that went into the investigation. Bush’s time in the Guard has been investigated. It is not a heroic story, but it is also not a new story. The “news peg” to resurrect the old story were the new documents. So I see no reason to investigate the veracity of what anyone says outside the documents. The documents ARE the story. (Bush was a spoiled rich kid in the Guard. We probably don’t even disagree about the details. If that was all I knew about Bush, I would be worried, but we have more significant criteria to judge GWB).

When the story first came out, I assumed the usual bias but I also assumed that CBS had probably done a decent job of checking references. Now I am not so sure. Whether or not the documents are accurate, there was sure a lot of disconfirming evidence that CBS should have considered and presented on the program – if only to refute it.

Now it is incumbent upon CBS to prove there is a reasonable certainty that the documents are valid. The more interesting investigative reporting will now be who gave the documents to CBS and why.

I don’t believe this was related to the Kerry campaign. More likely it was an overeager Bush hater acting alone or with a couple of friends. This should not hurt the Kerry campaign, but it may well force Dan Rather into retirement. He was a great journalist, but his time has passed.

By the way, the METHOD of reporting - we say it is right because we say so and we will tell you when we are no longer right - IS reminiscent of Pravda.

averagejoe-
They believe the documents were genuine coming in. Until forgery is proven, they run the risk of another The Insider like situation, where a news organization caved to a political group. If the documents were authenticated, it’d be worse than if they stood by their story. If it turns out to be forgery or something else, then CBS can just drop it, and be doing their journalistic duty.

For what I can see, the whole point is that they are alleging the documents are forged, and the partisans (Like those at Little Green Footballs) are jumping on it like Velociraptors.

Hanoi Jone never got close to John Kerry. Kerry disinvited her when somebody invited her to one of his rallies. President Bush can fly a jet, right? Big deal, Kerry can drive a boat. Besides, Bush lost his ability to fly by missing that physical. He never arranged to retake it- it seems he was more interested in doing whatever he was doing (campaigning or cocaining, take you pick) than in keeping himself airborne. Would you deny yourself your ability to fly?

As for flip flopping, go look at what they say were flip flops. Then go and read my latest article. Kerry is a politician and a legislator, and he won’t just vote for a bill without considering the amendments and language attached. He cares more about being consistent in what he votes than how he votes. A vote against a bill cannot be necessarily be considered a policy position.

As for personalities, though Bush has a more animated matter, it just gets on my nerves Kerry may be a bit stiffer, but he’s also possessing of greater maturity. God knows we need that in a president.

To: Stephen Daugherty- I don’t want the media to ignore these documents, I want them to dig and dig and dig. The more they dig the better I will like it. The funny thing is, though, that the Dems hear eyewitness testimony about Kerry and they start screaming “Liars, smear tactics, dirty politics” and on and on…. The see forged documents and shout gleefully “See, I told you so”!! Why don’t you just return to simpler days when the Left would petulantly insist that “All conservatives are mean and stupid Nazis”. You would be just as wrong as you are today but at least you wouldn’t fool anyone….except yourselves of course.

That was good Samaritan! Exactly right. Hundreds of stories about Bush & the national guard & accounting for every day 30 years ago being so crutial. Leaving early to campaign with his father etc blah blah blah. How many stories by the fair and balanced media on Kerry getting himself out of Vietnam in just 4 months showered with medals.(of which he threw back,oh I’m sorry those weren’t his, & they were only ribbons!!) Or the self inflicted wounds and scratches. Shooting fleeing enemy in the back. (He didn’t shoot him in the back,and he thought he might turn around and fire at them, he must have had a boomarang bullet). If I threw a hand gernade & got shrapnel (or rice) stuck in my butt, I wouldn’t file for a purple heart, that would go to the grave with me. If all these allogations had come out by over 200 veterans against Bush there would been a call for over 200 investigations. There probably are some bogus stories, but 200? But the liberals just lump them all together dismiss them. How many stories on network about Kerrys protests and accusations of war crimes by our troops while they were still over there? Liberals don’t see the lean in the media (except with fox) But the way they present stories. Example: Gerald Ford falls, he is a bumbling goof, Dole has a poorly built handrail collapse & at his age & a bum arm from a true war wound falls & he is made fun of by the media. Clinton is at Greg Normans house at a party & no question if there was any drinking or anything. Just sympathy stories about how he can really relate with the handicaped. They are up in arms that there is now a news network that puts out not only liberals, but they also have conservatives views on the airwaves that their might hear and remove the glass darkly that they have been looking through for years. I like having shows with both sides arguing it out. Kinda like this site.

Talking about specific typewriters, fonts, baseline shift, tabbing, etc. is all fine and good to prove that these 4 memos may be authentic.

Lets think outside the box.

Other correspondance coming from Killian at the Texas Air National Guard Office should be similiar to these four.

Yes or No?

Just a quick thought. You would think that after four years one of Bush’s Alabama drinking buddy’s would at least be willing to say they had a beer at the PX on base.

Henry-

What’s the use. You obviously didn’t believe Bill Calhoun when he came forward back in Feb.

George, You mean it took Bill over 4 years and how many dollars to remember Bush. Ask Bush for five ladys names he meet in Alabama.

Henry- You prove my point quite nicely. Actually I think he only had one girlfriend during that time. She also has said that he attended drills. The dentist record, the time cards, …….

But your mind is made up, so why bother?

George, please define girlfriend? We don’t need am other “is” is

Bush Campaign Video

Bush Video