« John Kerry insults our allies while the smoke still rises from the terrorist bombing of the Australian Embassy in Indonesia | Main | Rather to turn his Swift Boat toward the enemy and beach it tonight? »
Friday, September 10, 2004
CBS begins stealth backpedal on Rathergate
In a post entitled "CBS News Stealthy Update to Document Story," Lynxx Pherrett writes in a blog called Assume the Position that CBS is changing its website version of the Bush documents story — not yet conceeding that the documents are forgeries, but significantly backtracking and referencing at least some of the doubts that have been raised about their authenticity. In typical sloppy mainstream media fashion (a practice scornfully called "dKos'g" in some parts of the blogosphere), CBS is simply replacing its original web page with the rewritten story at the same URL, without leaving any tracks to show that it's been backing and filling.
In fact, CBS has changed the headline of the piece from its original "New Scrutiny of Bush's Service" to read, "Bush Guard Memos Questioned," and starts it off now with this nice bit of passive-voiced understatement:
Questions were raised Thursday about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos purporting to have been written by one of President Bush's National Guard commanders in 1972 and 1973.
Yes, and clearly, mistakes were made. But by whom, CBS, by whom — and at whose instance?
The current version is sourced "CBS/AP." I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that.
The current version includes these bits immediately after the new intro paragraph, which I'll quote at length in case they go nacht und nebel sometime in the near future:
The memos, which were obtained by CBS News' 60 Minutes, say Mr. Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer and lost his status as a Guard pilot because he failed to meet military performance standards and undergo a required physical exam.
The network defended the autheniticity of the memos, saying its experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.
But Killian's son, one of Killian's fellow officers and an independent document examiner questioned the memos.
Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he doubted his father would have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Mr. Bush's performance review.
"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."
The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake.
"They looked to me like forgeries," Rufus Martin told the Associated Press. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years." Killian died in 1984.
Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software. Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript — a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" — as evidence indicating forgery.
Microsoft Word automatically inserts superscripts in the same style as the two on the memos obtained by 60 Minutes, she said.
"I'm virtually certain these were computer generated," Lines said to the Associated Press after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Ariz. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.
In the Wednesday broadcast, 60 Minutes said the memos were "documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file." The program says it consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic.
"As is standard practice at CBS News, the documents in the 60 Minutes report were thoroughly examined and their authenticity vouched for by independent experts," CBS News said in a statement. "As importantly, 60 Minutes also interviewed close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian. They confirm that the documents reflect his opinions and actions at the time."
The White House distributed the four memos from 1972 and 1973 after obtaining them from CBS News. The White House did not question their accuracy.
Robert Strong was a friend and colleague of Killian who ran the Texas Air National Guard administrative office in the Vietnam era. Strong, now a college professor, also believes the documents are genuine.
"They are compatible with the way business was done at the time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being," says Strong. "I don't see anything in the documents that is discordant with what were the times, what was the situation and what were the people involved."
"Discordant with the times"? Well, I guess not — if you live in one of the Star Trek episodes where time travel brings word processing back to 1972 along with Captain Kirk and Spock (of course wearing one of those woolen caps to hide his ears).
And one would guess that "[i]ndependent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines" is not one of the four experts upon whom CBS earlier relied, huh? So what are their names, CBS? Are they document examiners in the same sense as Mr. Strong — who, after all, is a college professor and can apparently read documents, the past, and maybe the future?
CBS News! Now crusading to expose the mendacity of ... CBS News!
Update (Fri Sep 10 @ 11:40am): CBS' website may be backtracking, but Jim Geraghty's Kerry Spot reports that Dangerous Dan is sticking to his guns in a CNN interview: "I know this story is the truth... There will be no retraction... When people talk about where we got the story they're only doing it because they don't like the story...." Dan, this is The Shark. Shark, this is Dan. Jump, Dan, jump!
Update (Fri Sep 10 @ 12:40pm): These paragraphs have now been (stealthily) added to the CBS website (hat-tip to Byron York on NRO's The Corner):
In a statement, CBS News said it stands by its story.
"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read.
"In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, and Stonewall wasn't just a famous Confederate general. But hey, CBS, name some names for us, willya? Who were the "unimpeachable sources," and what makes them "unimpeachable"? Who are your "independent handwriting and forensic document experts," and how do they explain what your other independent expert — the one who you've named and quoted — points to as bogus?
Posted by Beldar at 10:52 AM in Mainstream Media, Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to CBS begins stealth backpedal on Rathergate and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
» CBSNews Begins Rowback; BeldarBlogs Demands Answers from Ace of Spades HQ
Tracked on Sep 10, 2004 11:07:38 AM
» Fake Documents from New Trommetter Times
Tracked on Sep 10, 2004 2:14:10 PM
Comments
(1) vnjagvet made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 11:27:15 AM | Permalink
Note that as of 12:00PM EST September 10, 2004, noone in the pro Kerry camp, either through MSM resources or on the blogosphere, has made any reasonably cogent argument, technical or otherwise, to lay a legal foundation of authenticity which would allow any court in this land (or any administrative tribunal for that matter) to admit them in evidence.
There are a lot of resources out there as yesterday's performance by you, Powerline, et al demonstrated.
When Kerry used the Texas phrase "all hat and not cattle", he was clearly "projecting".
(2) Chris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 11:32:12 AM | Permalink
CBS certainly has some 'splaining to do, but you are still jumping the gun a bit, here. It has been found that there certainly were typewriters capable of producing the features apparent in the CBS memos. Additionally: these IBM typewriters were marketed to the government; and other memos produced by the Bush campaign as originating from the TANG from that time period also featured these characteristics (superscript, proportional spacing).
I'm not saying it's open and shut either way, but you are. Still premature.
(3) Beldar made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 11:37:59 AM | Permalink
Chris, I'm assuming you're referring to the NYT paragraph about the mysterious typewriter. I'm open to more details about that. But I really don't think I'm premature hey, I'm just going with the only accredited document examiner referenced by name by CBS.
(4) Todd made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 11:39:02 AM | Permalink
Apparently, Rather called Terry McAuliffe to confirm whether the documents were authentic, and Terry told him they were. Then, CBS contacted Mr. Tweedledee, who conferred with his colleague, Mr. Tweedledum, and they said their "discordant" memories were consonant with the Zeitgeist and that, as a result, the documents were as authentic as the after action report from John Kerry's first Purple Heart.
(5) DaveR made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 11:46:40 AM | Permalink
I have sent the comment below to CBS. It is worth noting that there is much wrong with 60 Minutes beyond the shakey provenance of the TANG documents!
---------------------
Please explain to me how you can justify presenting Mr. Burt Barnes' story on "60 Minutes" without mention of his intimate role in the Kerry campaign? Or without mention of the fact that he has previously testified under oath that no Bush family member or representative had contacted him. Or that he was not Lt. Governor of Texas in May 1968, when G.W. Bush joined the TANG?
Any one of the above omissions would be truly reprehensible. Together they constitute an obvious intent to obscure the true nature of the story. I will NEVER watch this program or Mr. Rather again.
(6) Gary B. made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 11:54:21 AM | Permalink
Bush Guard Memo's Questioned
C BS Motives Crystal Clear!
(7) Polaris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 12:10:38 PM | Permalink
Rather's arrogance and stupidity are both unbelievable. Even if he sincerely thought the docs were genuine, enough doubts have been raised not to make such a statement.
When you are in a hole, STOP DIGGING!
-Polaris
(8) Todd made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 12:12:57 PM | Permalink
The forged documents are back up on CBS online. Apparently, Rather wants to go out in a blaze of glory.
Powerline also speculates that Rather himself is the source of the documents and story (in that he was given the documents directly by someone outside of CBS) given his refusal to admit error.
The facts remain that 1) CBS won't disclose who authenticated the documents and that 2) the vast majority of those experts who have opined on the documents AND identified themselves have said they are likely forgeries. Throw in the fact that Killian's wife said he didn't type and CBS is kaput.
In other words, perhaps CBS couldn't be "convicted" on a criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt), but on a civil standard it is clearly more likely than not that the documents are fraudulent.
Goodbye, Dan, and good riddance.
(9) Polaris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 12:19:29 PM | Permalink
I am no lawyer, but this latest move seems to nix (at least to me) any notion that CBS is the unknowing victim. I would say that they are now culpable...at least after the fact.
-Polaris
(10) Beldar made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 12:21:19 PM | Permalink
DaveR, I agree with you in general, but not in one of the particulars that you mentioned (and that was in Podheretz' NYP article).
Barnes wasn't Lieutenant Governor of Texas when Dubya signed up, but Barnes was indeed Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives from January 1965 through January 1969. He served as Lieutenant Governor from January 1969 for two two-year terms through January 1973. Both were, and are, powerful positions in Texas state government.
A commenter on my previous extremely disorganized and lengthy thread about Barnes offered this link and asserted from it that in 1968, Barnes was a "United Nations Representative to Geneva, Switzerland." He may well have been that, but if so, it was likely an honorary or at most part-time job. The Texas Legislature only meets in regular session for 180 days once every two years (allegedly the most terrible typographical error in the Texas Constitution, according to wags who insist it was intended to say once every 180 years for two days), so most legislators keep their "day jobs" and have lots of time for resume burnishing.
I admire Mr. Podheretz, but frankly, the "not even really lieutenant governor" argument is a very, very weak one. The one part of Barnes' stories that you can believe is his claim that he was a big-time influence peddler throughout the late 1960s until his disgrace and rejection by the voters in the 1972 elections as a result of the Sharpstown Scandal. I've got many more details about Barnes, then and now, in that prior thread for those who are interested (and have a strong stomach).
(11) jmurphy made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 12:39:42 PM | Permalink
Beldar,
I remember seeing a videotape of Mr. Barnes talking on a stage where he said he got Bush in the TANG when he was Lieutenant Governor. If I am remembering this correctly, the fact he was not Lt. Gov. until after Bush got in the TANG is pertinent in a minor way to his ability to remember and accurately report his experience.
(12) The Raving Atheist made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 12:52:08 PM | Permalink
Someone should make commercial which scrolls up a list of the names of all the Demoocrats who continue to defend the authenticity of the Killian memos, with the following voice-over:
"Can we trust these people to authenticate and interpret communications intercepted from Al Qaeda?"
Of course, if it turns out to be a complicated Bush campaign set-up like Terry McAuliffe is now claiming, they can use the names of the Republicans responsible instead with this voice-over:
"Aren't these EXACTLY the sort of people we need to outsmart Al Qaeda?"
(13) mdn made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 1:02:11 PM | Permalink
Obviously, the people who "were well acquainted with his procedures (Col. Killian's), his character and his thinking" do not include his WIFE and his SON who adamantly dispute the authenticity of the documents and of the story.
It is so laughable that CBS could just make these claims without providing the names of who their experts are.
(14) Todd made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 1:10:27 PM | Permalink
With CBS' comical response, it now appears to me that, indeed, the Kerry Campaign and/or DNC is the source of the documents. Otherwise, why would Rather fall on his sword?
In addition, one wonders about the elephantine arrogance of CBS, the "trust us, we know better" routine.
It's obvious that CBS is hoping that the anniversary of 9/11, and the silence of their buddies in the media, will allow them to weather the storm. I don't think they can, but if they do pull it off it will represent a new low in modern journalism.
In any event, with Tom Harkin out there criticizing President Bush for allegedly misrepresenting his military service, it looks to me as if the Dems have decided to rely upon some expert witnesses of their own.
(15) Joshua Chamberlain made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 1:11:18 PM | Permalink
Let's give up on this idea that the memos could have been written on an IBM Selectric Composer. That typewiter required you to type the same line twice to get propotional justification! No one is going to write a memo to file where they have to type the text twice, when the can just rattle it off with an old fashioned manual Clark Nova!
(16) david made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 1:11:30 PM | Permalink
Beldar, I recall seeing a comment from you yesterday regarding the transition point between Rather being "unwittingly" involved in fraud and being a "co-conspirator". It seems that he has just crossed that line. Clearly, he'll wield considerable influence in trying to hold back this story and protect his "sources" (snigger!). But my questions to you, couldn't all us fine folks on the Internet file a class action suit claiming that, as consumers, we were falsely led to believe that our commander-in-chief was a liar? Would that require CBS to either bring evidence to support their position in court or admit error and reveal sources? How long do you think CBS can keep staff members with integrity from leaking information?
(17) Joshua Chamberlain made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 1:19:52 PM | Permalink
What do we do now to break through the CBS stonewalling? Can we rely on the WP and ABC to go for the jugular, on the basis that, even if it hurts their guy, they are much more concerned about beating a rival, since that's the business they're in? I'm afraid people are just going to drop it without an ability to compel CBS to cooperate. Andy McCarthy at NRO (a former SDNY prosecutor) is calling for a Wire Fraud investigation.
(18) Jim Thomason made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 1:27:19 PM | Permalink
Two points:
1. If Robert Strong "was a friend and colleague of Killian" in the TANG, shouldn't he be "Retired Captain Strong" or some such?
2. Remember that this is sourced as coming from CBS/AP. Comparing this passage (emphasis added):
"The network defended the autheniticity of the memos, saying ITS experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents..."
with this passage immediately following:
"But Killian's son, one of Killian's fellow officers and AN INDEPENDENT document examiner questioned the memos. "
(This must be refering to Ms. Lines.)
Notice that hey are pretty explicitly contrasting an "independent" examiner with the one that CBS used - "its" examiner.
Was CBS's anonymous "expert" from in-house?
(19) Harlan Pepper made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 1:28:26 PM | Permalink
Robert Strong was a friend and colleague of Killian who ran the Texas Air National Guard administrative office in the Vietnam era. Strong, now a college professor, also believes the documents are genuine.
Is this the same Robert Strong; shilling for Jimmy Carter's failed foreign policy?
(20) DaveR made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 1:37:19 PM | Permalink
Beldar,
I thank you for the clarification re Barne's position in Texas government at the time of Bush's enlistment in the TANG. But, every citation to the interview I recall both refers to him as a former Lt. Governor, and uses the phrase "as Lt. Governor" or "when he was Lt. Governor" in reference to his alleged help to Bush.
I don't think this is a trivial matter, but clearly it does not have the punch I thought it did.
Just for laughs, I am reminded of what we called the ANG folks when I was regular USAF... "FANGS". I leave it to your imagination what the F stood for.
ps. Do you notice how most people in the blogosphere are willing to temper their judgements when they are civilly corrected, and also how they like to laugh? Quite a contrast to the arrogant Mr. Rather, I think, who sounds as though he is not used to being questioned on anything. How these tlaking heas get such an opinion of themselves is a mystery to me.
(21) M. Simon made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 1:43:22 PM | Permalink
I believe they are trying to cover up the 9/11 Anniversary.
Rather will come clean by Wed.
(22) GT made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 1:49:29 PM | Permalink
Beldar,
here's the best debunking of the debunking I'v read:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603
To be honest I have no clue what to believe right now.
(23) Glen made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 1:53:19 PM | Permalink
There is another printing attribute in these documents that is irrefutably unique to word processing -- kerning. I saw an explanation of it this morning on another post, so watch for it. Kerning arranges the letters for readability by doing such things as tucking an o under a T so that part of the o is underneath the overhanging crossbar of the T. A similar example cited in the documents was my. Proportional spacing just allows for different widths for letters such as I or W, while kerning positions part of an adjacent letter in the same space of another, thus tightening up the type to enhance readibility.
Another typewriter impossibility is pitch. Apparently, these documents were 13 pitch which no typewriter could duplicate.
I believe I saw this in links from either Instapundit.com or Powerline.
(24) Chris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 2:27:59 PM | Permalink
Joshua Chamberlain,
The documents were NOT proportionally justified, but they were produced with a proportional font. There is a big difference, and your point is not valid.
(25) Birkel made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 2:32:25 PM | Permalink
Nobody seems to have mentioned the 9-11 Commission's favorite word: stove piping. Isn't that exactly what's happened in the CBS newsroom, which, BTW, was extremely critical of the CIA, NSA, et al?
What gives? Clearly the POT/KETTLE issue is clear.
BTW, Beldar, loved the Shark/Dan joke. You simply gotta do stand up with material like that. LOL
(26) Chris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 2:34:40 PM | Permalink
Glen,
Whomever you consulted has no idea what they're talking about. A font cannot both be proportionally spaced and have a pitch. A pitch can only be used to describe a non-proportionally-spaced fonts.
Furthermore, I see and have seen no evidence of kerning in these documents. In fact, I see a few character pairs that indicate that there is definitely not kerning.
(27) Todd made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 2:37:04 PM | Permalink
Keep trying, Chris. Maybe you'll wake up and find it was all a bad dream. :-)
(28) Polaris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 2:40:06 PM | Permalink
GT and Chris,
There are too many things wrong with the documents for them to be geniune. I note that you would have had to have an absolute top-end typewriter to replicate these memos (very expensive)...and I note that ANG units used hand-me-down equipment from the USAF.
In addition to that, to use porportional spacing, you have to type each line twice (why for an off the record memo?)
In addition, the other genuine documents from the ANG do not show the same characteristics of these memos.
In addition to that, there were no errors made when typing the documents (unhead of) from a person who all his colleges agree is no typist.
In addition to that, the memos are written in a style completely inconsistant with AF custom and regulation at the time.
I am willing to say with confidence that given all of these factors and many more, I am virtually (99.9%) certain that these memos are fakes.
-Polaris
(29) Chris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 2:45:19 PM | Permalink
Polaris, good for you. I'm just addressing some blantant misconceptions that I've seen here. My opionion is still out.
And on that note:
No, you do not have to "type each line twice" for proportional spacing. That's only for proportional *justification*, which the memos did not have. (That's when the end of the lines line up.)
There are a number of memos from that time period that do show the features present in the memos. I do not know if any of them are from the TANG.
There are a number of spacing errors, if you look at the documents.
Obviously, my expertise is only with one component of the controversy. You may be 99.9% sure, I'm nowhere near that; I'm just pointing out how your partisanship might be coloring your opinion.
(30) Beldar made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 2:53:46 PM | Permalink
GT, thanks for the link, and the civil comment.
I genuinely mean no offense to you or to the folks at dKoS who are trying so hard skepticism is a good thing, it's the blogosphere's "collective intelligence" in action. But the only credentialed forensic experts whom anyone has put forward to support the authenticity of the documents even the technical feasibility of their having been created in 1972 are the unnamed "experts" referenced by CBS. CBS won't give us their names or credentials; and neither CBS nor those anonymous experts have responded to the specific observations that have been made in the last 48 hours about the typeface/kerning/spacing issues, so we have no way of knowing whether those anonymous experts have even considered those points, much less rebutted them. By contrast, even the one expert whom CBS itself has named and identified as well-credentialed says the documents are bogus. And of course, there are many other credentialed experts who've opined, by name and with their reputations at stake, on the record to the same effect. None of them is going to express an opinion to a 100 percent certainty without seeing the original documents, of course, or at least seeing the same hard-copy versions that the anonymous CBS experts have seen. But these folks aren't dithering or qualifying their opinions they're being very blunt, and no one is even paying them to do so!
Again, no offense to the folks at dKoS, but I think they're talking through their collective hats. They're making assertions, for example, about the history of the font when it's clear from reading their own posts that they don't know the difference between "Times Roman" and "Times New Roman." They're getting into a level of technical detail and history that really does belong in the province of professionals. Amateurs are fine for raising questions that's what bloggers did yesterday but they're less well equipped to give definitive answers.
Finally, the post you linked makes no effort to deal with the now-dozens of contextual, nontechnical flaws in the documents (consecutive P.O. box numbers, nonmilitary jargon, nonmilitary formatting, etc.), nor the "soft witnesses" like Col. Killian's wife, son, and colleague who cast doubt on whether he'd have created or retained such documents.
If the documents end up being proved genuine, I'll eat crow publicly and unabashedly. I really did try to maintain my objectivity as this was breaking yesterday but one never knows how successful one's been at that, of course, and we all have pre-existing biases, so it's possible that I'm high on my own fumes.
Still, I've dealt with expert witnesses in courtroom settings now for twenty-four years, all of whom, by definition, know more about their subject than I do, and yet I've developed pretty a pretty good bulls**t detector. I don't think there's a fair-minded trial judge in the country who'd admit these documents into evidence on the showing that CBS or the folks at dKoS have made so far, when weighed against the contrary showings that have been made.
And in any event, we've long, long since passed the point at which the burden of authenticating the documents has shifted back to CBS, and its failure to do so becomes not necessarily (yet) evidence of its complicity in their forgery, but a strong indication at least that they can't carry that burden.
(31) Heavy B made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 2:54:04 PM | Permalink
18 months ago, I had to validate and fact-check everything I read on the web via mass media reports. Today I have to validate and fact-check every mass media report via web sources...
You can't buck technological progress (Unless you're Dan Rather)
Ya gotta love the paragraph in Dan't response in a CNN interview WRT the controversy where he says, "...I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don't like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story..."
Soooo, it doesn't matter to Dan, and therefore shouldn't to any of us ignorant lemmings, that there is no material basis for the allegation; The important thing is getting the answers to questions raised in a fictional story? Dan, after CBS dumps you, maybe you chould hit up Mssr. Moore for a job; Your styles and values are very similar.
Heavy B
(32) Polaris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 2:56:29 PM | Permalink
Chris,
There are just too many things wrong. I wrote memos (as a Terminal Area Security Officer) so I have some experience with this...and independant USAF Admin clerks agree.
The memos were not written to Air Force specifications for that period. Dates in the USAF are DD MMM YY which is not how the memos are written.
Also, when using your rank, you always use Rank, (Service) rather than your rank. Also the correct abbreviations for first lieutenant is 1LT not 1st Lt and Lt. Colonel is LTC. In addition to that To:, Subj:, From: was the standard format until 1990 in the service. Finally CYA would never be used in an official memo. It would be memorandum for record.
When you add this in addition to the overwhelming about of expert testimony from both sides of the ailse, I am 99.9% certain that these documents are fake. I think that anyone not hopelessly blinded by partisanship would agree. Dobbs of the WaPo, Ted Koppel, and many others are taking my stance (if somewhat more cautiously) and they aren't Bush supporters by any stretch of the imagination.
-Polaris
(33) Heavy B made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:03:40 PM | Permalink
Sorry, I'm new to blogs. Here's my attribution to www.ratherbiased.com on the CNN interview with Rather.
http://208.56.145.244/404.shtml
I couldn't find it on CNN and don't know where ratherbiased.com got the transcript.
(34) Chris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:03:51 PM | Permalink
Polaris,
Thanks for the reply. Those observations were much more compelling. As I said, I was just correcting what I knew to be wrong. I haven't read all the dope and still have no official opinion. Does anyone have speculation as to why the WH hasn't said anything regarding this? It seems that they could release a statement that these documents were, if not fake, at least innaccurate. By omission, one wonders if they're not.
(35) JM Hanes made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:05:32 PM | Permalink
"...memos purporting to have been written..."
Eventually, the memos will admit they cut themselves from whole cloth.
"...the documents are backed up...by sources familiar with their contents."
That would be Dan Rather & the documents' authors, I suppose.
(36) GT made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:07:17 PM | Permalink
Beldar,
Like I said, I don't know. I do know that a lot of the original accusations (there were no prop spacing typwriters or typewriters with superscripts) were all proven wrong.
So to be honest I have no idea.
(37) YouGottaBeKidding made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:08:08 PM | Permalink
Glen,
The thing you refer to as 13 pitch is really 13 pt. However, the text is actually 12 pt. (I know because I recreated all four memos). 13 pts. refers to the line (vertical spacing).
Typewriters produced 6 lines of text per vertical inch.
With computers, the line height is measured in points. An inch contains 72 and a fraction points. "Close enough for government work" (meaning anything that's not done for output on a high-res publishing device) is 72 points per inch. To get 6 lines per inch (typewriter spacing), you'd use 12 pt. line spacing, but these documents are 13 pt.
The line spacing on this document could not have been produced on a typewriter.
(38) ed made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:10:04 PM | Permalink
Hmmm.
"By omission, one wonders if they're not."
Because Bush doesn't gain anything by getting involved. This is an issue that the MSM/Blogmedia is going to have to resolve. If Bush get's involved in this issue then the debate becomes the involvement of the Whitehouse, not the forgeries themselves.
No conspiracy theory required.
(39) Narniaman made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:11:41 PM | Permalink
GT lamented:
"To be honest I have no clue what to believe right now."
Well, let me see if I can help you out, GT. Here's the list of things suggesting that perhaps Gunga Dan's memos were less than completely authentic. . . .
1. The memos use the New Times Roman font. While that font was available for typesetters in the 1970's, it wasn't available on any typewriter. . .period.
2. The memos show proportional font spacing. That was only available on a handful of top of the line IBM typewriters. And the proportional fonts that were available were not of the New Times Roman variety.
3. The letters in the memos show that kerning was used. Kerning, or allowing letters like "T" and "o" to overlap, is only done with word processors or linotype machines. It is not available with any typewriters. . .either in 1973 or now. Period.
4. The memo reveals decreased font sizes with superscripts. That was not available (and is still not) on typewriters -- unless you have a IBM with the printing ball, in which case you could subsititute a 10 pitch ball for a 12 pitch ball. Its not something that someone typing up a memo to be stuck away in a file is going to do.
5. While there are no typewriters that are capable of duplicating the memos, the most common word processing program in the world ("Word"), using the default settings, produces a document virtually identical to that displayed on CBS's website. That word processing program wasn't around in 1993, much less 1973. (Talking about the Windows version here.)
6. The document makes mention that the units Commander (Brigadier General Stoudt) is pressuring him to do a fraudulent officer effectiveness rating for Bush. At the time of the purported memo (August 18, 1973) Brigadier General Stoudt was Brigadier General Stoudt (retired). He had stepped down from that position over a year earlier.
7. The memos letter head is the same type and font as the text of the memos -- which would be quite unlikely for a preprinted letter head to have the same font as the text of a letter.
8. The purported memo's author died in 1984. His widow states that he didn't even know how to type, and in any event the family didn't keep any of Killian's personal files around after his death. She further says she thinks these "memos" are fraudulent, and wouldn't have been something that her husband would have written, since he had a high opinion of George W. Bush.
9. The purported memo's author son, who served with his father in the national guard unit, says that his father didn't write like the wording in the memo. The son also thinks the memos are fraudulent.
=====================
Evidence that suggests that the memos are authentic:
1. Dan Rather says its so.
If you still "don't know what to think", let me give you a few pieces of solid advice.
1. The Brooklyn Bridge isn't for sale.
2. Idi Amin's son doesn't want to transfer $37 million dollars to you for safe keeping.
3. You haven't won $5 million dollars in a Nigerian lottery that you didn't even know you had entered.
4. Nothing you can buy over the internet will make your penis any larger.
Hope this helps, GT!!!
(40) JM Hanes made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:13:41 PM | Permalink
With apologies for double dipping:
Why would an order (to report for a physical) be filed with "personal" papers?
(41) Chris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:17:46 PM | Permalink
Narniaman, read, breathe, then post. Many of your points have already been addressed. Copy & paste somewhere else.
(42) GT made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:21:48 PM | Permalink
Exactly Chris. This is what makes it so difficult. People keep repeating things that have already been proven false.
(43) Polaris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:23:39 PM | Permalink
JM Hares,
They wouldn't be. Even if it were nothing more than an administrative flag, it should have been filed in the unit records as well.
-Polaris
(44) ed made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:28:11 PM | Permalink
Hmmm.
"Furthermore, I see and have seen no evidence of kerning in these documents. In fact, I see a few character pairs that indicate that there is definitely not kerning."
Incorrect. Look closer. There is definitely a great deal of kerning going on. Look specifically at letters that lend themselves to kerning. Such as "y" and "g", among others.
(45) Polaris made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:29:08 PM | Permalink
GT,
Nice spin but it doesn't fly. The problem is that the story doesn't fit. Let's start with the 13pt spacing. Can't do that with a typewriter....this per ABC news.
More to the point, the documents are inconsistant with other TANG documents and furthermore bear forensic evidence of being printed on the same printer. In order for a typewrite to have made the memos, it would have to be a state-of-the-art typewriter used for typesetting. We are talking about a very expensive machine here. For a Air Guard unit? In the 1970s? No way. Guard units (esp then) always got cheap and obsolescent material.
This could be settled immediately. Get the TO and E list for the unit and see if a typewriter was authorized for Killian's Unit that could have made these memos. If you can show me that, then I will retract everything I said.
[I am certain that you can not.]
-Polaris
P.S. I note that everyone BUT Dan Rather is now saying that these documents are probably forgeries (except for whoever his hidden source is). Is this getting through yet?
(47) Todd made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:40:36 PM | Permalink
CBS' latest pronouncement - that the "th" superscript existed back in 1968, etc. - seems to indicate that they are now finally examining the authenticity of these documents. If they had done that to begin with, they wouldn't be in this pickle. Of course, they likely wouldn't have been able to run their silly story, either.
CBS' new motto should be: When you CBS . . . you see B.S.
(48) Birkel made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:48:19 PM | Permalink
GT-
In addition to thinking you're a Moby moonbat troll with no real interest in dialogue, I believe you have no dictionary handy.
Proven-adj. Having been demonstrated or verified without doubt
False- adj. contrary to fact or truth
So, let's stop abusing the English language. In your next post please try using the following:
conjecture-n. inference or judgment based on incomplete evidence; guesswork
If, as you claim (I believe falsely and dishonestly.) you haven't made up your mind, then conjecture would be more accurate. NO?
So, stop obfuscating. It's rude and insulting. I know your type and witness your willful ignorance too often to believe you are intellectually honest.
(49) John D'oh made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:48:52 PM | Permalink
CBS' refusal to name their 'experts' reminds me of the last scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark:
[Discussing the fate of the Ark]
Maj. Eaton : We have top men working on it now.
Indiana : Who?
Maj. Eaton : Top... men.
(50) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Sep 10, 2004 3:55:02 PM | Permalink
"Does anyone have speculation as to why the WH hasn't said anything regarding this?"
I will not link this, but Rather is now admitting that HE is the source for these documents. They were brought to him.
I am speculating that Mr. Rather took them to the WhiteHouse Resident BadNewsExpert (Karl Rove) for 'evaluation'. Mr Rove held them up to his nose, and said "SWEET".
What is contained in these very 'damning' memos is nothing more or less than what President Bush has admitted to and confirmed, minus this fluffy crap about how someone 'up above' was trying to sugarcoat the pill.
The WhiteHouse has NO COMMENT on these, because they will stand or fall on their own. The White House is not filled with TypewriterExperts or Handwriting Analysists nor does it need to be.
CBS is saying that the source for these documents was the LtCol's personal files. Only problem with that? Nobody checked with the dead man's family... He didn't know how to type.
Go figure.
So, Chris... What you are saying is that the WhiteHouse should offer a definititive answer as to the veracity or legitimacy of these documents or the very opposite.
I really don't think the White House should have to say anything.
The italicized portion Posted by: Chris on September 10, 2004 03:03 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
