REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Authenticity of Bush Guard memos questioned

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 20:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6925
PAGE 1 of 2

Friday, September 10, 2004 6:22 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Questions are being raised about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos which asserted that George W. Bush ignored an order from a superior officer in the Texas Air National Guard and lost his status as a pilot because he failed to meet military performance standards and undergo a required physical exam.

Here's the link to CNNs posting of the AP story.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/bush.guard.ap/index.html

Looks like neither side is above a little knavery relating to ancient history.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 7:12 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Kerry's campaign OBVIOUSLY had nothing to do with this.. har har wink wink LOL. Terry McAuliffe had to come running out with drool and spittle running down his chin to condemn Bush about this and John Edwards demanded Bush explain these. Now they've most likely got to backtrack quickly , it's hilarious LOL.

McAuliffe : "Gor'am it, why did you use Microsoft Word you TWIT?!!! I'm surrounded by Tards!!!!!!!!

DNC Stoolie : Sorry Sir *sniffle, I couldn't find a REAL typewriter. *sniffle

"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 7:29 AM

RADHIL


Could we please wait until after basic fact is beyond question before we string out the baseless accusations?

Oh, right, Republicans don't do that.

The CBS News desk is the one that produced these memos - they are the ones to keep eyes on if we want to know where they actually came from. So far, they have been reluctant to say, other than citing one source and claiming the memos were verified independently (and not saying by whom). Wait until that's uncovered, and if it turns out true, shit on Kerry all you like.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 8:44 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Radhil:
Could we please wait until after basic fact is beyond question before we string out the baseless accusations?

Oh, right, Republicans don't do that.

The CBS News desk is the one that produced these memos - they are the ones to keep eyes on if we want to know where they actually came from. So far, they have been reluctant to say, other than citing one source and claiming the memos were verified independently (and not saying by whom). Wait until that's uncovered, and if it turns out true, shit on Kerry all you like.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction



Because I find this funny..I get labeled a Republican ROFLMAO.

Terry McAuliffe is already blaming Carl Rove for the forgeries. It's hilarious. Talk about baseless accusations.

So far 2 seperate independent experts have deemed them forgeries. One has even replicated one of the documents using Microsoft word. All the while, CBS is in secret meetings to figure out how to save Dan Rathers reputation. This is almost as good as..well.. Cable.

"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 8:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Radhil:
Could we please wait until after basic fact is beyond question before we string out the baseless accusations?

Oh, right, Republicans don't do that.

The CBS News desk is the one that produced these memos - they are the ones to keep eyes on if we want to know where they actually came from. So far, they have been reluctant to say, other than citing one source and claiming the memos were verified independently (and not saying by whom). Wait until that's uncovered, and if it turns out true, shit on Kerry all you like.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction



OK, to be fair and balanced Here's the CBS take on it.

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

They of course stand by their story, but also use the AP release almost verbatim. There are also links to the documents on this page. I do wish CBS had said where they obtained the memos.

I've been trying to research whether typewriters with reduced size superscript were available in 1972, but Google has let me down, for once. I don't recall any of the one's I used in the Army in 1972 as having that feature, but maybe the Air National Guard had better equipment.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 9:05 AM

CONNORFLYNN


I wonder if they actually used "The Source" of these memos as the independent expert on the authenticity ROFLMAO.

"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 9:08 AM

GHOULMAN


The fact that the White House has no problem censoring the public record, a federal offence, says a lot.

It's been well known for years that during the Vietnam War (oh sorry, the Vietnam Conflict, Americas other illegal war of death and murder) GWB was a drunken, drugged out, daddies boy and a general little shit who dodged the draft simply by being one of Americas elite.

It's public record... or it was.

To offset these facts the Republican Camp actually made ads attacking the Democrate Kerry, who has a crystal clear combat record and service.

While other Americans were being drafted into death patrols, GWB was at a party... drunk and stoned.

Your president... a liar, a cheat, a killer, and drunk.

Nice thread... shows I'm right about you little...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 9:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


"Nuclear Weapons Found in Iraq"

Typical of right-wingers. Jumping all over something before the facts. But then, facts really don't seem to matter even afterwards either.

It doesn't matter that ObL is still at large, that no WMD were ever found, that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11 and was not a security threat to the USA, that the tax cuts really only "stimuated" the ultra-wealthy and that the deficit is ballooning out of sight... these guys just keep listening to that happy music in their heads and then wonder what the h*ll happened when reality bites.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 9:12 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
The fact that the White House has no problem censoring the public record, a federal offence, says a lot.

It's been well known for years that during the Vietnam War (oh sorry, the Vietnam Conflict, Americas other illegal war of death and murder) GWB was a drunken, drugged out, daddies boy and a general little shit who dodged the draft simply by being one of Americas elite.

It's public record... or it was.

To offset these facts the the Republican Camp actually made ads attacking the Democrate Kerry' who has a crystal clear combat record and service.

While other Americans were being drafted into death patrols, GWB was at a party... drunk and stoned.

Your president... a liar, a cheat, a killer, and drunk.

Nice thread... shows I'm right about you little...



ROFLMAO

"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 9:13 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
"Nuclear Weapons Found in Iraq"

Typical of right-wingers. Jumping all over something before the facts. But then, facts really don't seem to matter even afterwards either.

It doesn't matter that ObL is still at large, that no WMD were ever found, that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11 and was not a security threat to the USA, that the tax cuts really only "stimuated" the ultra-wealthy and that the deficit is ballooning out of sight... these guys just keep listening to that happy music in their heads and then wonder what the h*ll happened when reality bites.



What does any of that have to do with this thread? LOL

"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 9:24 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

Typical of right-wingers. Jumping all over something before the facts. But then, facts really don't seem to matter even afterwards either.




If you have a problem with the Associated Press story, take it up with the Associated Press. I found their information interesting. Admittedly it's still in dispute, but something to consider nonetheless.

Still waiting for someone identify the source of the memos. Wonder why CBS is hiding this important information? Also still researching early '70s typewriter fonts.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 9:32 AM

SERGEANTX


This election should stand as proof-positive that plurality voting, and the two party system, have become monumental wastes of time and money. We'd get better leaders (more honest at least) if we just had a nationwide lottery. Every four years we go through this ridiculous charade, each time more embarassing than the last. There are sensible fixes for this nonsense easily within our reach and we continue to put up with it.

http://www.constitution.org/voting/voting.htm

http://www.approvalvoting.org/

Anybody besides me see the system as the problem? Out of over 250 million people, are Bush and Kerry seriously the best we can do??? I just can't accept that.



SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 9:38 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
This election should stand as proof-positive that plurality voting, and the two party system, have become monumental wastes of time and money. We'd get better leaders (more honest at least) if we just had a nationwide lottery. Every four years we go through this ridiculous charade, each time more embarassing than the last. There are sensible fixes for this nonsense easily within our reach and we continue to put up with it.

http://www.constitution.org/voting/voting.htm

http://www.approvalvoting.org/

Anybody besides me see the system as the problem? Out of over 250 million people, are Bush and Kerry seriously the best we can do??? I just can't accept that.



SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock



I LOVE the idea of approval voting in principle. I think however that Big money/Interest groups could determine which candidates get on the ballots one way or the other and we'd still be in the predicament we are in today.

Edit: One other thing that kind of bothers me about our electoral system is that more people don't take advantage of the ability to vote. Even if a candidate wins the "Popular" vote..did they really, when you only have about 38% of the population voting? Does that mean that 62% of the country have cast a vote of "No Confidence" for the candidates?

"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 9:49 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
...Also still researching early '70s typewriter fonts.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Hmm. Still no luck on the superscripts, but I did find some paper documents in my old files that were typed on an IBM Selectric I back in the early '70s. They are Courier New font, just like the memos in question, and one defining feature is that the periods are slightly subscripted (below the line). The memos don't have this subscrition of the periods. maybe a different typewriter? I'll try to find a Xerox daisywheel.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 9:56 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
...Also still researching early '70s typewriter fonts.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Hmm. Still no luck on the superscripts, but I did find some paper documents in my old files that were typed on an IBM Selectric I back in the early '70s. They are Courier New font, just like the memos in question, and one defining feature is that the periods are slightly subscripted (below the line). The memos don't have this subscrition of the periods. maybe a different typewriter? I'll try to find a Xerox daisywheel.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Hehehehe..

"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 11:57 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer
Looks like neither side is above a little knavery relating to ancient history.


The first part of your statement is interesting in your implication that, if these documents are forgeries, one of the campaigns was involved with the forgeries (I actually agree with you on this if/then - just not the identity part). The second part of your statement is interesting in that I'm amused you would consider something that happened in my lifetime as ancient history.

This story blew up huge on the blogosphere yesterday. A large number of bloggers claimed these documents were forgeries because of two bits of evidence: the proportional font and the superscript. The claim being made that typewriters in common usage at the time did not have those features and therefore someone created these using a word processing program.
Quote:

excerpted from CNN article
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.


I noticed CNN has dropped the proportional font part of the argument. Probably due to the fact that IBM typewriters have had that feature since 1941. Here's an advertisement from 1954 touting that particular feature (I strung out the link so the picture wouldn't load):
http:// www.etypewriters.com/ 1954-b-2.JPG
The second part of the argument is that the presence of the superscript means this was done on a word processor instead of a typewriter. Here's a link to one of the earlier documents released by the Bush administration from the President's files. Note that there is a superscript on the second typed line (once again, stringing out the link):
http://users.cis.net/ coldfeet/ doc10.gif
So if the presence of a superscript in a typed document from the early 1970s means that document is forged, then Bush's file has other forgeries.

I prefer to think that the earlier documents released by the White House did not contain forgeries. So the easy answer of whether or not the documents COULD have been created on a typewriter is yes.

The more interesting portion of the CNN article is in regards to the two interviewed subjects who state that the fourth document (the CYA memo) is inconsistent with what they knew of Killian. Since one of these people is his son, I give this pretty good value. CBS is going to have to produce the trail of where they actually got these documents and how they vetted their accuracy. On this topic I happen to agree with Josh Marshall’s post this morning concerning the documents:
Quote:

excerpted from http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_05.php#003462
I'm actually supposed to be on semi-vacation here at the ocean. But let me offer an update on this memo business. One of the guys who was in the mix in all of this at the time -- Hodges -- told CBS that these documents accurately reflected Killian's thinking at the time. On top of that, the White House -- and thus the president -- made no effort to question the story the documents tell. That tells me that they know the underlying story -- or at least some rough approximation of it -- is true.
All that said, however, the questions raised about these documents seem very compelling. And though those points above are telling about the underlying story, I can't see where they tell us much meaningful about the authenticity of these documents

If a few qualified experts came forward and said, 'Well, those criticisms don't add up if you know the subject. And the bottom line is that there's nothing about these documents that raise any question about their being produced in the early seventies" that would be plenty for me -- because I don't have the expertise to evaluate the criticisms and the defenses in the face of such expert opinion.
But I'm not hearing anyone say anything like that. In fact, rather the contrary.
The ball is in the court of the publishers of these documents to authenticate them. And so far I'm not hearing any adequate defense.


So I don't know if these documents are forgeries. If they are not forgeries, then it's just one more piece in the overall picture that Bush needed some heavy hitting guardian angels to get him into the Guard, through his Guard service, and out with an Honorable Discharge. The part where Killian states Bush disobeyed his direct order to take a flight physical is particularly damning.

And this gets to the more interesting part of this episode: who would forge documents and for what reason? There are two reasons to forge these documents: to have them taken seriously or to have them discovered as forgeries.

The prime candidate for having them discovered as forgeries, in my mind, is Karl Rove (he of the bugged office and the videotape of Bush's practice debate). The reason being to discredit all the other evidence that Bush needed help to get his Honorable Discharge. The uproar over the possibility that these memos are forgeries has overshadowed all the other stuff about this topic.

For instance, the White House has said at least once before that they've released all documents related to Bush's service. But just last week, after a lengthy FOIA lawsuit from the AP, some additional records were released. That's pretty serious to me, the White House just straight up lied until they were compelled legally. Or the group in Alabama made up of veterans of the National Guard unit Bush said he served in who are releasing their own ad saying they never saw him there. Both of these items are overshadowed now by the CBS documents.


I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 12:04 PM

THEGREYJEDI


Is it 2008 yet? Excuse me, waiter, is there a better menu?

--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com

http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 12:11 PM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

The prime candidate for having them discovered as forgeries, in my mind, is Karl Rove (he of the bugged office and the videotape of Bush's practice debate). The reason being to discredit all the other evidence that Bush needed help to get his Honorable Discharge. The uproar over the possibility that these memos are forgeries has overshadowed all the other stuff about this topic.




LOL..man thats almost a carbon copy of what Terry McAuliffe said today. I knew Bush was responsible for this all along. That dirty piece of crap. Who knows how many other forged documents that dirty is hiding from the American public. I bet Dan Blather is beside himself with rage at being set up in such a poorly fashioned way. John Kerry has been wronged!!!

I couldn't get the second link to open.

"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 12:20 PM

SOUPCATCHER


There's two spaces in the second link that you have to get rid of.

I'm glad that Terry agrees with my analysis. This was a common thread last night on many of the blogs I read: who would be the likely candidate if this was a forgery.

The fact that these documents were questioned so quickly leads me to think that, if they are forgeries, they are very sloppy forgeries. Now why would you create a sloppy forgery? Well if you want people to believe that these are genuine than it means that you are really incompetent. This could be the case. But if you want people to quickly figure out these are fake and, by extension, that all other documents damaging to Bush's claims that he honorably served are potentially fake then it makes sense that they were sloppily forged. Karl Rove is a brilliant strategist. If anyone were going to employ this misdirection it would be him. It's a pretty easy conclusion to draw.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 12:32 PM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

The second part of the argument is that the presence of the superscript means this was done on a word processor instead of a typewriter. Here's a link to one of the earlier documents released by the Bush administration from the President's files. Note that there is a superscript on the second typed line (once again, stringing out the link):
http://users.cis.net/ coldfeet/ doc10.gif
So if the presence of a superscript in a typed document from the early 1970s means that document is forged, then Bush's file has other forgeries.



The only problem with that theory, is that all the other lines where the same text (111th) comes up DO NOT have the superscript. I'm thinking the image has been doctored, to further someones argument. PS thanks for the link.


"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 12:38 PM

SOUPCATCHER


This looks like a document that was updated throughout Bush's time in the ANG. I just figured that different typewriters were used depending on who was doing the updating. I'll look for a link from a more reliable source for the same document.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 12:56 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I noticed CNN has dropped the proportional font part of the argument. Probably due to the fact that IBM typewriters have had that feature since 1941. Here's an advertisement from 1954 touting that particular feature (I strung out the link so the picture wouldn't load):
http:// www.etypewriters.com/ 1954-b-2.JPG
The second part of the argument is that the presence of the superscript means this was done on a word processor instead of a typewriter. Here's a link to one of the earlier documents released by the Bush administration from the President's files. Note that there is a superscript on the second typed line (once again, stringing out the link):
http://users.cis.net/ coldfeet/ doc10.gif
So if the presence of a superscript in a typed document from the early 1970s means that document is forged, then Bush's file has other forgeries.
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!



Excellent research! I can see that the document released by the White House is a different font than the CBS docs, but reduced size superscript in the '70s is now verified. Wish I could find a site that captures typewriter samples to do more comparison. Seems there should be one out there.

Quote:

And this gets to the more interesting part of this episode: who would forge documents and for what reason? There are two reasons to forge these documents: to have them taken seriously or to have them discovered as forgeries.


This is why I'd be interested in finding out who provided them to CBS.

Quote:

For instance, the White House has said at least once before that they've released all documents related to Bush's service. But just last week, after a lengthy FOIA lawsuit from the AP, some additional records were released. That's pretty serious to me, the White House just straight up lied until they were compelled legally.

Just off the top of my head, two reasons the White House didn't release them; they were in Kilian's personal files, not military records anyone had access to, or they are in fact forgeries. Might be more.

You know, I spent a year in Vietnam back in '71-72. Maybe I should do a FOIA request for my records and see if I was really there.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 1:06 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Actually I was referring to this article in regards to recently released documents, not the CBS ones (this was dated September 7th):

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040907/D84V4DK80.html
Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush was ranked in the middle of his Air National Guard class and flew more than 336 hours in a fighter jet before letting his pilot status lapse and missing a key readiness drill, according to his flight records belatedly uncovered Tuesday under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Pentagon and Bush's campaign have claimed for months that all records detailing his fighter pilot career have been made public, but defense officials said they found two dozen new records detailing his training and flight logs after The Associated Press filed a lawsuit and crafted new requests under the public records law.



The four pdfs released by CBS have a lot more things that could lead one to think they were forgeries. I think it's safe to say that they COULD have been produced at that time on a typewriter. But were they? Killian's signature is different on the two signed documents. I'm not a handwriting expert so I can't say anything about this. Where's the letterhead? Was this standard procedure to not use letterhead for memos? Where were these documents? If Killian's son didn't know about them and Killian has been dead for quite some time where were they? (partial thanks to Kevin Drum over at Political Animal for these and other questions).

So I completely agree with you that CBS needs to shine some light on the history of these documents and how they determined they were genuine.


*editted to add: I found the links in a comments thread on this topic on another board. All I did was do some digging around the sites themselves to verify that the pictures had been around long enough to be unrelated to the current debate. On a side note, since it sounds like you might have access to typewriters used during the time period in question, you might be interested in this guy's offer: http://defeatjohnjohn.com/2004/09/10000-question.htm
I have no idea if this is a legit offer. But $10k is nothing to sneeze at.



I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 1:28 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn
The only problem with that theory, is that all the other lines where the same text (111th) comes up DO NOT have the superscript. I'm thinking the image has been doctored, to further someones argument. PS thanks for the link.


This document was originally posted on the web in 2002. It was a scan of a document that was part of a bundle received through an FOIA request that happened back in 2000:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/bush/090300_Heldt/090300_heldt.html
If it was doctored, it was doctored back then since the image hasn't changed since then:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ doc10.gif


I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 8:18 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What you'll find is that the memos will be authenticated as much as any multiply-copied document can be, and the story will sink out of sight with no apologies and no retractions... along with "Nuclear Weapons Found in Iraq!" and "John Kerry shoots self to get a medal!" and other right-wing idiocies.

It's too bad the people who keep spewing this crap don't ever get embarassed about being so wrong so often.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 9:02 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Bush is taking lessons from Hitler ... and Bill Gates. Bill Gates of FUD - fear, uncertainty, and doubt. FUD works.
To get Bush's message, you'd have to take the u-soft FUD pitch and add greed and hate.

Bush's campaign panders to those unclean things. It's not fact-based.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 12:17 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
It's too bad the people who keep spewing this crap don't ever get embarassed about being so wrong so often.



Yep. How embarrassing for the Post.

Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers

By Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A08

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

Matley's comments came amid growing evidence challenging the authenticity of the documents aired Wednesday on CBS's "60 Minutes." The program was part of an investigation asserting that Bush benefited from political favoritism in getting out of commitments to the Texas Air National Guard. On last night's "CBS Evening News," anchor Dan Rather said again that the network "believes the documents are authentic."

A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated documents on Bush's National Guard service reveals dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from conflicting military terminology to different word-processing techniques.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html

And according to their media column, the Post isn't the only one who'll be embarrassed. Click on some of the links to other outlets in the column titled "Tick, Tick, Tick" here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 1:41 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What he said wsa that because the memos had been copied so many times it would have been difficult to authenticate the document. However, he DID say that he looked at the initials and signatures and found that they were consistent with known exemplars of Killian's signature.

As far as the specific criticisms (superscripted "th", porportional font) many have been disproven. For example, if the document was produced by Microsoft Word, why wouldn't the "th" show up the same in all parts of the memos? Ultimately, it rests on the credibility of the source. I'll wait to see how this shakes out.

Funny, tho- the right wingers will move heaven and earth to put Dan Rather under the gun, but when it comes to treason (revealing an undercover CIA officer's name)... HEY, NO PROBLEM! Robert Novak gets a free ride!

Well, I never expected rationality (as in proportionality) from the right wing, so I'm not disappointed.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 1:55 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Funny, tho- the right wingers will move heaven and earth to put Dan Rather under the gun, but when it comes to treason (revealing an undercover CIA officer's name)... HEY, NO PROBLEM! Robert Novak gets a free ride!

Well, I never expected rationality (as in proportionality) from the right wing, so I'm not disappointed.




Did you even notice the article I cited was from the Washington Post? You consider The Washington Post right-wing? Katherine Graham must be spinning in her grave. Oh. That's right. I forgot. Anyone who doesn't agree 100% with your prejudices is right-wing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 3:12 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes, I did notice. I wasn't thinking about the Washington Post.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 6:06 PM

SOUPCATCHER


After reading the following article I'm convinced that these documents are forgeries. This article was recently posted to the on-line version of the Dallas Morning News. Unlike the Washington Post (who appear to have not done any original research of import, instead culling together a bunch of work already done by people on-line) the Dallas Morning News appears to have actually engaged in journalism - finding Killian's secretary and getting her take on the documents in question. I'm reprinting the article in its entirety because otherwise you have to register to see the page:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/0915
04dnpolnatguard.1185eb4ae.html


Quote:

From the Dallas Morning News
Former secretary says she didn't type memos

10:51 PM CDT on Tuesday, September 14, 2004

By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News

HOUSTON – The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.

Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1957 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.

“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”

Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”

“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said.

But, she said, telltale signs of forgery abounded in the four memos, which contained the supposed writings of her ex-boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

She said the typeface on the documents did not match either of the two typewriters that she used during her time at the Guard. She identified those machines as a mechanical Olympia, which was replaced by an IBM Selectric in the early 1970s.

She spoke fondly of the Olympia machine, which she said had a key with the “th” superscript character that was the focus of much debate in the CBS memos. Experts have said that the Selectric, and mechanical typewriters such as the Olympia, could not produce proportional spacing, found in the disputed documents.

CBS officials have defended their report. They have declined to say who provided 60 Minutes with the documents, other than that it was an “unimpeachable source” – or exactly where they came from, other than Lt. Col. Killian’s “personal file.”

The memos, if real, would show that as a pilot, Mr. Bush defied a direct order to obtain a flight physical, enjoyed the benefit of pressure from high officials to “sugar coat” his record, and was grounded for failing to meet military performance standards.

Mrs. Knox said she did all of Lt. Col. Killian’s typing, including memos for a personal “cover his back” file he kept in a locked drawer of his desk.

She said she did not recall typing the memos reported by CBS News, though she said they accurately reflect the viewpoints of Lt. Col. Killian and documents that would have been in the personal file. Also, she could not say whether the CBS documents corresponded memo for memo with that file.

“The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones,” she said.

She said that the culture of the time was that men didn’t type office-related documents, and she expressed doubt that Lt. Col. Killian would have typed the memos. She said she would typically type his memos from his handwritten notes, which she would then destroy.

Mrs. Knox, who left the Guard before Lt. Col. Killian died, said she was not sure of the disposition of his personal files when he died while still serving at Ellington. But, she said, it would have been logical that a master sergeant who worked in the squadron headquarters would have destroyed any such nonofficial documents after Lt. Col. Killian’s death.

That man, reached Tuesday, declined to comment. “I don’t know anything about the matter,” he said.

She also said the memos may have been constructed from memory by someone who had seen Lt. Col. Killian’s private file but were not transcriptions because the language and terminology did not match what he would have used.

For instance, she said, the use of the words “billets” and a reference to the “administrative officer” of Mr. Bush’s squadron reflect Army terminology rather than the Air National Guard. Some news reports attribute the CBS reports to a former Army National Guard officer who has a longstanding dispute with the Guard and has previously maintained that the president’s record was sanitized.

Mrs. Knox also cited stylistic differences in the form of the notes, such as the signature on the right side of the document, rather than the left, where she would have put it.

E-mail pslover@dallasnews.com



Thanks to Josh Marshall for posting the link to this on his blog.

editted to add: This raises the interesting question of who actually forged the documents? Also, where did CBS get them from? And for what purpose were the documents forged? From reading through reports on the documents already released by the White House and through other FOIA requests it's clear that there is already evidence for all three of the bullet points that these memos were designed to address. And the secretary herself says that there is nothing in the memos that is inconsistent with what was going on at the time. But the end result of this is going to be a blanket discreditation of the charges that George Bush had help to get into the Guard, slacked off while he was in the Guard, and needed help to get out of the Guard with an honorable discharge. So who benefits from a blanket discreditation? And who ends up with the most egg on their face? Dan Rather. A man who asked some critical questions of Poppy Bush during the Republican primaries of 1988. It's absolutely beautiful. (of course, if you can't tell, I love a good conspiracy theory).

editted once again to add: Okay. Looks like other news organizations are starting to get the idea that people who worked with Killian should be interviewed. USAToday just posted this story, which repeats information from the Dallas article and adds information from the man who had a desk next to Killian. Short message: documents are forgeries but content is consistent.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-0
9-14-memos-forgeries_x.htm

Quote:

From USAToday.com
Secretary: Memos are forgeries
By Jim Drinkard and Dave Moniz, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The former secretary to a Texas Air National Guard officer who purportedly wrote memos critical of President Bush's pilot service said Tuesday that the documents are forgeries but they appear to reflect memos her boss wrote and kept in a locked desk drawer.

Marian Carr Knox told the Dallas Morning News after viewing copies of the disputed memos, "These are not real," and that "the information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones." She declined to be interviewed late Tuesday, but her son, Pat Carr, confirmed her comments.

The newspaper said that Knox, 86, had precise recollection about dates, people and events. She was critical of Bush, whom she called "unfit for office."

The memos, first reported last week by CBS' 60 Minutes and obtained independently by USA TODAY, were critical of Bush's performance as a pilot. They say he sought special treatment to get out of required drills and failed to get a required physical exam, and that there was pressure from his commander's superiors to "sugar coat" his personnel evaluation. Document experts have challenged their authenticity.

Knox told the Morning News that she did all of the typing for Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's commander, and she did not type the memos in question. The typewriters she used, a manual Olympia and later an IBM Selectric, could not have produced the documents, she said.

Another former Texas National Guard officer, Richard Via, also said that the documents were fakes but that their content reflected questions about Bush that were discussed at the time in the hangar at Ellington Air Force Base, where he had a desk next to Killian's.

Via said he and others he worked with "remember the physical, and him going to Alabama was an issue." He said Killian "made notes and put them in his files about things like that."

Killian kept the files because "he was trying to cover his ass," Via said. "He was always worried something would come back on him."

He said Killian's secretary "would type them up, and he'd put it in his desk drawer and lock it."

First lady Laura Bush told an Iowa radio station Monday that the memos "probably are forgeries, and I think that's terrible, really." White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Tuesday that despite those comments, the White House has taken no position on whether the documents are fake.



Thanks to some anonymous person who posted this link over on the Political Animal comments section.

Hey. Look at the time. Goodnight all.


I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 6:16 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


To make this more explicit-

When Valerie Plame was "outed", where was the hue and cry about the danger that this poses to active field officers? The precedent that this sets when the Adminsitration outs an officer (who is protecting our security) for political reasons? The complicity of the press in doing something that is CLEARLY beyond the law? The right wing has to ask themselves where were they before?

They were busy blaming the husband of the victim. Instead of focusing on the treasonous act that was committed by the Admnistration, they did their best to divert attention to something that was entirely unrelated- Joe Wilson's credibility.

I happened to have heard an interview with an anonymous CIA officers shortly afterwards, and his voice was literally shaking. This was NOT- repeat NOT- inconsequential to people who put their lives on the line protecting OUR SECURITY.

What about the focus in Iraq at the beginning of the Administration, to the exclusion of terrorism? The lies (or very very serious mistakes in judgement) about WMD? Hiding the true costs of the drug plan from Congress ahead of the vote? Giving more money to the wealthy? Why is the right wing still waiting for "proof" that Bush is a terrible President?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 6:27 PM

SOUPCATCHER


I completely agree with you Signym. One of the most jaw dropping parts of this whole story is Robert Novak calling for CBS to release their sources (Jon Stewart came late to this theme last night but had a pretty good section on it). I personally happen to believe that Novak should not be required to reveal his source. Sure he was a slime to out a CIA agent. But journalistic sources should be protected. But it's also the height of hypocrisy for him to now call out CBS about their sources.

editted to add: There are some people out there, including members of my own family, who believe in this administration with an almost faith-based zeal.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 11:55 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Boy, I didn't hear about THAT one. Have they no shame? Oh wait, I think I already answered that one about being unembarassable! I was going to add to my post that if someone calls for CBS to reveal their sources, I was just going to pop back with "Make Novak reveal his." I wish there was a :sheesh: emoticon!

Just out of curiosity, what does your family see in Bush?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 5:18 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
To make this more explicit-

When Valerie Plame was "outed", where was the hue and cry about the danger that this poses to active field officers? The precedent that this sets when the Adminsitration outs an officer (who is protecting our security) for political reasons? The complicity of the press in doing something that is CLEARLY beyond the law? The right wing has to ask themselves where were they before?



I wondered about this as well. Where was the media that's checking every comma of 30 year old records and letting us know that Cheney uses mustard instead of (Heinz) catsup on his burgers when this much more serious violation occurred? I suspect the media is more interested in the current "forgery/not forgery" issue because they don't have to go after a reporter that won't reveal sources of true information, but instead one who just got fooled. The fact that it's part of the campaign media frenzy might have something to do with it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 5:19 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I completely agree with you Signym. One of the most jaw dropping parts of this whole story is Robert Novak calling for CBS to release their sources (Jon Stewart came late to this theme last night but had a pretty good section on it). I personally happen to believe that Novak should not be required to reveal his source. Sure he was a slime to out a CIA agent. But journalistic sources should be protected. ...



Wait...

This is an act of TREASON. Novak should be taken out and shot. The White House should be taken down for it.

But no... Americans don't care if thier country is run by liars, fascists, and murderers. On the flip side, the Washington Post and CNN doesn't care that they employ a traitor who endangered the life of a CIA agent and effectively ending that agents career while jeopordizing the security of the USA.

The issue is NOT journalistic sources. No one is sueing Novak or even threatening his job. Framing this as such is just a strawman arguement and, frankly, bullshit.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 7:56 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quick note to self: make sure that, if I'm going to post right before I go to bed, I put more detail in the posts.

There's multiple issues going on here. One of them is the issue of secrecy in government. Another is the issue of the responsibility of those who have access to classified material. A third issue is journalistic integrity. And there are probably more that should be unpacked.

Democracy fails when those in power are allowed to operate in complete secrecy. People like "Deep Throat" need to feel that they can leak information to journalists and their identities will remain unknown. If a journalist is compelled to give up their sources then the leaks dry up. This is separate from the nature of the information being leaked.

It is the responsibility of the person who is engaging in the leak to decide whether or not the information being leaked compromises the security of this country. If you are going to leak information then you should go through a cost/benefit analysis to determine if the good of the country is best served by this information becoming public (good of the country as a whole, NOT good of the administration). I tend to think that one of the stupidest phrases a person can use when talking to a journalist is "off the record." You should always assume that every single little thing you tell a journalist is fair game. The administration official who leaked this information was NOT motivated because they felt that this was a secret that was harmful to the people of this country. They WERE motivated by a desire to hurt a public critic of the administration. In fact, the actions of this administration official HURT the security of this country. Those actions ARE treasonous.

Journalists should always remember who it is they work for: the people. Journalistic integrity requires that you question the motives of those providing you with leaked information. Robert Novak was NOT working for the best interests of the people when he published this leaked information. He WAS facilitating the attack on Joe Wilson and, in so doing, participating in a treasonous action. But Novak did not have access to this classified information.

Now, there's a huge problem with Robert Novak. The guy is a sleaze. He's clearly an attack dog for this particular administration. He was not chosen at random for this particular leak. Of the four journalists originally contacted with the information about Plame's status as a CIA agent he was the only one to run with it. He had to know that the only reason this information was being leaked was to hurt Joe Wilson. He had to know that the administration was willing to burn an asset to take vengeance on someone who was publicly critical of the party line. He has been party to other attacks by this administration against those who come forward and are publicly critical against the party line. To sum it up, he's an example of someone who probably shouldn't be a journalist. He has shown that he has forgotten that he works for the people of this country, not for the administration. He has shown that he does not have journalistic integrity.

And I still think he has the right to protect his source. Even the most vile, evil, unlovable, nasty cretin has rights. Miranda (of the Miranda rights) was a huge sleaze. The problem here is that it's very hard to stick up for someone who is clearly violating the spirit of everything, but we still need to follow the letter of the law. We have to separate out the character of the person from their rights.

Should Robert Novak still be a journalist? In my opinion, no. But until the day he is not, he should be protected from having to reveal his source. It's okay to call for him to reveal his sources until we're blue in the face. But he has the right to say no.

This episode is a particularly nasty, but still representative, example of how this administration punishes those who are, in their perception, against them. This administration is notoriously close mouthed. Journalists who write anything remotely critical have their access limited. It is clear to me that this administration is primarily interested in preserving their own power. Every time someone comes forward with information that is critical of the administration their character is attacked. In this instance they went way too far and showed their true colors. In their attempt to attack Joe Wilson they showed that they cared less about the issue of WMDs as a threat to this nation's security and more about punishing someone who they saw as a threat to themselves. Plame was an undercover agent working on WMDs. Outing her also burned all of her assets. It set us back years in our intelligence work in that area. And it was done as easily as swatting a fly. That should tell us how important the threat of WMDs is to this administration.

The Plame investigation is ongoing. The last I read anything about it they were looking at Libby. I would be very surprised if the investigation concludes before the election. One of the problems with having the administration and the congress under the control of the same party is that investigations are slow and the findings are sanitized. But if it doesn't conclude with an arrest and trial for treason then I would be shocked.


I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:11 AM

GHOULMAN


^^^ Wow. I mean wow. That's got to be the most eloquent post I've read here.

I'd shave my beard for you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:15 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM
Just out of curiosity, what does your family see in Bush?



There are a couple who are single issue voters - members of the pro-life movement - who base their support solely on where a candidate stands on the topic of abortion. There are a few others who think of politics in terms of sports teams. The attacks on Bill Clinton really resonated with them and that's when they first started identifying with the Republican party. They get all of their information from Rush Limbaugh and Fox news. They are finally starting to realize that this administration hasn't done a good job running the country. But they'll probably still vote for Bush because they always root for their team to win, even if the team is having a losing season.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:16 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Thanks Ghoulman! There must have been something in the coffee this morning .

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:17 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Whatever was in the coffee I hope you make some more and pass it around! I could use some of that thinking clarifier/ eloquence amplifier... that was an awesome post.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 1:11 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ Wow. I mean wow. That's got to be the most eloquent post I've read here.




Planets stop in their orbits, suns explode, Ghoulman and I agree on something. Excellent analysis.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:45 AM

GHOULMAN


^^^ and I too wonder if those documents are real. They do seem to be highly suspicious. Still it's nothing compared to the public documents that show Bushes Guard records were tampered less than a year ago. They plan ahead these Bushites.

Do I think Dan Rather fugged up? *pfft*, sure! After all... this whole 'fake docs' issue has served the Bushites beautifully. Nice little rat fuck eh? 'Course, it's just my observation.

FYI - rat fucking is what campaign people call 'dirty tricks' in campaigning.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ and I too wonder if those documents are real. They do seem to be highly suspicious. Still it's nothing compared to the public documents that show Bushes Guard records were tampered less than a year ago. They plan ahead these Bushites.

Do I think Dan Rather fugged up? *pfft*, sure! After all... this whole 'fake docs' issue has served the Bushites beautifully. Nice little rat fuck eh? 'Course, it's just my observation.

FYI - rat fucking is what campaign people call 'dirty tricks' in campaigning.



Well, it was nice while it lasted.

While I agree that the Administration has been quick to make hay of the "fake documents", I have to think that it would have been an awfully risky tactic to have created and placed them in the first place.

To carry this out, someone in the Bush camp would have to:
1. Produce documents that would stand up to cursory review, but that could later be outed as fakes. A pretty fine line.
2. Get these documents to Rather via some route that Rather/CBS would trust enough to not do extensive validation of them. This seems the real stopper to me.
3. Blow the whistle, without being seen as the one doing so.
4. Cover their trail well enough that the entire resources of CBS News, not to mention every other news organization in the country, could never find a clue leading back to them.

Seems very high-risk and low benefit, considering the embarrassment if even a hint of Administration complicity leaked out.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm still waiting for the whole thiung to play out. I'm sure that CBS has gone back to their source (who they say is unimpeachable) and are basically leaning on him (her) with "Look, we went ahead based on your say-so and we're getting hammered. Give us more to go on."

Even the people closest to the origin of the memos, such as Killian's secretary, agree that the memos accurately reflect the concerns and issues of the time. It's possible that Killian typed them a few years after the fact to memorialize what happened, or he had someone type them for him. Given what happened to a lot of Bush's official records, this may not be as paranoid-sounding as you think.

As far as Bush's OFFICIAL record is concerned, it doesn't take a recent, concerted effort to clean up the files. I'm sure that anything incriminating was simply not filed in the first place, worded VERY carefully, or eliminated shortly afterwards. Bush was handled as a "special case" from the very beginning. If you have ever gone back into medical records to file a complaint- as I have done- you will be surprised at how unrevealing the records are. In Bush's case, I wouldn't be surprised if they followed the medical dictum- CHART CONSERVATIVELY.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 8:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Even the people closest to the origin of the memos, such as Killian's secretary, agree that the memos accurately reflect the concerns and issues of the time.



Not sure that's exactly the case. From the original Aoociated Press article:

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" 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," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years." Killian died in 1984."


The issue of the records themselves (the real ones) is about as germaine to the real issues of the election as John Kerry's records; not very. If Bush got "special treatment" to get him into the Guard, it wasn't any different than thousands, probably tens of thousands of sons of the rich or well-connected. If Kerry got Silver Stars for what other folks considered all in a day's work, or changed his mind about the war after he returned, that happened a lot too.

What should have the real impact is who was trying to game whom with the fakes. If the Administration was dumb enough to try to scam CBS at such risk and with such small potential return, they deserve to take the fall. I just don't see them being that dumb.

I'm really hoping CBS gets to the bottom of this. The latest AP report I saw indicates they are backtracking and checking their sources. I don't think thet their integrity in protecting sources would extend to someone who primed them with false info.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 8:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


But his secretary and best friend said it was an accurate reflection of the times.

Quote:

What should have the real impact is who was trying to game whom with the fakes.


This is a VERY limited and non-contextual view of the issue. Why would you just go to that point and stop? Why not try to discern the truth of that matter? Did Bush get preferential treatment? Did he serve his time? Were his OFFICIAL records faked, or redacted to the point of being fake? If Bush did not complete his service and missed physicals, why not? Was he too heavily involved in drugs and/or politics at the time? What WAS he doing then?

But even limiting the enquiry to "fake information", why stop at this memo? Expanding the scope to faked info in general, what about the forged documents on yellowcake uranium? The fake info from Chalabi? The fake costs analysis provided to Congress on drug benefits? The fake testimony of SBVT?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 9:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:


Quote:

What should have the real impact is who was trying to game whom with the fakes.


This is a VERY limited and non-contextual view of the issue. Why would you just go to that point and stop?



Because it's the topic of this thread? Where's Ghoulman and his "you're going off topic to distract us!" rants when I need one?

What's important about the CBS documents is whether they're fake or not, and, if they are fake, where they came from.

If you want to start yet another thread about that other stuff, please go ahead.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 11:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


CBS has many documents, not just those memos. What's important is whether the documents - memos included- reflect the truth. I asked those questions to put the topic back into context.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 11:25 AM

SOUPCATCHER


It's hard to keep track of all the players without a scorecard. With that said, here I go . (Oh, and for the record, the coffee I made this morning wasn't as good as usual).

There's a whole bunch of stuff going on here (just off the top of my head in no particular order of relevance without any attempt to draw connections). The first is the relevance of Bush's National Guard service to this election. The second is the nature of that service (did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting in the Guard, did Bush fulfill his obligations while in the Guard, were steps taken on Bush's behalf to get an honorable discharge). The third is the nature of the documents Dan Rather reported on. The fourth is the paper trail of evidence concerning Bush's guard service. And a bunch more.

Is Bush's guard service relevant to this election? To me, not really. What is, in my mind, relevant is that Bush has continued to make claims over the years, and continuing to this day, about that service that are brought into question by evidence from a number of different sources (eyewitness as well as documentation). This is an issue of character. It's one thing to make mistakes in the past, own up to those mistakes, and move on. It's another to deny that mistakes were ever made, make claims that appear to not be substantiated by any evidence, and stick to that story. So the actual service itself in my mind is not as important an issue as what has been claimed about that service in all the years following.

What do we know about Bush's National Guard service? Bush has repeatedly claimed that he received no preferential treatment in getting into the guard. There are witnesses who say that he did (I can't really say anything about the accuracy of accounts from Barnes or Bush's Harvard professor). The only thing we can say for sure based on documentation is there was a long waiting list and that Bush made the cut with test scores that appear to be average. Bush completed flight training and from the records things appear to be going well until around 1972. Then something happens. Bush does not renew his flight physical. Bush requests to go to Alabama to work on a political campaign. There are questions about whether or not Bush ever showed up for duty in Alabama. Bush's superiors don't fill out an evaluation form. Bush requests early release to go to graduate school at Harvard. Bush is placed on inactive status. Bush is taken off inactive status and given an honorable discharge. From the paper trail it appears that Bush was turned over to Denver when he went to Harvard. Denver placed him on inactive. Some documents from Texas got him taken off inactive and then the discharge.

What do we know about the documents Dan Rather reported on? They are not duplicates of any of the files that the White House turned over in February, or that were released earlier this month, or that were received through FOIA requests by private citizens in 2000 and on. They appear to be from Killian's private files. There is solid evidence that these documents are forgeries. There is also solid evidence that these documents are an attempt at recreating documents which were in existence at one time (The reason that I say solid is that there is one truism I have learned over time – if you want to know what is really happening in an office you will talk to the secretary/admin. They are the gatekeepers and the keymasters.). CBS received these documents as faxes from a Kinko's in Texas and never actually saw originals. One expert verified that the signatures were Killian's. There was some doubt about the authenticity of the documents at CBS. Rather went with the story anyway. The documents were faxed to the White House before the story aired. The White House released these documents to reporters. When asked why the documents weren't questioned, the WH spokesperson said that they had no reason to think that they were not legit. This gets to an interesting point: what would the value add of these documents be? Do they add anything to the existing state of knowledge about this topic that cannot be gleaned from other, reliable, documentation? A few bits and pieces – the direct order and the pressure from those with more power. One reason, in my mind, to accept the content is that nothing in the documents raised a red flag at the White House. They had the documents before they aired and released them. I would have expected them to make some statement that they had reservations about the documents based on the content, but no statements were made. And, as stated during yesterday's press briefing, they had no reason to think that these documents were not legit. So we have a case of Dan Rather making a huge mistake in running with this story. But all that he accomplished was to muddy the waters. He didn't really add any value to the investigation and he most certainly succeeded in casting doubt on the work of others. He has also opened the door for attacks to be made against both campaigns. Was Rather played? Most certainly.

So who forged these documents? Based on the comments of Killian's secretary it was probably someone who saw the originals. There are enough discrepancies that she was able to say that this was not her work (signature on wrong side, grp instead of gp, etc) so the forger probably did not have the documents in front of them (But this depends on the motivation for the forgery). The current likely suspect is Burkett (I think his first name is Bill). This story is unfolding as we speak so I'm taking more of a wait and see approach. From what I have been able to gather, the evidence against Burkett so far is circumstantial but decent (he lives close to the Kinko's in question). The next step is for someone to pull the security video footage from that particular Kinko's for the point in time at which the faxes were sent to see who the person was.

Then we have all the documents that bear on Bush's National Guard service. There are many people out there who have been working on this story for years. I, personally, have done no original research so I have to rely on others. The general consensus is that there is no evidence that Bush satisfactorily completed his National Guard service. There are numerous holes in the documentation. The White House has claimed that they released all the documents in February. There was at least one minor discrepancy between the documents they released in February and documents received through FOIA requests in 2000. More documents were released at the beginning of this month through an FOIA by the AP that still do not cover all the gaps. The White House is now stating that they are going to release some more documentation. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the claim that all the documents had been released is false.

So it's a mess.

Let me try to address your points, Geezer, about the problems in the theory that Karl Rove was behind these forgers. I agree with you that number 2 is the sticking point. Number 1 is easy if you have the originals in front of you. All you have to do is make a few minor mistakes, reproduce the memos using a word processor, cut and paste Killian's signature, and copy the hell out of these things before you fax them. Number 3 is also easy because of the manner in which these documents were questioned. The claims of forgery were started on the internet. The freepers were the ones who spread the story like crazy and it exploded. All you would have to do is plant one solitary message on the freeper boards to start the ball rolling. It would be next to impossible to figure out which particular message started the ball rolling. Number 4 remains to be seen.

The other two possibilities are that this was a product of the Kerry campaign or that it was the work of a lone gunman. For the first scenario, numbers 2 and 4 still apply.

So the only accomplishment of this post appears to be answering any question with, "It depends…"


I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
So, how ya feelin’ about World War 3?
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:32 - 48 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:28 - 22 posts
A History of Violence, what are people thinking?
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:16 - 19 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:16 - 4794 posts
Browncoats, we have a problem
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:41 - 15 posts
Sentencing Thread
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:39 - 382 posts
Ukraine Recommits To NATO
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:37 - 27 posts
Elon Musk
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:36 - 36 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Sat, November 30, 2024 17:58 - 1542 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sat, November 30, 2024 17:40 - 6932 posts
Hollywood LOVES them some Harvey Weinstein!!
Sat, November 30, 2024 14:33 - 16 posts
Manbij, Syria - 4 Americans Killed
Sat, November 30, 2024 14:06 - 6 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL