Hey that's great, man. One question. Where are the "originals"??? Please wake me up when you find them. If the forged documents weren't original in the first place, then why was this even a story to begin with? Not to worry. In a few more days, it won't be. BTW, your post seems very angry and brittle. Lighten up and put on a happy face. The election isn't over yet.
Faos: "I thought they said the memo contained fonts that weren't available or even invented back then?" They did say that, but they were wrong, as explained in the link I provided earlier. This was reiterated in a statement from CBS News: <blockquote><i>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." CBS News Anchor Dan Rather says many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th." Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript – including one from 1968. Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s. But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style says it has been available since 1931.</i></blockquote>
ima_drummer2k: "Where are the "originals"??? Please wake me up when you find them. [...] BTW, your post seems very angry and brittle. Lighten up and put on a happy face. The election isn't over yet." I am an angry, brittle man! I assume CBS has the originals. What I meant to say was that the the people claiming they are forgeries were basing it on images from the CBS website (or mirrors), not the originals. I haven't seen them myself, but I once wrote an article for a DTP publication on using a computer to simulate a typewritten letter. If these are forgeries, they should have hired me. I would have done a better job.
And typical. Count on Rush to run with the "forged documents" story, and talking heads on Fox and the other news outlets, as long as they dare, to keep trying to make the seeds of doubt grow and flourish. Cheney will probably refer to it as soon as he can, then have a "spokesperson" proclaim that "he was taken out of context" and so on and so on. You would think that the American people, and most particularly Republicans, would start to see a pattern here. I guess it's more comfortable to repeat the Rove/RNC/etc. line, then to grapple with just how their candidate is playing the re-election game this year.
Did you count on your other network partners in liberalism, NBC and ABC, to run with the forged documents story? They did.
Could they be forged? Yes Are they forged? I doubt it. Is any of this an issue to me, an undecided voter? No I'd rather hear the truth about real issues like... Who the canidates would put up for supreme court nominations if one came available. What each canidate would do about the rising cost of health insurance? What each canidate would do about the rising cost of gas? What each canidate would do to end Iraq/Afganistan in a clean efficient manner? What each canidate would do fight terrorism without infringing on our personal freedoms? What each canidate would do best help the average american family? I haven't heard much about any of these issues and I'm getting a bit disgusted by each canidate and their parties tactics.
You missed my point. The ones you mentioned will report both sides of the story. Not because they are bastions of liberalism... I wish they were, but because that's what you're supposed to do. The outlets I mentioned aren't interested in both sides, just the Administration's side. Sadly, you obviously don't see the difference, or understand what Bush and his people are doing. That's OK. I wouldn't expect anything else.
Interesting how once the attention began being placed on these horsesh!t documents CBS has redirected everyone's focus to all of this other "preponderence of evidence". Also, does it seem to anyone like CBS is going over the top with its attack on W? I don't recall any hardcore evidence searches for Kerry's questionable past. It is amazing that the country is divided. With reporting this disgenuine you'd think the masses would all flock to the dem side.
Kerry's past isn't questionable, but anyway apparently you haven't been reading newspapers or watching television at any point over the past month to see the Republcan Swift Boat Veterans for Bush getting airtime on or in the news despite their highly dubious claims every single day. It's depressing to me to see that some people are so partisan as to fail to be able to notice And its "disingenuous"
I know. I'm retarted at 6:30 AM. As far as the rest of your post of course I have seen that stuff. Every day ad naseum. It's hard to describe...the way things are reported are totally different. It's minor differences in tone, verbiage, and expression that collectively make a completely different story. Look at the difference in these two statements: Swift Vets Maintain the Truth behind their Tale. and Micheal Moore's Fahrenheit 911 Scrutinized by Republican Doubters Both statements are true. But the word choice is spun. It's the same way on TV.
Regardless of what's right or wrong, it certainly looks as if CBS didn't do enough research before going with this story. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002032742_bushguard11.html More challenges about whether Bush documents are authentic By Pete Slover The Dallas Morning News AUSTIN, Texas — The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugarcoat" George W. Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo supposedly was written, his service record shows. An order obtained by The Dallas Morning News shows that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged March 1, 1972. CBS News reported this week that a memo in which Staudt was described as interfering with officers' negative evaluations of the future president's service was dated Aug. 18, 1973. That added to mounting questions about the authenticity of documents that seem to suggest Bush sought special treatment as a pilot, failed to carry out a superior's order to undergo a physical exam and was suspended from flying for failing to meet Air National Guard standards. Staudt, who lives in New Braunfels, Texas, did not return calls seeking comment. His discharge paper was among documents obtained by The Morning News from official sources during 1999 research into Bush's Guard record. A CBS staffer stood by the story, suggesting Staudt could have continued to exert influence over Guard officials. But a former high-ranking Guard official disputed that, saying retirement would have left Staudt powerless. Authenticity of the memo and three others included in Wednesday's "60 Minutes" report came in for heavy criticism yesterday, prompting an unusual, on-air defense of the original work. Experts on typography said the memos appeared to have been computer-drafted on equipment not available at the time. And the widow and son of the officer who supposedly wrote them, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984, have said it wasn't his nature to keep detailed personal notes. In its news broadcast yesterday, CBS said the documents were supported by both unnamed witnesses and others, including document examiners. CBS anchor Dan Rather earlier told The Dallas Morning News that he had heard nothing to make him question the legitimacy of the memos. He attributed the backlash to partisan politics and competitive journalism. "This story is true. The questions we raised about then-Lieutenant Bush's National Guard service are serious and legitimate," he said. "Until and unless someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill." The Washington Post quoted Rather as saying CBS had talked to two people who worked with Killian — his superior, retired Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, and his administrative assistant Robert Strong — and both described the memos as consistent with what they knew of Killian. Hodges, who told CBS he was "familiar" with the documents, is an avid Bush supporter and "it took a lot for him to speak the truth," the Post quoted Rather as saying. _ The Los Angeles Times, however, later quoted Hodges as saying that he believed the memos from Killian were not real. A CBS news executive confirmed that Hodges had changed his story. Rather's interview with The Morning News concluded before the newspaper determined the date of Staudt's departure, but a CBS staffer with extensive knowledge of the story said later that the departure doesn't derail the story. "From what we've learned, Staudt remained very active after he retired," the staffer said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "He was a very bullying type, and that could have continued." In the "60 Minutes" report, Rather said of the memo's contents: "Killian says Col. Buck Staudt, the man in charge of the Texas Air National Guard, is putting on pressure to 'sugarcoat' an evaluation of Lt. Bush." Staudt was the person Bush initially contacted about Guard service, and he was the group commander at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston when Bush arrived there to fly an F-102 jet. He transferred later to Austin, where he served as chief of staff for the Air National Guard. In the disputed memo, Killian supposedly wrote "(another officer) gave me a message today from group regarding Bush's (evaluation) and Staudt is pushing to sugarcoat it." It continues: "Austin is not happy either." The CBS staffer said the memo appears to recognize that Staudt has retired, since it differentiates between his displeasure and that of Austin, where he served his final Guard stint. But another Texas Air National Guard official who served in that period said the memo appears to wrongly associate Staudt with his group command in Houston, and — based on that mistake — the memo distinguishes his views from that of the Austin Guard. Retired Col. Earl Lively, director of Air National Guard operations for the state headquarters during 1972 and 1973, said Staudt "wasn't on the scene" after retirement, and that CBS' remote-bullying thesis makes no sense. "He couldn't bully them. He wasn't in the Guard," Lively said. "He couldn't affect their promotions. Once you're gone from the Guard, you don't have any authority." Bush has not commented publicly about the CBS report, and aides say his honorable discharge proves he fulfilled his obligations.
No. No confusion. Except that, like Chance, I'm not at my best at 4:49am in the night (hey, it was still "the night" to me!), except that I'm not whatever that word was that he used. I'm more on the demented side. What can I say? I've liked and trusted Dan Rather since he was a reporter in Houston, back in the early '60's. I watched him do his coverage of Hurricane Carla, live, with the water rising, and the wind howling. What he did was brazen and a superb job of reporting. It made his reputation. He says that he stands by the story he reported on Bush's Guard service, or the "alleged" lack of it. So, I believe him, until I've been convinced otherwise. And that has yet to happen.
I don't see much difference, anyway you could have picked a more analogous context, in fact, I'll do it for you. CBS stands by challenged documents on Bush Swift Vets Maintain the Truth behind their Tale. Now tell me what the problem is? (actually, I know what it is: Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. )
1) While the font used in these "memos" was available in 1931, it was not on available on a typewriter until 1985... one year after Mr. Killian died. 2) The "sugar coated" info on the glowing reports, as alleged on these "memos" and allegedly happened due to pressure from a General in the year indicated on the document, was no longer a General at the time the "memo" was alleged to have been typed, according to an article published in 1999 by the Amarillo Globe. 3) These "memos" have what is known as "kerning" going on, where one letter actually wraps into the space of another... something late '60's - early '70's typewriters could not display... but was built in to all word processors and word processing programs such as MS Word, and Corel WP. 4) The letterhead of these "memos" is innacurate. 5) The signatures do not match other signatures by Killian on documents 100% verified as original and authentic. (Some have middle initial, some do not.) 6) The rank indicated on these "memos" allegedly by Killian himslef, do not reflect the "Tex ANG" designation as other signatures by Killian on documents 100% verified as original and authentic. An officer ALWAYS indicates his/her rank in proper protocol WITHOUT FAIL. 7) Both ex-wife and son of Killian claim that these "memos" would be totally out of character for Killian... and that for an officer to keep such files would be unrequired or, for Killian, totally unuseful. Both the ex-wife and son advised CBS of the "memos" being unauthentic, but were ignored. 8) CBS had this story for 6 weeks prior to releasing it. Why do it now? In other news, Ben Barnes wasn't in office the year Bush got into the TxANG... Bush entered in 1968, Barnes went into office in 1969... And his daughter now claims he's lying anyway, and that he's a co-chairman of the Kerry campaign... according to her live interview on WBAP AM radio in Dallas. Something's fishy in Denmark. -- -- -- -- -- btw- if you want the sources, you do the googling. "Hi. I'm Dan Rather, and I should resign. I am a disgrace to American journalism. I help give less credibility to my entire media genre. I must resign, and go crawl under a rock now." Good web site on all of Rather's biased falsified reporting
All this debate about what happened 25 years ago is detracting from the debate about what should be done NOW. Why can't either party focus on the important issues?
