I don't think there was any allegation that 60 minutes or CBS invented the documents. If they are indeed forgeries then they are at fault for the same reason that the media is at fault for airing the acccounts of the Swift Boat liars with little regard for their credibility. (of course, the Bush administration relied on (badly) forged documents when dealing with the infamous Niger uranium transaction in order to go to war in Iraq but that's not the point) The media now just blindly reports whatever campaign or affiliated group wants them to report, probably out of fear of being criticized if they don't.
Of course, Kerry has the chance to call their lie by simply singing the 180 form. Mysteriously he won't sign it. Maybe they aren't lying... Of course, we know the Swifties are not lying about Cambodia, about testifying before Congress, and about tossing medals. Those veterans deserve the chance to exercise their First Amendment Right. John Kerry has no right to silence them. And he can't.
It's funny that my eight-year-old nephew watched this yesterday and afterwards he told me that he would never grow up to be a politician. Even a kid understands that negative campaigning is bad.
The first thing that I thought of upon reading about the media-specific concerns (even putting aside the knee-jerk "liberal media conspiricy" bunk) was the famous Niger-Iraq Uranium falsification. I don't think that this sort of thing is somehow exclusively a media-specific failing.
Because that particular typeset technology wasn't used on every document in 1973? Or that a widow doesn't remember her husband typing up that report? Sorry, that doesn't mean scream forgery to me. But, who knows, it may be forged. I don't know. But I do know that none of the information included on the document has been disputed -- just the document. To me, that says a smokescreen is likely.
Maybe, maybe no. But Rather's digging in. http://drudgereport.com/cbsd2.htm XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX FRI SEPT 10, 2004 12:01:25 ET XXXXX RATHER DIGS IN: THE DOCUMENTS ARE AUTHENTIC CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather publicly defended his reporting Friday morning after questions were raised about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos aired on CBS which asserted that George W. Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer in the Texas Air National Guard. CNN TRANSCRIPT: (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology? QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or... RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. 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, which I just gave you earlier. (END VIDEO CLIP) CBS NEWS executives on Thursday launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush's National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. "The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday. Developing...
How come when some people use potentially forged documents do they become the great evil to the same people who support the President even though he based one of his major claims for war on potentially forged documents?
Interesting that the experts who "analyzed" the documents and concluded they were forgeries never saw the originals, just copies. Anyone who has touched something produced on a typewriter knows that you can feel the impression the keystroke made on the paper. To conclude these came from a laser printer without seeing the original is idiotic. As for the typeface, superscripts, proportional spacing, etc., these prove nothing. The IBM Executive typewriter could have produced the memos and was used by government agencies in the '60s. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603 Anyway, if you were going to go to all the work of forging a document to slime Bush, wouldn't you do more than say he "discussed ways to get out of drills"? Wouldn't you say "caught Bush with coke again -- shipping his lazy ass to Alabama"? The whole thing is irrelevant, anyway. We already knew Bush shirked his duty in Vietnam, and we already know he was an alcoholic and was arrested for drunk driving. No one cares because it was when he was "yourg and irresponsible." His conversion as a born-again Christian is like a "get out of jail free" card. I'd rather see the media focusing on the dozens of campaign promises Bush has broken. Instead they're mired in the mud, talking trivia......
I thought they said the memo contained fonts that weren't available or even invented back then? Regardless, Rather is supposed to address it during the news at 5:30 to try and save face.
Even if the documents are forged -- and remember, none of the debunkers have even seen the originals -- how on earth do they compare to Watergate? Also, just out of curiosity, are you conspiracy theory buffs equally outraged by the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Remember William Schachte, who said Kerry's first Purple Heart was the unearned result of a self-inflicted scratch during a nighttime mission that received no enemy fire? Turns out Schachte wasn't even there! And according to Swift Boat skipper Richard Rood, neither was John O'Neill, another supposed eyewitness.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml CBS Stands By Bush-Guard Memos NEW YORK, Sept. 10, 2004 Questions have been raised about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos acquired by CBS News that say President Bush's National Guard commander believed Mr. Bush was shirking his duties. The network is defending the authenticity of the memos, which were obtained by CBS News' "60 Minutes," saying experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Mr. Bush's former commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. 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. Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. But he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with. Matley did this interview with us prior to Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones. "We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person." Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence. Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures." Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the documents have come up. "I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it." Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real. "They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved." Killian died in 1984. Strong says the highly charged political atmosphere of the National Guard at the time was perfectly represented in the new documents. "It verged on outright corruption in terms of the favors that were done, the power that was traded. And it was unconscionable from a moral and ethical standpoint. It was unconscionable," Strong said. The president's service record emerged as an issue during the 2000 race and again this winter. The Killian documents revived the issue of Mr. Bush's time in uniform after weeks in which Democratic challenger John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester. The questions about Mr. Bush's service center on how Mr. Bush got into the Guard and whether he fulfilled his duties during a period from mid-1972 to mid-1973. What the Killian memos purport to show is that Mr. Bush defied a direct order to appear for a physical exam, that his performance as an officer was lacking in other ways and that Mr. Bush used family connections to try to quash any inquiry into his lapses. In a separate revelation, the Boston Globe this week reported that Mr. Bush promised to sign up with a Boston-area unit when he left his Texas unit in 1973 to attend Harvard Business School. Mr. Bush never signed up with a Boston unit.
