These rock. ================== also... http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200409100809.asp What the Bush Guard Papers Really Say The CBS story just doesn’t add up. On May 2, 1973, one of George W. Bush's superior officers in the Texas National Guard wrote an evaluation of him that would later become famous. By that date, Bush had long since gone to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign, and Lt. Col. William D. Harris wrote that "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp., Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." Harris marked "Not Observed" in the boxes in which he was directed to grade Bush's performance. What was less noticed about the report is that another Texas Air National Guard officer, Lt. Colonel Jerry B. Killian, wrote, "I concur with the comments of the reporting official" just below Harris' account. The document — with Killian's signature — was among a thick stack of papers from Bush's Air National Guard years released in February by the White House. Now Killian himself is in the news. On Wednesday, CBS News released four previously undisclosed documents which it said were written by Killian, who died in 1984. One of them, dated August 18, 1973, refers to Killian's reluctance to evaluate Bush's performance. Suggesting that top Texas Air National Guard officers were putting pressure on him to "sugar coat" Bush's performance rating, Killian wrote, "Bush wasn't here during rating period and I don't have any feedback from 187th in Alabama. I will not rate." But as the first document suggests, months before, Killian — and Harris — had quite decisively declined to rate Bush's performance. If Killian was under pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance, he had certainly not yielded to it. Nor had anyone else "sugar coated" the Bush evaluation. A year before the "Not Observed" rating, according to the CBS documents, Killian was again concerned about the possibility of special treatment for Bush. A document attributed to Killian, dated May 4, 1972, orders Bush to report for a physical examination. Then another document, dated May 19, 1972, says Killian had a phone conversation with Bush about the young lieutenant's desire to transfer to an Air National Guard unit in Alabama. Bush, according to the document, said he might not have time to take his physical exam. "I advised him of our investment in him and his commitment," the document says, purportedly in Killian's words. "I also told him I had to have written acceptance before he would be transferred, but think he's also talking to someone upstairs." But according to the documents released by the White House, just seven days later, on May 26, 1972, Killian signed on to a glowing report of Bush's performance. "Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer," the report, written by Harris, said. "He eagerly participates in scheduled unit activities." The evaluation even took approving note of the fact that, "Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate." Below Harris's signature, there was the statement, "I concur with the comments and ratings of the reporting official," signed by Killian. And a year before that, on May 27, 1971, Killian concurred with yet another evaluation that said, "Lt. Bush is an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot...[He] possesses sound judgment and is mature beyond his age and experience level.... He continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." When viewed together, the documents released by the White House in February, which are unquestionably authentic, and the documents released by CBS, which many experts suggest may be forgeries, portray Killian as Jekyll-and-Hyde figure. Publicly, he praised Bush, while privately, in memos CBS says he wrote only for his own files, he expressed serious misgivings about the treatment given the prominent young officer. There has been a great amount of analysis of the questionable typography and appearance of the CBS memos. But as the events described above suggest, even if there were no physical questions about the documents, the story they tell still wouldn't add up. And there are other, smaller questions. For example, none of the documents released by the White House bears the letterhead "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron/P.O. Box 34567/Houston, Texas 77034," and yet that is at the head of two of the CBS documents. Perhaps more importantly, on every document released by the White House last February, Killian's name is written, "JERRY B. KILLIAN, Lt. Colonel, TexANG," the last letters referring to the Texas Air National Guard. But on the two CBS documents with Killian's name on them, he is simply called "Lt. Colonel" or "Lt. Colonel/Commander." Judging by the earlier documents, it would have been somewhat out of character for Killian to refer to his rank without mentioning the Texas Air National Guard. Yet that is what he is purported to have done in the CBS documents. Now, Killian's widow has cast still more doubt on the CBS papers. "Number one, he would not have typed because he did not type," Marjorie Connell told ABC News. "Number two, the wording in these documents is very suspect to me. I just don't believe that, it looks like some things may have been picked up out of a document and then other things just made fictitiously to fill in things, to make them flow. I just can't believe that this is his words, my late husband's words." And finally, Killian's son has also questioned the CBS documents. Referring to the "sugar coat" memo in particular, Gary Killian told the Associated Press, "It just wouldn't happen. The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things.... No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."
Here's a flash presentation of how this was forged... http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf Rather, you should resign. Good link to all of the side by side, and overlapped type font samples... http://peterduncan.net/CBS_Documents.html And for "trusted" news source... how about - http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html Bye, bye Kerry and co.
If the documents were indeed forged, this whole deal makes no sense. For one thing, just how dumb could the Kerry campaign be to make such crappy forged documents? I mean, surely they have the money to buy a typewriter from the 70s to make sure it looks right. That's a mistake so dumb it's not even funny. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might be saying that Karl Rove did it. I'm also shocked that CBS went ahead with it despite the problems with the document. I believe the scrutiny came just a day after the airing of 60 minutes 2. If it's so easy to pick up on the problems, why did they take the risk to air it? Pretty weird story all around.
been out of tow for a few days, so i missed most of this thread, but this particular point needs to be corrected. in the case of the swift boats, the major media putlets ignored the story, while the blogosphere kept it alive. when the times, post, cbs, et al did report it, it was always in the context of kerry calling them liars, or of their own efforts to debunk the story. in the case of bush's service, big media has lead the charge, with long, uncritical, multi-page exposes reported above the fold. now, with CBS' obvious willingness to play pro-kerry cheerleader (on acid?!?) we're siing the consequences of their own bias. at this point, there's no difference in the reliability or objectivity of the times/post/cbs on the one side, and any random blog on the other.
...and dude, you really ought to give us a warning about what's on tubgirl before someone (me) decides to type the url into firefox...
Best Post this forum has seen in months. after i corrected the spelling of "canidate", he he spell nazi.
Outstanding points. If this doesn't prove that CBS is in the bag for SKerry and his ilk, I don't know what is. Like you, I've been out of town (San Fran in the People's Republic of California....a lot of fun), but I've been itching to comment on this. I find it hilarious that Terry "The Punk" McAulife was accusing the GOP ?! of planting this, but I guess when you go insane, you should not hold back. You should go all out! Just like Gore! I smell a landslide and I sense a great deal of bellyaching come late November and December from our leftist friends.
this from the american spectator http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7099 -- MEANWHILE, OVER THE WEEKEND journalists from around the country were attempting to track down the original source of the documents. "We're having a hard time tracking how we got the documents," says the CBS News producer. "There are at least two people in this building who have insisted we got copies of these memos from the Kerry campaign by way of an additional source. We do not have the originals, and our sources have indicated to us that we will not be getting the originals. How that is possible I don't know."
I thought it was funny that they went through the effort to blur part of it out. Guess they didn't want to be too offensive.
This story is really not about W, it's about a lying media that is so eager to get Kerry elected that it will set aside even the facade of professionalism. Right now they are in full panic mode because, despite their best efforts to help the Dems, Kerry is running what is beginning to look like a losing campaign.
Is this the same media that gave GWB a free ride with Iraq? Don't confuse incompetence with conspiracy theories.
That MS Wizard gag was hilarious, IROC it. Thanks. I love the little paper clip guy gags. The funny thing is, if there were a "forging a memo" wizard, it would have produced something even worse than the alleged Killian memos! However: 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. This isn't true. The IBM Executive (even the Selectric II, one of the most popular typewriters of all time) had the font dating to the '60s. It's very hard to tell from the third generation copies on the CBS web site, but it does not appear to be Times. 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. According to USA Today, "Bob Strong, a former Texas Air National Guard officer who was assigned to state headquarters in 1972, said Sunday that Staudt was powerful and well-connected in Texas politics and had been influential in getting Bush into the Guard. 'Because of his political connections, he still had the potential to become involved in political decisions with Bush,' Strong said." 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. There is no kerning in the letters. They appear to be proportionally spaced, which is slightly unusual, but even the Selectric II could do that, depending on the cartridge you used. This isn't evidence of forgery. 4) The letterhead of these "memos" is innacurate. This is unclear, but I wouldn't know. 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.) Again, this is untrue. The best you could possible claim is that opinion is divided on the signature. Some experts have said the signatures do match. 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. This is a good point. I know the Staff Sgt or sec'y who typed the memos (if genuine) would have been highly trained, but I wonder if errors like the above, if they crept in, would caused someone to have them retyped, considering they were not intended as official correspondence. Maybe they were just filed and forgotten. (Remember, Killian's ex-wife has said Killian didn't type. Someone typed these for him, so all the arguments about how it would have been too complicated for him to have typed them are bogus.) 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. Not entirely true. They repudiate the memos, but did not do so until after the story ran. And don't forget, Killian's supervisor is on record as saying the memos were in character for Killian. (He based this on the text of the memos, not their appearance. To be fair, when he saw the documents, he said they looked like forgeries. But he did say the words were in character and reflected discussions they had had.) 8) CBS had this story for 6 weeks prior to releasing it. Why do it now? It was a 60 Minutes piece, and newsmagazine shows have a much longer lead time than news broadcasts. In addition, it was a complicated piece with a lot of fact checking. Did they want to maximize ratings by airing it during September instead of burying it among reruns? Probably. I don't know what you mean by "had this story," nor how you know that, but if they were planning the timing of the piece for political purposes, they would have waited till late October! 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. "News"? "Wasn't in office"? And you're complaining about Dan Rather's credibility??? Check the record. Ben Barnes was speaker of the house in 1968. A powerful position, especially in Texas. http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/leaders/speakerbio.html Barnes made no secret of his political leanings, unlike, say, John O'Neill, when he said Swift Boat Vets "have no partisan ties" to the Bush-Cheney campaign. All of the above notwithstanding, I am not convinced the memos are genuine. But I still wonder: if they are forged, why are thery so banal? There's really only one thing in them that isn't already part of the public record (about Bush disobeying a direct order to take the physical). All the rest is already on the record. Why bother to forge them?
more from john fund: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110005611 -- Gary Killian, Gen. Killian's son, says CBS apparently didn't call several people he suggested they contact who would have contradicted the CBS story. Bobby Hodges, a former Texas Air National Guard general whom "60 Minutes" claimed had authenticated the memos, says that when he was read them over the phone he assumed they were handwritten and wasn't told that CBS didn't have the originals. He now says he doesn't believe the memos are genuine. the man cited in the memo as pressuring Mr. Killian to "sugar coat" the Bush military record had left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written. In addition, typewriters with perfect centering ability were nonexistent in 1972 and 1973, and National Guard regulations barred the maintenance of such records. Mr. Killian's widow adds that her late husband kept no personal files from his Guard duty, notes that CBS won't reveal its source, and says the memos are bogus. Earl Lively, director of operations for the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s, told the Washington Times that the memos are "forged as hell." CBS's fallback defense is that its story was only partly based on the documents and points to its on-camera interview with former Texas House speaker and lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who claimed that he pulled strings to gain a place for Mr. Bush in the National Guard. But Mr. Barnes is clearly unreliable. The New York Times reported last February that an unnamed former Texas official--later revealed to be Mr. Barnes--was telling reporters he had interceded on behalf of Mr. Bush but that his story "was subject to change, and there were no documents to support his claims." Indeed, Mr. Barnes's own daughter says her father's story can't be trusted. Amy Barnes Stites called a talk radio show Thursday to report that her father had told her a different version in 2000, when Mr. Bush first ran for president. "I love my father very much, but he's doing this for purely political reasons," she said. "He is a big Kerry fund-raiser and he is writing a book also. And the [Bush story] is what he's leading the book off with. . . . denied this to me in 2000 that he did get Bush out (of Vietnam). Now he's saying he did." When hostess Monica Crowley asked Ms. Stites if she believed her father had lied in his interview on "60 Minutes," she replied "Yes, I do. I absolutely do."
basso: Good finds. I don't know if I would trust the American Spectator over CBS, or Barnes' daughter over him, but I agree that the burden of proof has not been met on this matter. I say throw the documents out -- it wouldn't damage the case against Bush in any way.
check out rathergate.com and i thought your earlier post above was excellent. didn't agree with it, but it was on point (point for point, in fact) and blessedly free of partisan spleen and invective. something to aspire to.
Free ride? I remember the first weekend of the war when they were starting to use the q word simply because of a dust storm and a few casualties. Here's an interesting bit on Staudt. When Dukakis was running against Bentsen back in '88, the Boston Globe produced a story about Bentsen's son's service in the TANG and that story listed Staudt's retirement date as 1975. Maybe that's where the folks at Terry McAuliffe's Magical Forging Factory got their incorrect info. See: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/045664.php
