CBS' Big Blunder?

[kg_veteran]

Finally, some love for the blogosphere, and the truth about CBS' motivations...

*****

CBS'S BIG BLUNDER?

By JOHN PODHORETZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
link

September 10, 2004 -- THE populist revolu tion against the so- called mainstream media continues. Yesterday, the citizen journalists who produce blogs on the Internet — and their engaged readers — engaged in the wholesale exposure of what appears to be a presidential-year dirty trick against George W. Bush.

What the bloggers and their audiences did was call into profound question the authenticity of four documents proudly trumpeted by CBS News in a much-heralded investigative report on Wednesday night's edition of "60 Minutes" about the president's National Guard service in the early 1970s.

These were "previously unseen documents . . . obtained by '60 Minutes,' " the network bragged Wednesday night on its Web site. Their author, supposedly, was Bush's squadron commander, Jerry Killian, who died 20 years ago.

They "include a memorandum from May 1972," CBS reports, "where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about 'how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November.' " A document dated "18 August 1973" complains that Killian is being asked to "sugar coat" Bush's record. "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job," the document says.

Liberals went wild with glee about the story, especially after the onslaught on John Kerry's Vietnam record by his fellow Swift-boat veterans.

Kevin Drum, the most talented of the left-wing bloggers, wrote: "This story is a perfect demonstration of the difference between the Swift-boat controversy and the National Guard controversy. Both are tales from long ago and both are related to Vietnam, but . . . in the National Guard case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence provides additional confirmation that the charges against Bush are true."

Drum simply assumed that the documents were above-board. So did The New York Times and The Washington Post, both of which put the story on its front page on Thursday.

They were doubtless swayed by the fact that CBS said " '60 Minutes' consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."

Maybe "60 Minutes" should have tried another expert or two.

CBS made the four documents available in their original form on its Web site Wednesday night.

And by yesterday morning, they were being examined with a fine tooth comb.

The Minneapolis lawyers who run powerlineblog.com were on the case early. Two of the blog's readers directed their attention to a note left on an Internet bulletin board on the freerepublic.com Web site — the 47th posting on the topic there.

Post No. 47 pointed out that there was something off about these documents from the 1970s: The spacing between the letters and the words was proportional, and only a few IBM electric typewriters could achieve that effect back then.

From there it was off to the races. Once anyone who had had experience writing and typing in the 1970s began examining the documents, it was impossible not to see some weird anachronisms that suggested they had been crafted not on a 1970s typewriter, but using Microsoft Word.

Charles Johnson, who runs the wonderful littlegreenfootballs.com, simply typed one of the memos over using Microsoft Word's New Times Roman font and, lo and behold, the document came out exactly identical to the one on the CBS site, down to the letter spacing.

The documents contain such features as superscript lettering, which is done automatically by Microsoft Word, and curly quotation marks. A brief glance at a Web site called selectric.org, run by an amateur typewriter fanatic, reveals dozens of IBM electric typefaces — and none of them has curly quotation marks.

By 3 o'clock, the very careful and honest Jim Geraghty, who produces invaluable material every day on nationalreview.com's Kerry Spot, was saying flatly, "CBS had better have one heck of a defense for this."

Yeah, it had better. I thought on Wednesday that it was scandalous for "60 Minutes" to turn over a good deal of its time on Wednesday night to one Ben Barnes, a one-time Texas political powerhouse who now claims he got George W. Bush into the National Guard.

The problem is not, as some would have it, that Barnes has raised half a million dollars for Kerry. The problem is that Barnes has already lied about this on videotape, and I use the word "lied" without difficulty, where he says he pulled strings for Bush when "I was lieutenant governor of Texas."

The thing is that George W. Bush was sworn into the National Guard in May 1968. Ben Barnes didn't become lieutenant governor until 1969.

From the lies of Ben Barnes to the apparent forgeries of who-knows-who-did-it — why has "60 Minutes" exposed itself in this way?

We all know why. Its producers and others in the media think George Bush deserves to be beaten up now because of the beating administered to John Kerry in August. In some weird way, the editors and producers believe this is fairness at work.

Instead, they have unmasked themselves. Or rather, they have been unmasked by ordinary people who can see what they and their hired experts evidently could not.

E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com

[Dooby]

Well, it looks like they are fakes according to Wash. Post, ABC, New Republic, NY Post, as well as the guy's widow and son. Holy crap. Apparently, a CBS exec all but admitted that it was given the documents by the Kerry campaign. This is just awful. I said I had to give 60 minutes the benefit of the doubt, but how can you now?

This just turned a potentially bad two weeks for the Bush camp into Christmas. I guarantee you that the GOP operatives in DC are running around high-fiving eachother. Now everything that someone says about Bush, every allegation and every piece of paper is going to be viewed with scepticism. That Kitty Kelly book just became irrelevant.

And why? Because CBS News and 60 Minutes (I still can't believe it, 60 Minutes!) got lazy and didn't prove up the docs. And worse, CBS said they did. Now who can trust a word they say?

Un-F**king-believable.

[Mavdog]

A CBS response
------------------------------------------------------------
Bush National Guard Memos Questioned
CBS News Stands By Story Broadcast On '60 Minutes'
Sep 10, 2004 8:03 am US/Eastern

Questions were raised Thursday about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos purporting to have been written by one of President Bush's National Guard commanders in 1972 and 1973.

The memos, which were publicized on CBS News' 60 Minutes, say Mr. Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer and lost his status as a Guard pilot because he failed to meet military performance standards and undergo a required physical exam.

The network defended the memos, saying its experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

But Killian's son, one of Killian's fellow officers and an independent document examiner questioned the memos.

Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he doubted his father would have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Mr. Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake.

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

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software. Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript — a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" — as evidence indicating forgery.

Microsoft Word automatically inserts superscripts in the same style as the two on the memos obtained by CBS, she said.

"I'm virtually certain these were computer generated," Lines said after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Ariz. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.

In the Wednesday broadcast, 60 Minutes said the purported memos were "documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file. The program says it consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic.

"As is standard practice at CBS News, the documents in the 60 Minutes report were thoroughly examined and their authenticity vouched for by independent experts," CBS News said in a statement. "As importantly, 60 Minutes also interviewed close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian. They confirm that the documents reflect his opinions and actions at the time."

The White House distributed the four memos from 1972 and 1973 after obtaining them from CBS News. The White House did not question their accuracy.

Robert Strong was a friend and colleague of Killian who ran the Texas Air National Guard administrative office in the Vietnam era. Strong, now a college professor, also believes the documents are genuine.

"They are compatible with the way business was done at the time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being," says Strong. "I don't see anything in the documents that is discordant with what were the times, what was the situation and what were the people involved."

The documents were described in a 60 Minutes that featured a retired Texas politician's claim that he pulled strings to get young Mr. Bush, then a college graduate at the height of the Vietnam War in 1968, into the Guard — a posting that made service overseas unlikely.

Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes — then the 29-year-old speaker of the Texas House — told CBS News Anchor Dan Rather that he used influence on Mr. Bush's behalf at the request of a Houston businessman friendly with the Bush family, oilman Sid Adger.

Mr. Bush has denied he received special treatment. The White House ascribed Barnes' remarks to political motives. Barnes is an adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry.

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 Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester.

In May 1968, Mr. Bush signed a six-year commitment to fly for the Air Guard. Mr. Bush was honorably discharged from the Guard in October 1973 and left the Air Force Reserves in May 1974.

Early in his military career, Mr. Bush received glowing evaluations from Killian, who called Lt. Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "performed in an outstanding manner."

Documents released this week show Mr. Bush with scores of 88 on an airmanship test, 98 on aviation physiology and 100 on navigational abilities.

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.

After taking his last flight in April 1972, Mr. Bush went for six months without showing up for any training drills.

That May, Mr. Bush skipped a required yearly medical examination. In response, his commanders grounded him on Aug. 1, 1972.

In September 1972 he received permission to transfer to the Alabama unit so he could work on a political campaign there.

What the Killian memos purported to show is that Mr. Bush defied a direct order to appear for the physical, 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.

Bartlett claimed in 1999 that Mr. Bush had joined a Boston unit. Bartlett told the Globe this week that he "misspoke."

[Dooby]

Nope. Story uses 12 hour old comments as current info. CBS has clammed up. Those quotes were out there early yesterday afternoon.

As far as I can see, CBS has only one hope of prving all this as true: Find a model of typewriter available in 1972 that matches the memo. Not find THE TYPEWRITER, but find A TYPEWRITER that can do all these things and show that it would have been available to a colonel in the nat'l guard in 1972. From what I have read, they won't be able to do that.

[LRB]

CBS just did Bush a huge backhanded favor. What a bunch of idiots. Least they could do is come clean and admit their mistake. If there are major firings in CBS news and more especially 60 minutes they will lose all credibility.

[Dooby]

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...

[LRB]

Rather has proven himself to be incapable of objective journalism in requards to the President. I truely believe that the only way that CBS can maintain even a shred of credibility is to fire Rather.

[madape]

It sounds like Rather is putting his career and reputiation on the line for this story. Cosnidering everything I've read on the issue, that may not be a wise decision. He may not be with us much longer, thank goodness.

[u2sarajevo]

I am just going to sit back and watch. I don't think Rather would purposefully put his arse out in the wind like that if he didn't think he was right. I know he is a partisan media member, but this whole subject goes to the core of journalism. And Rather is not an idiot.


At least I don't think he is.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
I am just going to sit back and watch. I don't think Rather would purposefully put his arse out in the wind like that if he didn't think he was right. I know he is a partisan media member, but this whole subject goes to the core of journalism. And Rather is not an idiot.


At least I don't think he is.

I think that Rather believes his liberal peers in the media will cut him slack and let him just spin his way out of this. What Rather hasn't counted on is the growing power of the blog sphere. His goose is cooked and he's just turning up the heat.

[Dooby]

For Rather's sake, I hope he's right.

One thing I know for sure, these are the most famous memos in american history. They will either be discredited and a lot of heads will roll or they will have a bigass stamp of authenticity on them.

Are the dems that smart? I don't think anybody is that smart. On the flip side, I didn't think anyone was dumb enough to forge a 30 year old memo using Microsoft Word.

[Mavdog]

CBS purposely try and run a story on a document that is fake? would never happen.

If this doc is proven to be fake (and it hasn't) someone deceived CBS, the producer, and Rather as well.

[Dooby]

No, I was considering the possibility they were real, looked like that could be discredited and then authenticated as true and in the process become highly publicized.

Just thinking outside the box.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
CBS purposely try and run a story on a document that is fake? would never happen.

If this doc is proven to be fake (and it hasn't) someone deceived CBS, the producer, and Rather as well.

The real key is that CBS initially lied about authenticating the documents. They may not have KNOWN that the documents were forged, but they were negligent in running a story based on documents that weren't properly authenticated. And they know it.

[chumdawg]

I don't know about you guys, but I didn't think the memos were that damning even if they were real. It seems small stakes to risk your credibility on.

[madape]

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: madape

Genius.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

The real key is that CBS initially lied about authenticating the documents. They may not have KNOWN that the documents were forged, but they were negligent in running a story based on documents that weren't properly authenticated. And they know it.

Exactly, it is CBS doing due diligence to vet the memo before doing a major story and presenting them as legitimate documents. If they had any doubts, they should have expressed those doubts. If they couldn't fully verify the authenticity of the documents, then they should have told the viewers that. At the very least CBS should have caught the obvious questionable parts fo the documents and given an explanation as to these parts don't prove the document false. CBS, Dan Rather, and 60 minutes failed miserably in these regards even if the documents are somehow proven to be true.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

The real key is that CBS initially lied about authenticating the documents. They may not have KNOWN that the documents were forged, but they were negligent in running a story based on documents that weren't properly authenticated. And they know it.

judging by the number of documents experts that have come out saying its a forgery v. the number who have come out saying its real, I'd say CBS news was either very, very, very stupid or was purposefully negligent.

It is also very hard to believe that there is anyone in the world that know how to add graininess and bluriness and cut and paste a signature in order to forge a document, but does not know about courier: "the typwriter font".

Also, some of the "th"s that are so suspicious aren't in superscript. It's hard to believe that a forger would correct it in one spot, but not another, or that MSWord missed one.

[Dooby]

I believe this colonel's son said that he thought one of the four memos "might" be legitimate.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

judging by the number of documents experts that have come out saying its a forgery v. the number who have come out saying its real, I'd say CBS news was either very, very, very stupid or was purposefully negligent.

It is also very hard to believe that there is anyone in the world that know how to add graininess and bluriness and cut and paste a signature in order to forge a document, but does not know about courier: "the typwriter font".

Also, some of the "th"s that are so suspicious aren't in superscript. It's hard to believe that a forger would correct it in one spot, but not another, or that MSWord missed one.

UL I don't see how it is possible for these documents are the originals. I don't see how it is possible that CBS could have done due diligence.

I do agree that it is perplexing that someone would make so obvious mistakes and not catch and/or correct them. However it is still very possible that they did indeed make these mistakes and not correct them. A young person, say in their early 20's or younger might not have ready knowledge about typewriters and computer word processing in the early 1970's and could have made these blunders. Just because you know how to make excellent fake modern day documents doesn't mean that you know how to make excellent fake documents from the early 1970's. This may not be the most plausible explanation, but it is very possible. And it's still head and shoulders more plausible than the documents being authentic.

[chumdawg]

Wouldn't it be simple to just compare these memos to the other memos in this guy's file? I'm assuming those are readily available. And that would immediately answer all questions, wouldn't it?

[Dooby]

From the Washington Times:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe today said neither his organization nor John Kerry´s campaign leaked to CBS documents questioning President Bush´s service record, which may have been forged.
He suggested White House adviser Karl Rove could be behind the documents.

"I can unequivocally say that no one involved here at the Democratic National Committee had anything at all to do with any of those documents. If I were an aspiring young journalist, I think I would ask Karl Rove that question," Mr. McAuliffe said.

[madape]

Deep end, meet DNC

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: LRB A young person, say in their early 20's or younger might not have ready knowledge about typewriters and computer word processing in the early 1970's and could have made these blunders.

good point. Hard to believe that there are people alive who have not seen a typewriter in action. Either I'm still young enough not to realize how old I've gotten, or I've gotten so old I forget what youth is.

It still seems like a good prank to pull if you wanted to expose media bias. "just how bad an anti-Bush forgery can you get big Dan to circulate?" You would need a bad anti-kerry forgery to get turned down.

[LRB]

UL I thought about the prank angle. We don't really know who did it, but the the possiblities are huge.

[Evilmav2]

There's just no damned way those memo's are going to turn out to be authentic. I was just reading the Powerline (the blog that did more work breaking this story yesterday than any other), and they illustrated today that the writing form used on the memo's is an authentic one that was used by the Air Force in the late 1980's, but didn't even exist in the 1970's (a fact that makes it look to me that the forgers did attempt to incorporate some sophistication in their otherwise comically stupid fabrication effort, and one that makes it seem unlikely to me that this is some kind of "prank"- the forgers wanted these things to be believed).

Dan Rather can angrily tie himself to the mast of his sinking ship and shout into the gale that these dog turd memo's are authentic, and CBS can continue to play stalling games while backing up that decrepid old charlatan, but that sure as heck isn't going to make this mess magically disapear...

We have been inundated with emails today, and we can't do more than print a small selection to convey what our readers are telling us. Here is another letter from a recently retired officer who asked that his name be withheld, and who is convinced that the 60 Minutes documents are forgeries, because they do not conform to Air Force practice of the 1970's:

"Please allow me to introduce myself: I am --- . I retired from the Air National Guard just over a week ago, after serving 34 and one-half years in a variety of enlisted and commissioned officer capacities. I enlisted in the Air National Guard in February 1970, and was trained as an Administrative Specialist. I served in that capacity as an enlisted member (Staff Sergeant) for just over 3 years, during which time I personally typed hundreds upon hundreds of letters in official U.S. Air Force format. I was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in August 1973, whereupon I served the remaining 31 years of my ANG career as an administrative officer, personnel and training officer, services officer, and squadron and group commander of support units. During the period of 1974 to 1977, I also served on active duty as an officer instructor at the ANG Professional Military Education Center and Academy of Military Science, the ANG school responsible for training and commissioning new ANG officers. One of my duties was to teach the preparation and proper composition of Air Force correspondence. I give you this background to establish my credibility in matters concerning Air Force letters and official documents.
After researching a number of web sites on the internet to gain as much information as possible concerning the recently "discovered" Texas Air National Guard documents that relate to (then) Lieutenant George Bush, I located and printed two specific documents - one which I consider genuine, and another that is completely bogus and an obvious forgery.

The first letter, which I am convinced is genuine, is dated 5 Sep 73, and is Lieutenant Bush's request to be discharged from the Texas Air National Guard and subsequently transferred to the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC). This particular letter was obviously typed on a typewriter, and followed the prescribed Air Force formatting standards in place at that time. Specifically, the first three lines of the letter were in the appropriate format: "FROM:" on the first line; "SUBJECT:" on the second line; and "TO:" on the third line. All abbreviations were correctly formatted as well as military rank and title. The endorsement of the 111 FIS commander (Lt Col Killian) was in the correct format, as was his two-line signature element that was left justified.

The second letter, which I believe is being used to establish the premise that Lieutenant Bush either refused or failed to report for a flight physical, is bogus not only because of the proportional font, superscript, and Times New Roman font style (as mentioned in several internet sites and on selected media outlets), but more specifically because of the egregious formatting problems I will now list.

1. The format used in this letter, dated 04 May 1972, which was
allegedly prepared/published 16 months prior to Lieutenant Bush's request for discharge, is completely wrong, as the letter is formatted in a manner that was not used by the Air Force until the very late 1980's/early 1990's.

2. The terminology "MEMORANDUM FOR" was never used in the 1970's.

3. The abbreviations in this letter are incorrectly formatted, in that a period is used after military rank (1st Lt.). According to the Air Force style manual, periods are not used in military rank abbreviations.

4. The abbreviation for Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) includes periods after each capital letter. Again, periods are not used.

5. In paragraph 1, the phrase "not later than" is spelled out, followed by (NLT). NLT was, and is, a widely recognized abbreviation for "not later than" throughout all military services, so the inclusion of "not later than" was not a generally accepted practice and completely unnecessary in a letter from one military member to another.

6. Lt Col Killian's signature element is incorrect for letters prepared in the 1970's. This letter uses a three-line signature element, which was normally not used. Three-line signature elements were almost the exclusive domain of colonels and generals in organizations well above the squadron level.

7. Finally, the signature element is placed far to the right, instead of being left justified. The placement of the signature element to the right was not used or directed by Air Force standards until almost 20 years after the date of this letter.

In summary, I believe the letter used to impugn Lieutenant Bush is an obvious fabrication, prepared on a modern word-processing system by an unscrupulous individual who erroneously used current Air Force formatting protocol instead of the standard letter format directed by Air Force manuals of the 1970's. Therefore, the letter ordering Lieutenant Bush to report for a flight physical should be discounted in its entirety.

Please feel free to use the facts listed above in any of your web sites if you feel this information is valid and relevant (and I attest to the fact that it is); however, please refrain from using my rank and name."

[u2sarajevo]

From Powerline
______________
The Daily Kos has tried to rebut our deconstruction of the 60 Minutes forgeries. Naturally, Kos addresses only the least significant points, while never mentioning the most damning features of the memos.

Kos' entire effort is devoted to showing that there was a typewriter in existence in the early 1970's that was capable of producing proportional spacing, superscript and Times New Roman font. There is no evidence, of course, that Jerry Killian used such an exotic machine, and certainly no other authentic documents generated by the Texas Air National Guard used such a machine.

But these are minor points. Kos never addresses the smoking-gun issue of kerning. We discussed this extensively yesterday, but briefly, "kerning" is the ability of letters in word-processed documents to intrude on one another's space. If you type the word "my" in Word or any other word processing program, the tail of the "y" will curl slightly under the "m." This cannot be done on any typewriter, because a typewriter cannot know what the adjacent letter is. A letter on a typewriter must have its own space.

Look at the fake August 18, 2003 memo:


Check out the word "my" in line two, or "any" in line four. That's kerning. It was done on a word processor. As, in fact, should be apparent to anyone who looks at the document. Compare it to a genuine, typewriter-produced memo, as we did yesterday. The difference is obvious.

Kos also never addresses any of the substantive issues: the absurdity, on its face, of writing a memo whose subject heading is "CYA;" the memos' inconsistency with various military usages of the early 1970's; and, most of all, the anachronism in the August 18, 1973 memo, where Killian allegedly writes: "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush." Brigadier General "Buck" Staudt retired in 1972.

Kos never mentions any of these facts.

Nor does Kos mention the fact that Killian's widow, his son, and the personnel chief of his National Guard unit are all on record saying that they think the documents are forged, and do not reflect Killian's views. Or the fact that Killian's own evaluations of Bush contradict the memos. Or the fact that Killian's signature on the faked memos doesn't match his real signature, as shown on documents that are indisputably authentic.

Kos also exhibits no curiousity about the provenance of these documents. If they didn't come from Killian's family, where did they come from? Who ostensibly squirrelled away a handful of papers thirty-one years ago, apparently on the off chance that Lt. Bush might be President some day? Inquiring minds want to know, but CBS won't say.

The fact is that the issue of the documents' genuineness is not a close call. In appearance, in tone, and in content, they are inauthentic. Only in the context of the left's hysteria over John Kerry's sinking ship could such obvious fakes be given credence by anyone.

[madape]

Lots of freepers are having fun today with Photoshop, it seems.

[reeds]

I have it all figured out..the republicans started this..they sent the fake to CBS..knowing it would be determined to be fruadeulent document...knowing that once that was determined, the Democrats would be blamed and make Kerry look like a cheating fool...just thinking outside the box...

hey- it is possible...Look at Florida 4 years ago...

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
I have it all figured out..the republicans started this..they sent the fake to CBS..knowing it would be determined to be fruadeulent document...knowing that once that was determined, the Democrats would be blamed and make Kerry look like a cheating fool...just thinking outside the box...

hey- it is possible...Look at Florida 4 years ago...

Great. Now all you need is proof, reasoning, and an IQ of at least 50.

[Dooby]

I directed the Mrs. Dooby to Tivo CBS nightly news.

CBS EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER to address, in detail, the issues surrounding the authenticity of the documents broadcast in the 60 MINUTES report on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard... Developing...

I think that all right-wingers need to acknowledge the possibility that CBS will be able to produce evidence that these memos are for real. However, if they say the stand by the story notwithstanding the memos, they need to be subject to a public flogging.

[reeds]

"Great. Now all you need is proof, reasoning, and an IQ of at least 50. "


Mavswoman...its past your bedtime...sweet dreams

[Dooby]

(CBS/AP) 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.

I've just read this and haven't seen the actual TV report, but there is a democrat blog doing a better job of debunking this.

I am telling you, they have to show a typewriter that could produce this letter.

And frankly, I am disappointed they haven't even addressed where they got it.

[Evilmav2]

I think that all right-wingers need to acknowledge the possibility that CBS will be able to produce evidence that these memos are for real.

I don't see how that's possible considering the memo's use of "kerning", and considering the fact that they follow an Air Force document format that didn't exist until the late 1980's.

I am watching the thing right now, and all Rather has to pull out of his ass is an assertion that "super-script" was possible in 1972, that Times New Roman type existed, and he has dredged up two "experts" who are attesting that the signature is "compelling" evidence of the memo's authenticity (a claim that is proven patently absurd by even the most rudimentary comparison of the CBS signatures and authenticated signatures of Killian), and that the views expressed in the memo's are typical of those held by Killian at the time.

One of those experts says, "I think what has happened is, that some incriminating documents have come out. The White House, you should, I should remember has not discredited the documents. They're relying on the blogosphere and other people to do that. Because the White House probably knows that these documents are in fact real."

Rather accuses the White House of "using the blogosphere" to make unwarranted attacks on the documents, he says that the report was not based on solely on the recovered documents, but on a "preponderence of evidence" including "documents provided by what we consider to be solid sources", and on interviews, and that, "If any definitive evidence is found to the contrary of our report is found, we will report it. So far there is none... "

Bullshit, Rather. I hope the "highly-charged and partisan" Blogosphere hangs you and the entire CBS news department you are leading to the gallows. This isn't 1988, and you can't just use smoke and mirrors to deny the concrete evidence that those documents are shams, and magically wish this whole business away...

[Rhylan]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

It is also very hard to believe that there is anyone in the world that know how to add graininess and bluriness and cut and paste a signature in order to forge a document, but does not know about courier: "the typwriter font".

The grainy/blurry effect comes from the fact that it was faxed. Check out the header on the document in u2's most recent post. Fax.

[kg_veteran]

I watched Rather's "defense" of the documents. Pathetic.

At least he revealed his "expert", even if he refused to reveal the source of the forgeries.

[Evilmav2]

Rather's ego-driven denials have guaranteed that this storm will continue to gather strength...

Either CBS news bites the bullet for the Kerry campaign, by continuing to defend the authenticity of the documents in the face of insurmountable evidence pointing to the contrary, and by refusing to answer any questions pertaining to where these things came from, and thus killing the credibility and reputation of CBS and Rather, or else they own up to fact that they probably rushed a dubious story on the air, backed up by Kerry campaign-supplied forgeries, because of their desperate desire to get a "scoop" and because of an inherent partisan bias in the organization (they would never acknowledge the latter point), and thus discredit the Kerry tricksters.

Either CBS takes the fall (a fall that might finally get that red-faced paltroon Rather off of the air), or they go with the "Kerry/Edwards took us for a ride, and we apologize" approach, and those disengenuous Dem political hacks get smacked (a smack that has the potential to put paid to both Kerry's presidential hopes, and the dirty, corrupt scheming of his political operator minions, once and for all).

[dude1394]

instapundit -rather not

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Dooby
I directed the Mrs. Dooby to Tivo CBS nightly news.

I think that all right-wingers need to acknowledge the possibility that CBS will be able to produce evidence that these memos are for real. However, if they say the stand by the story notwithstanding the memos, they need to be subject to a public flogging.

It's possible that Elvis could be proven to still be alive too and just about as likely. The evidence is overwhelmingly is support of these documents being fakes. CBS is only firing blanks in defense of the documents.

Regardless if the documents were to some how to be proven to be true, CBS and Dan Rather would still be guilty of being negligent of doing due diligence vetting of the documents and not fairly reporting the doubts upfront.