From the LA Times:
Hmmm, less than 4 hours after the 60 Minutes segment aired, and this guy is suddenly an expert typographer…
Meanwhile, in WaPo:
“At the appropriate time”??? What’s he alluding to???
Is Rove up to his old tricks? Has Burkett gone Rovian? Or what…???
Gosh, I would have thought that it would have been a dedicated DU-mbass that broke the story. Who woulda thought that conservatives/Right-wingers put more effort into debunking anti-Bush lies? Besides, it’s not like Burkett has a shortage of anti-Bush credentials, and has all but admitted to having forged the documents.
Heh, I’ll admit that Rove is probably thrilled with the way this story panned out, but i f you are looking to point fingers, point them at Burkett for being such a nutjob, and at Rather for believing him. Heck, point another at Rather for his delightful defense of the documents, which just serves to keep the matter alive even longer.
Who exactly did you expect to be posting at the Free Republic message boards, Barbara Streisand?
Considering the fact that everyone I talk to is going on about mopospacing, proportional spacing and kerning, it looks like everyone who’s ever changed fonts in Word thinks they’re a typography expert. I’m sure this lawyer guy is suffering the same delusion as the rest of us.
I notice that you didn’t quote the part of the Washington Post article that says Burkett contacted Max Cleland, who referred him to the Kerry Campaign. That sounds like a “link” to me! It must be a conspiracy between the Kerry and Bush campaigns to finally get that crazy Dan Rather off the air.
So??? I guess I don’t get it. What difference does it make if the first guy to figure this out was a pro-Bush lawyer/freeper?? Its not like he is the ONLY person saying these things…or the only source for problems with the documents. I didn’t notice in the article, but being a lawyer also doesn’t preclude one from having other hobbies…like possibly an interest in typography, no? Even if he doesn’t have any background in it at all and made this up out of whole cloth, again, its not like he’s the sole source for information on this…there are plenty of REAL experts that are agreeing with him. He was merely the first to detect some of the flaws.
So, what exactly is the debate here? Besides poisoning the well I must have missed exactly what we are debating here…
-XT
Allow me to don my tinfoil hat and help.
The allegation that the critique came out 4 hours after CBS’s story is supposed to suggest that the person debunking the memos had prior knowledge of them. Possibly that he was their source even. Notice in the LA Times the phrase “a highly technical explanation…”. This is supposed to indicate that 1) a mere political operative would not have the technical knowledge necessary for the post thus implying a conspiracy and 2) that the explanation should have taken much longer to construct thus implying that the forged documents may have been a plant.
How close did I come, annaplurabelle?
What I like best about this particular attempted misdirectional smear is the implication that a mere attorney couldn’t possibly be enough of an “expert” to identify a font or proportional spacing (which were the only things in his post) or remember approximately when changes to office equipment became common (again, that’s all he said – not that it was impossible to do proportionally spaced memos, only that it wasn’t common).
He’s a Georgia attorney, right? If you want to make a filing with the Georgia Court of Appeals, it has to be “typed or printed on non-transparent, letter size (8 ½” x 11") white paper and bound at the top with staples or round head fasteners and all matters contained therein, including quotations and footnotes, shall have no less than double spacing between the lines. Letter spacing and type or font size shall be no smaller than Courier 10 cpi, 12 point (or equivalent). Notwithstanding the ten (10) characters per inch requirement, the Court will accept in lieu thereof Times New Roman Regular 14pt (Western). Any documents which the Court deems inappropriate as to type size, type style and/or form may be returned to counsel after filing by the Court, and counsel may be ordered to redact and recast such documents. All documents filed with this Court shall be backed with a non-glossy, white manuscript cover of recyclable paper, heavier than regular stationery-type paper."
Heck, depending on one’s practice and how long it’s been since one personally had been in the document submission business[sup]1[/sup], I’d think an attorney might be exactly the right person to notice that something’s wrong with a memo, even if he weren’t precisely right about what.
[sup]1[/sup]: I allow, of course, that senior-partner-types at big firms have a big huge document-handling system that takes all this stuff into consideration automatically, junior partners in charge of ensuring that it’s done right and a guy who works for the managing partner who tracks changes on behalf of the entire firm – that attorney might not have the time or interest to notice such things as were relevant to exposing the memos as the forgeries they are. But your basic small-practice Matlock-type? Absolutely he’s gonna notice this kind of thing.
Oh my God… A Freeper is a Republican??? Is there no God? I thought only Democrats hung out on Free Republic.
This is exceedingly lame. Next breaking news: Member of Democratic Underground actually supports Democrats!
But manhattan, this particular attorney wasn’t enough of an “expert” to make that call. He was dead wrong about proportional spacing and how common it was on office equipment at that time. I am certainly no expert, but I knew that in 1968 the Executive typewriter I was using in a tightly budgeted four-person office in Nashville had proportional spacing. And it was not uncommon; I had several friends who had used them. (I think Nashville had still had only one “skyscraper” of 37 floors at that time.)
It wasn’t his Republicanism or his law credentials that disqualified him. It was his pronouncements when he was so obviously ignorant in the area in which he claimed expertise.
His party affiliation points to a possible motive for his claims at expertise that he didn’t have.
I am willing to accept that the documents are very possibly forged, but not for reasons he stated – which have both been discredited.
Right, but he didn’t. He made the accusation.
Also about some other details if I am not mistaken.
Can you help me understand where he claimed to be an expert? I did not see the original blog post.
Well they are a motive for the accusation, certainly.
So just like everyone else he threw out his suggestions about the veracity of the documents, and of course being a Republican he was trying to discredit the documents.
Now that the documents have been discredited, does it matter how we got to that point? If it took some yahoo who was way off base to get the ball rolling, well, that’s what it took. Big deal.
Why am I not surprised?
From the OP:
If I wanted to “poison the well” I wouldn’t have included Burkett, or framed it as a debate. But I won’t pretend I don’t understand where you’re coming from with this reply.
Misdirectional smear?!! How ironic.
He’s not a mere attorney though, is he? Nor a mere freeper.
Links to Richard Scaife and Ken Starr via Southeastern Legal Foundation. Just a coincidence? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. That’s why I put it up as a debate.
From the article:
If you have some solid info that links Burkett with either Kerry or the DNC, feel free to share.
Well, he was not way off base. He was wrong on a few details.
You know, the post was wrong, but the story was correct…?
From the LA Times article:
Thank you for that part of the article, but it does not contain any claim of expertise. It makes an asertion later shown to be less than complete. But it does not contain any claim of expertise. Can you find one for me?
I’m not claiming he is an expert - that’s what makes the details in the post suspicious to my mind. Would that info he posted be considered “top of the head” common knowledge? (I’m certainly no expert myself, so I sincerely have no idea).
You do realize that every smear against Bush is now pounced on by a good chunk of the blogosphere, right? Remember the whole AP-wire ‘booo’ debacle? Given that the memo story was (potentially) a pretty big affair, I don’t see why it boggles the mind to think that it would be put under close scrutiny immediately. (Especially given the rabid nature of the opposition.)
Were the docs on the web too at the time of broadcast? Or did the report show them on TV in enough detail to analyze the fonts?
No. What is the “booo debacle”?
Look, the key to the debate is this: If the docs are forgeries (not sure if that is conclusive), then someone forged them, presumably someone with a partisan interest. So, which side? Your own partisan inclinations might preclude the possibility that it comes from the right, but I don’t see your reasoning. I admit I am going to vote for Kerry, but I can also admit that the possibility exists that it was perpetrated by someone shilling for the dems.
This guy “buckhead” isn’t just some “matlock type”, as ** manhattan** tried to suggest. He is one of Scaife’s “elves” - the group that worked to bring down Clinton. What is so “tinfoil” about including him in the general suspicion about this whole scenario? How is his involvement any less suspicious than Burkett’s?
BTW, if you search his posts on FR he claims he didn’t even watch the 60 Minutes broadcast. He “just happened” to come on to FR, saw the thread that had been started, and took it from there. Maybe. But seems disingenuous to the extreme, considering how active he is/was in partisan politics (plus the broadcast had been talked up in the media for a few days prior to airing).
What the fucking fuck? I didn’t say he was “just” anything at all. All I suggested is that an attorney who routinely make his own filings with courts or who had primary responsibility for doing so might reasonably be expected to notice font peculiarities. That is true. It’s true whether the guy who does so is one of Scaife’s “elves,” or has no political experience at all or has been a life-long Democrat. It’s just true.
In other words, what he posted would, in fact, be “top of the head common knowledge” to an attorney who made his own filings. Now, a guy who was predisposed to defend the President might be more inclined to check it out and more inclined to share his suspicions, sure. But what the heck difference does that make? The fact is that they were forgeries - there’s no serious doubt about that now.
And so now the slur is that the Rove machine somehow fooled CBS into airing this stuff as a misdirection. But the L.A. times insinuation, and your repetition of them, just does not hold any water whatsoever given the current evidence. Among other things, it requres whoever started the process to believe that CBS was as preposterouly stupid as they now appear to be (and that is absolutely the most charitable possible interpretation of their actions to date). Please. If these things had come from a Republican source the network would have identified the source by now.
Burkett forged these documents and provided them to CBS, who believed him because they wanted to. It’s really that simple.
This is a more precise statement of a debatable topic.
The idea that these memos came from the right is, if not tinfoil, then not very likely because they were published through CBS. Do you really think it would be easier for a right wing operative to pass forged documents to Dan Rather than for a left wing operative? I admit I am taking some glee in the plight of CBS right now. But I still think they performed some due diligence in vetting these memos. Surely they did not recieve an anonymous fax and put them on the air. they must know who the memos came from, and they must have some reason for believing that they memos were genuine. Either their source was one of the principles involved, or they were close to some other actor who could have reasonably had access to Killian’s private files and who CBS had some reason to trust was in such a position.
Clearly CBS was duped in some fashion. But to believe that they were duped by MacDougal requires that they were almost clinically insane.
Sheesh! Now I’m defending CBS. I really am perverted.