A distraction, you say? Hey, look–it’s a three-headed monkey!
Daniel
who doesn’t think it’s going away, and who doesn’t think it helps Bush
Not even David Copperfield could pull that trick off.
“Bush looking presidential”
::::chuckle::::
This looks bad for CBS…
So… let’s recap. CBS news asks Killian’s family about the documents. They say that that the documents have to be forgeries, because they don’t sound anything like killian, he didn’t type, and he didn’t keep records like that.
Then they ask two document examiners for their opinion, and both of them come back and say the documents look forged to them.
So then they track down a flaky handwriting expert, and get him to admit that the signature looks real.
Then they contact Hodges, and misrepresent what they have, telling him they have handwritten notes of Killian’s (which the didn’t). Faced with that apparent incontrovertible evidence, Hodges says, “Well, if that’s what Killian wrote, I guess that’s what he felt”.
So what does CBS do? They ignore the dissenting opinions. They leave the interviews with Killian’s family on the cutting room floor, and then they go ahead and use the documents, and claim that they have been verified by ‘multiple document experts’.
Since the report came out, Hodges has said the documents are forgeries, and their last remaining document expert backpedals a mile, saying that he limited his analysis to the signature only, and that without originals he couldn’t be sure.
Until this latest bit from ABC, CBS could always fall back on the position that their experts said it was real and they were duped. Now they’ve got a big problem. If they had expert opinion that the documents were forged and they put them on the air anyway without even noting the dissenting opinions, I think they may have even opened themselves up to legal challenges like a defamation suit from Killian’s family.
Wow. CBS acted similarly to the Bush folks in terms of WMDs in Iraq. 
Killian’s secretary has stepped forward:
So the docs make be fake, but they accurately describe Bush’s dishonorable behavior, and the real documents are out there somewhere.
No wonder Mr. Bush has refused to confront this issue. He knows that the real things could be out there, and knows that they do not reflect well on him, so he’s going for the coverup.
So, we have the secretary, the activist Democrat, saying that the memos were forgeries but the ‘sentiment’ was right.
On the other hand, we have other people who knew Killian some of whom are Republicans saying that what bothered them most was that Killian’s personal opinion was that Bush was a fine pilot and a good officer.
What a surprise - the partisans are rendering their own judgement. But all agree: the documents are fake.
Is there anyone at all left in the CBS camp other than a typewriter repairman who posts on Daily KOS? So far, every single expert the Washington Post, ABC News, and the AP have come up with have said the documents appear to be forgeries. CBS has now gone through three sets of experts who keep abandoning them and saying they won’t support CBS’s assertion.
Their stance on this is truly baffling.
I completely missed where, in the article, it listed her party affiliation and her activism. Mind quoting that part for me, Sam? Based on the linked article, she could be a Republican, a Naderite or a communist. All it says is that she feels Bush is unfit for office. Is this how you define “the activist Democrat”? Are you so interested in impeaching or even smearing the 86 year old woman that you leap to potentially false information? Or do you know something about Marian Knox that isn’t included in the article?
Perhaps in addition to being an expert on the waterways of Cambodia, the inner workings of the CIA, and typesetting, you are also an expert on the Knox family?
On the other other hand you have washed over another category of person here: Richard Via is quoted in the linked article, and was a person who knew Killian and supported the general validity of the content of the memos. Is he therefore an “activist Democrat”?
I think this style of debating is particularly unhelpful, partisan and unintelligent.
Jeez, chill out, will you? There is more than one story about this going on.
For instance, the report on Drudge says:
Another story I read on this described her as active in Democratic politics.
Has Drudge mentioned that she was a secret agent for Ho Chi Minh?
Did her collusion in Bad Mouthing a war hero and future US president result in more American deaths and a lengthening of the war in southeast Asia? Was she a lesbian from way back? Surely Drudge can do better than ‘didn’t vote for Bush’.
Whether the memos are forgeries or not, at any rate they can’t be positively authenticated, and therefore people should stop referring to them as positive proof of illegal behaviour by Bush.
Those focussing on Bush’s guard service would do well to stick to the uncontested documents given out by the Bush campaign, such as this collection. Perhaps this would be a better subject for discussion.
Wait a moment Atticus. We now have affirmation that these documents did, or may still, exist. some of them should have been in with the papers Bush released, or at least in the ones AP got through their lawsuit. What happened to them, and when? What are the penalties for intentionally destroying military archives? Surely that’s a crime? What’s the statute of limitation on it? Would verification of the ‘cleansing’ that went on prior to Bush’s run for governor result in charges being filed? Was there a conspiracy here? Was the president in on it?
You gotta remember, HtB, that in the Sam Stoneiverse, anyone who doesn’t offer unquestioning support of Fearless Misleader Boy Georgie is a blatantly anti-Bush partisan, unfit for any role more strenuous than public dogcatcher. :rolleyes:
Not voting for Bush in 2000? She should be grateful she hasn’t been thrown in Gitmo already with the other terrorists!
We have affirmation that the sentiments expressed by Killian in the questionable memos were accurate. We know that there must have been an order compelling Bush to attend a physical (standard procedure, see my link above).
We do not, however, know that these memos are true copies of originals written by Killian. Until we know this, it would be better to focus on the assertions above. The 4 / 6 memos, phoney or not, are effectively a sideshow. Let’s take a look at the main event.
Take a look at the link I posted above. If there was cleaning of the records, it probably occurred when Bush was transferred out of inactive status into an office job, and given an honourable discharge on this basis. This was in late 1974, and Captain Kolstelny, who prepared 3 of the more important documents, may have been involved at some point.
Sounds like she has decided she doesn’t want to talk about anymore.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20040915_332.html
OK DOOD, I will chill, if you will start providing cites for your assertions. Based on the link and now on your Drudge quote, she still could be like many of the thoughtful Republicans who still exist - those who don’t feel the need to see their country go to hell simply to maintain party loyalty. You’ll forgive me if I require more than just your claim to have read something somewhere. I mean, we have no idea where you’ve been.
Well, I would have cited it except I forgot that the assertion was made elsewhere other than the link you posted.
Well, Knox might be a lot of things but a Republican isn’t one of them. Note her statement reported in the Houston paper.
This is from USATODAY indicating her specific attitude toward Bush, political party allegiance aside.
http://www.usatoday.com/_common/_scripts/_tacoda/amDataAgent.htm?pid=usat
Don’t see how it’s a win for Bush here. If the final analysis is that the docs are fake, but the contents and basic charges are real, that puts egg on both CBS and Bush. Because it still lays bare the fact that Bush’s people have been lying and spinning about his service the last four years. Indeed, they’ve already gotten tied up in their own web of lies just in this incident alone.
And now we have things like this:
It seems like the facts are leaning pretty heavily towards:
- Bush was given special treatment to be placed in the guard ahead of other men that went on to diein Vietnam. This is all the more ironic because his father was well known for criticizing other people’s avoidance of the draft or even those who got special treatment to get into the Guard: just like his own son did
- Something happened in the last two years of Bush’s service: we don’t know what, but his performance and attendance went from good to bad, and he basically vanished. AWOL may or may not be the technical term, but he did not show up to make his commitments
- Someone plainly seems to have covered up for him: there is the documents that the White House released that don’t make sense: he got paid for times he wasn’t there, was listed as there and didn’t get paid: all the hallmarks of someone doing a sloppy job of making it look like he was there without checking to see if the dates matched
- Several sources have confirmed that his failure to show up was a topic of dicussion as was his getting special treatment again so as not to face the repercussions he himself signed a document showing he would deserve.
So, regardless of whether CBS goes down in flames over the documents, and even entirely discounting those documents, it can be pretty well established that Bush failed to meet his mandated duties, and also got special treatment so as not to face any consequences for it. Sounds like the epitath for his Presidency, and it fits in perfectly with Kerry’s charge that Bush is the “excuses” President. Just because Bush cleaned up afterwards doesn’t mean he’s changed his attitude towards responsibility: it being something other people have to take, not himself.
It doesn’t need to be a win, just neutral.
I pretty much agree with your analysis, but your conclusion is way off. There were plenty of similar charges made last time around and it didn’t make any difference. This sort of stuff plays well with the anti-Bush crowd, but I just don’t see it making any difference to the undecideds. How could anyone NOT think that Bush, or anyone in his position, would not have gotten some sort of special treatment back then.
This is old, old news that makes no difference either way. If it does help Bush, it does so indirectly, in that it’s a major distraction from the real issues.
One more piece of information. Not sure what it means if anything.