Sam Stone, I’m trying to keep an open mind here and I’m willing to be convinced otherwise but I just don’t see how some of those cutoffs could be fax or copying artifacts. How could a degradation of the overall image lead to a straightline cutoff across the the tope of a word? Maybe there’s something in the way a fax, copier, or scanner operates that could cause something like this (Does anyone know?) but a misaligned or folded typewriter ribbon seems like the most likely explanation to me.
The White House says they’ve never seen them before. And of course they are going to keep quiet until the provenance of these documents is determined.
I read the transcript of Rather’s ‘defense’, and it was horribly lame. First, he clarifies that CBS never saw original documents. The documents they received were photocopies. So much for analyzing the document itself. Second, he says that CBS’s copy is ‘much better’ than the one we on the web have been looking at. He says that document has degraded because it has been photocopied and downloaded repeatedly. Is Rather so stupid as to believe that downloading a document degrades it? As for multiple copies, I believe the documents we’ve been looking at came from a PDF file on CBS’s own site. Why in hell would it be repeatedly photocopied after it was in CBS’s hands? I would expect it to have been scanned in from their extant copy. Photocopying it repeatedly in-house before making it available just sounds lame.
CBS dismissed the typesetting arguments by simply saying that typewriters existed then that could do a superscript ‘th’ - something no one has denied. The question is whether there were typewriters that could do the superscript TH, and which used proportional fonts (perhaps with kerning), ‘smart’ apostrophes, and that specific font set. And whether such a machine would have identical character and line spacings and tab settings as the Word defaults.
Finally, CBS originally said that they had the documents checked by “experts”. Now it turns out to have been ONE expert, and that person is an expert in handwriting analysis. It looks like the level of diligence CBS went through was to send the document to a handwriting expert to verify that the signature was in fact Killian’s. How lame is that? I guess it’s just beyond the realm of imagination that someone might have scanned Killian’s signature and put it on the document? If CBS doesn’t own the originals, then relying on a simple handwriting analysis is assinine.
If this is the best defense they have, they’re going to have to do better to kill this story. They don’t have original documents? Fine. Release the names of the sources. Explain the chain of custody.
I wasn’t referring to the docs there, but to Bush’s personal knowledge of his service with the TANG. Surely he knows what happened, thus he knows whether CBS’ memos describe actual events, or false events. This knowledge does not necessarily settle whether the memos are forgeries, but it does cut to the heart of the trouble over Bush’s stint in the guard.
That’s unlikely. Remember all the mea culpas over the breathless SandyBergergate or Swiftboatgate stuff that turned out to be mostly bullshit? Or the “oops, we goofed and jumped the gun” posts about Bush supposedly getting boos for his well wishes to Clinton? Me neither. Being a blogger means never having to feel foolish. Being a Freeper makes you completely immune.
Or were you asking about the orign of the memos that the WH released this week? Earlier in this thread, Sam mentioned that those were copies the WH got from CBS. I haven’t checked on that myself, but Sam’s usually pretty up front about stuff like that.
Dan Rather was… frankly, he was pissed off, tonight, as I heard him half-promo interviewed on Newsradio 88 this evening. Lashing out at the internet… what did he call them? Gossipmongers? He says they’re real. If anyone has evidence they are not, come forward. He’s got witnesses.
I think someone just made a tactical error and pissed off Dan Rather. I think Mr. Rove fucked up. I think Bush’s chances of going to jail just went up about twenty percent.
There’s no transcript of Pissed off Rather on the Radio, but this is the story and they’re standing by it.
What we know for sure:
-strings were pulled to get Bush into the guard. End of story. But there has been no suggestiong that Bush Sr. personally pulled those strings: even the supposedly so vile and partisan as to say anything Barnes has never suggested anything more than that a Bush friend suggested to him that it would be a good way to curry favor
-Bushco has STILL not denied the content of the memos, focusing only on the timing of their release and their “interpretation” If Bush didn’t disobey a direct order, he’d damn well know it, and know that the documents were fake. They would have no reason to do anything other than say that they are bullshit. But they haven’t. This in itself is bad, bad news
-we now have a complaining, living witness who says that the memos are authentic: he remembers them being read to him over the phone and they fit the facts. In fact, he is actually involved in the story, though so far no one has gotten him to speak on the record about that aspect
-retired people still have personal and political influence
What all this does is deflate the claim that his honorable discharge proves he served honorably. If the memos are real, or at least reflect the truth that the Bush camp isn’t denying, then the reason he got an HD is simply because he was able to brake the rules and/or fail requirements without facing any repercussions for it (which describes most of his career in general).
Note that the Bush campaign has ALWAYS been very cagey on this issue: always changing the subject to the fact that he was given an honorable discharge instead of hitting the point that he was here or there on such and such dates as required by the guard. However, they have said enough to be caught in any number of lies and calculated mistruths if the documents are real.
Hang on… This witness was read a document that he was told was authentic, and asked for his impression of its contents. That’s called “leading the witness”. Let’s say you’re sitting at home and someone phones you and says, “We have photographic proof that you ran a red light and unwittingly caused an accident. Do you think this is possible?” You’d think, “Hmmn… They’ve got it on film. I guess I must have, although I can’t remember it…”
If the documents turn out to be a forgery, then the testimony of the guy who said they sounded like something Killian might have said needs to be re-examined. At the very least, he needs to be asked again after he’s made aware of the forgery.
These documents may be legitimate, but CBS’s defense of them sounds especially weak. If this is all they did to verify them, then I don’t think they exercised due diligence.
Apos, I just got around to reading your link. Great link! I especially like this
I think that those 2 sentences pretty much blow away the idea that the memos must have been created on Word. In fact, they even blow away the idea that they could have been created on Word!
:eek: New document discovered! This one is really hot! Someone needs to get this to the Kerry campaign NOW! :eek:
Obviously a forgery. The drink stain is blue, and everyone knows GW was a whiskey man.
You misunderstand my meaning: it was my understanding that Killian read him the memos to him over the phone, years ago. That is what Hodges says makes him believe that they are authentic, not the re-reading.
Wow - that’s shocking…
What else did you expect them to say?
Considering that they would be only digging themselves a deeper hole if they were wrong, you wouldn’t expect them to say they were real if they weren’t pretty damn sure. What you are implying doesn’t make sense: while standing by their story makes sense to a point, staking their reputation on potential forgeries is not exactly a great idea.
Not necessarily. It’s quite possible that the authenticity of these docs will never be either fully established nor fully debunked, From what I’ve seen so far, it actually seems like that is the most likely secenario. In that case, it would be in CBS’s self interest to stay the course.
I think, given the mood of the vast majority these days, CBS has already taken the leap and there is no backing up. They don’t have to stick their neck out any further, it’s already across the line. If the documents are fake, the axe drops (already seems like ABC is chomping at the bit to pick their bones). Question is, if that happens will they drag Kerry with them?
Which makes no sense. If the documents can never be debunked, then that’s as good as ANY evidence ever gets. ANY document could potentially be forged, but if what they say is true, they’ve pretty well established the authenticity of the documents at this point to the degree that any documents could be. The question is whether they would stick so strong to the story if they knew there was cause for concern. There is no “over the cliff”- the longer they stick to them when there could be potential questions raised the more dangerous and damaging it becomes.
It does seem that CBS read the documents to Hodges. But before we go with the leading part, it’s worth remembering both that Hodges not only responded that “these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time” (i.e., outside of just the documents) but also that the memos in part discuss the role that Hodges played in the affair. As Kevin Drum points out, both Hodges and Walter Staudt are still alive. While Staudt might not want to admit to pressuring a cover-up, Hodges seems to have pretty much already jumped the gun in admitting that he recalls at least Killian’s concern that there was one.
Really? I have here a document that says that Apos killed Vince Foster. Actually, I don’t have the original. I have a bad photocopy. I know there are questions about it, but I’m not going to answer them. I also won’t reveal where I got the document from.
There. Since it can’t be debunked, my evidence is as good as any, right?
Seriously, if there are reasonable questions about the authenticity of the document, and since the document contains damning evidence about a President, then CBS has a responsibility to answer those questions. We’re not talking about some wild conspiracy here. The facts behind this should be checkable. For example, by producing all the documents from the collection that produced this one, so that the fonts can be compared. Or by going into the National Guard records and finding out exactly which brand of typewriters were in use at the time, and comparing the fonts. Or even by finding ANY model of typewriter from that era that could produce a document that matches at least as closely as the Word document does. For an organization with the resources of CBS, all of these should be possible.
Since the veracity of these documents is in question, not just by bloggers but by the Washington Post, ABC news, and other reputable news agencies, and since numerous forensic document specialists have now weighed in that this is a likely forgery, the burden of proof is on CBS. Rather’s ‘defense’ tonight was ridiculous - it boiled down to, “Well, since some typewriters could make one of the strange things in this letter, the case is closed.” Nonsense.