Dan Rather / CBS using forged Bush related National Guard documents? [Archive]

Tigers2B1

Sep10-04, 11:20 AM

I suppose the bigger question is, if forgeries, from where did these documents come? If there is any direct connection to the Kerry camp I'd speculate that he's finished. These documents were 'aged' so, if they are forgeries, there is certain intent here to mislead these as originals. CBS stands by their story and the authenticity of these documents. Note that ABC has already indicated that their experts have indicated that these documents are likely forgeries. From the ABC site -

…Marjorie Connell — widow of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the reported author of memos suggesting that Bush did not meet the standards for the Texas Air National Guard — questioned whether the documents were real.

"The wording in these documents is very suspect to me," she told ABC News Radio in an exclusive phone interview from her Texas home. She added that she "just can't believe these are his words."

First reported by CBS' 60 Minutes, the memos allegedly were found in Killian's personal files. But his family members say they doubt he ever made such documents, let alone kept them.

Connell said Killian did not type, …

The link for those who would like to read the entire article.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html

This next article is at the Weekly Standard web sie (linked below) and offers the opinions of a number of outside experts - and their rationales.

Is It a Hoax?

Experts weigh in on the 60 Minutes documents. Says one: "I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but . . . I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."

by Stephen F. Hayes

09/09/2004 7:20:00 PM

DOCUMENTS CITED Wednesday by 60 Minutes in a widely-publicized expose of George W. Bush's National Guard Service are very likely forgeries, according to several experts on document authenticity and typography. The documents--four memos from Killian to himself or his files written in 1972 and 1973--appear to indicate that Bush refused or ignored orders to have a physical exam required to continue flying. CBS News anchor Dan Rather reported the segment and sourced the documents this way: "60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file," he said. The 60 Minutes story served as the basis for follow-up news reports for dozens of news organizations across the country. …

"These sure look like forgeries," says William Flynn, a forensic document expert widely considered the nation's top analyst of computer-generated documents. Flynn looked at copies of the documents posted on the CBS News website (here, here, here, and here). Flynn says, "I would say it looks very likely that these documents could not have existed" in the early 1970s, when they were allegedly written.
Several other experts agree….

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4596&R=9FCD2F192

Tigers2B1

Sep10-04, 11:49 AM

A link to the blog POWERLINEBLOG. I understand this was the blog that ‘broke’ this story.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

JohnDubYa

Sep10-04, 11:56 AM

"60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file"

WE ARE TOLD?

How can that possibly be considred credible investigative journalism?

More from the article:

The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.

You have got to be kidding me. Lesson to forger: Use Courier! At least you may withstand scrutiny past a casual glance.

My bet: This was all done by some kid and handed to a goofball journalist too stupid to check the document out before reporting about it.

Tigers2B1

Sep10-04, 11:59 AM

<cue for the Right to come in and talk about suspicious timing>

? You mean the left?? It really doesdn't matter either wway however -- because this is what it is.

Note: These documents, the ones used by 60 minutes and CBS were used to incriminate Bush. These are the documents that may be forged (and it is beginning to look like in fact they were forged.) IF there is a connection between these (probably) forged documents and the Kerry camp than all hell is going to break loose.

russ_watters

Sep10-04, 12:08 PM

I'd been ignoring this issue because I figured it was just more of the same baseless innuendo about mabye he was/mabye he wasn't awol, but wow. This could be big.

So far no evidence, though, about where this came from, so no reason to pin it on Kerry. I don't consider him to be very bright, but I have a hard time believing he'd be this stupid - I'd more likely expect such a thing from one of his private backers. MoveOn.org, for example.

JohnDubYa

Sep10-04, 12:08 PM

I read the Blog, and the stupid fool who forged the document appeared to have used MS Word on a computer. The memo features kerning. KERNING! On a typewriter?

Here's more:

UPDATE 11: CBS is sticking to its story. It's not entirely clear which story, however. Initially, CBS spokeswoman Kelli Edwards said:

As is standard practice at CBS News, each of the documents broadcast on '60 Minutes' was thoroughly investigated by independent experts, and we are convinced of their authenticity.

Later, however, Ms. Edwards sent out an email that appeared to revise the nature of the "authentication" process:

CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written. These individuals were close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written.

So what CBS is now saying is not that the documents are authentic, but that the opinions they express are authentic, based on the hearsay reports of anonymous persons alleged to be close associates of Col. Killian, who recall his views of thirty-two years ago. This is what passes for "authentication" in the mainstream media.

CBS had better apologize before it is too late. A simple scan with a naked eyeball would have revealed the forgery. In fact, the irresponsibility displayed by CBS makes me wonder if they aren't open to lawsuit.

Tigers2B1

Sep10-04, 12:22 PM

...So far no evidence, though, about where this came from, so no reason to pin it on Kerry. I don't consider him to be very bright, but I have a hard time believing he'd be this stupid - I'd more likely expect such a thing from one of his private backers. MoveOn.org, for example.

You're right but this quote from the American Spectator doesn't help.

...More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.

The oppo researcher claimed the source was "a retired military officer." According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.

"More than a couple people heard about the papers," says the DNC staffer. "I've heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity."

The concerns arose from the sourcing. "It wasn't clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn't confirm from what file, from what original source they came from."

BOLDING Mine -

kat

Sep10-04, 02:46 PM

A link to the blog POWERLINEBLOG. I understand this was the blog that ‘broke’ this story.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

Just FYI this story actually broke at freerepublic.com
That's where Powerlineblog got it's lead on the story.

Gokul43201

Sep10-04, 07:25 PM

? You mean the left?? It really doesdn't matter either wway however -- because this is what it is.

No, I just screwed up. Didn't read fully before blurting...hence the delete, but you were too fast for me.

JohnDubYa

Sep10-04, 09:06 PM

On Hannity's show, the son of the Lt. Col. claims that not only was he contacted by CBS before the story broke, they ignored his testimony when they found out that he wouldn't back the story. He also claims his mother was contacted in a similar fashion.

If true (and this is direct testimony), then CBS has a bigger credibilty problem than I thought.

wakarusajack

Sep12-04, 05:34 PM

I was in military duiring this time and we used different size paper in the typewriters, 8 x 10.5 I think. Any word on the size of paper these are written on?

phatmonky

Sep12-04, 05:44 PM

I've been following this else where:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged

Original
http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug-18-1973-memo.gif

And open up MS word...ta da!
http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug181973memo-word.gif

The spacing is not just similar—it is identical in every respect

And continue forth:

Get your 25,000 dollars if you can type this memo on a machine available in 1972
http://defeatjohnjohn.com/pageone.htm

For the people all giddy about "existing" personnell files:
http://defeatjohnjohn.com/djj1/proofb.gif

Click the links, plenty more fodder :)

Robert Zaleski

Sep12-04, 06:51 PM

Does anyone know if a Federal law has been violated, if these memos prove to be bogus? Could we be witnessing the opening scene in the defrocking of St. Danny of CBS.

Tigers2B1

Sep12-04, 11:09 PM

From the Boston Globe.

The newspaper said that, after being told by CBS that retired Major General Bobby W. Hodges would vouch for the documents, it contacted Hodges Friday evening only to find that Hodges believes the documents are inauthentic....

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/12/new_doubt_cast_on_guard_documents/

Please take special note of this quote from Drudge

Retired Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, who was cited by a senior CBS official on Thursday as the network's "trump card" in verifying the documents, said in an interview that he was "misled" by CBS and believed the documents to be forgeries.

Hodges said that he was read only excerpts of the documents and never saw the documents

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Then there are questions about the substance found in the memos themselves – never mind they seem to have been done in WORD.

The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugarcoat" George W. Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo supposedly was written, his service record shows....

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002032742_bushguard11.html

And recall, the typewriter used during the 70s that produced this memo will have to have ALL of the absolute state of the art features mentioned – all in one package. Not only that but those features would have had to have the culminating result of looking exactly like an MS WORD document AND they would have had to have been used by a guy who couldn’t even type.

I’m still waiting for CBS to reveal the source of these documents.

LURCH

Sep12-04, 11:40 PM

So far no evidence, though, about where this came from, so no reason to pin it on Kerry.

Yes, I would consider it very premature to put this on Kerry or even his supporters. It does look alot like retaliation for the "swiftboat Vets" business, but it might not be. It might even be a ploy by the right to discredit the left. Some conservative may have written the documents so the liberals would produce them and bring about the ridicule they now face.

But even if that is the case, and this is a conservative plot to expose the questionable practices of the left, and show that the media has a liberal bias, it has succeeded. The DNC got these obvious forgeries and rushed them to the media without even giving them a casual glance to see that they are fake. The media put the docs on primetime with similar disregard. I can't imagine "60 Minutes" would have put out a story like this without bothering to verify their sources if the story were about Kerry.

FaverWillets

Sep13-04, 12:25 AM

From the Boston Globe.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/12/new_doubt_cast_on_guard_documents/

Please take special note of this quote from Drudge

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Then there are questions about the substance found in the memos themselves – never mind they seem to have been done in WORD.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002032742_bushguard11.html

And recall, the typewriter used during the 70s that produced this memo will have to have ALL of the absolute state of the art features mentioned – all in one package. Not only that but those features would have had to have the culminating result of looking exactly like an MS WORD document AND they would have had to have been used by a guy who couldn’t even type.

I’m still waiting for CBS to reveal the source of these documents.
The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugarcoat" George W. Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo supposedly was written, his service record shows....

Kinda smacks of those documents Bush and Powell submitted to the UN as PROOF of Iraq's WMD development programmes, eh? The signatory of that document had been retired from his position for a decade! So, what's your beef?

Tigers2B1

Sep13-04, 08:39 AM

Note that every other typed document Killian creates during his career is from a different typewriter. Only when Killian decides that he is going to be critical of Bush does he go into his closet and bring out this 'Typewriter On Steroids' (which has yet to surface) -- which he then uses to type the six documents critical of Bush. Too bad Killian isn't here to confirm that.

Tigers2B1

Sep13-04, 08:44 AM

Kinda smacks of those documents Bush and Powell submitted to the UN as PROOF of Iraq's WMD development programmes, eh? The signatory of that document had been retired from his position for a decade! So, what's your beef?

You have absolutely nothing to add concerning the Killian documents FaverWillets? So instead you post an off-topic bash of Bush. Mighty brave of you.

Now concerning your attempt to change the subject of the thread ---- please start your Bush bashing thread elsewhere on the board --- or, heck, pick one of the numerous Bush bashing threads already in existence. I'll even come over and take a look and if your allegation is credibly supported, I'll probably respond. Otherwise, if you actually have something of substance to add to THIS subject, please feel free.

Robert Zaleski

Sep13-04, 08:58 AM

The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugarcoat" George W. Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo supposedly was written, his service record shows....

Kinda smacks of those documents Bush and Powell submitted to the UN as PROOF of Iraq's WMD development programmes, eh? The signatory of that document had been retired from his position for a decade! So, what's your beef?The difference is the CBS memos are suspect frauds, while the Powell documents are bona fide.

FaverWillets

Sep13-04, 09:55 AM

The difference is the CBS memos are suspect frauds, while the Powell documents are bona fide.

It sounds like we're both on the same side. Bush is a slug, he's always been a slug, and he's always going to be a slug.

FaverWillets

Sep13-04, 09:59 AM

You have absolutely nothing to add concerning the Killian documents FaverWillets? So instead you post an off-topic bash of Bush. Mighty brave of you.

Now concerning your attempt to change the subject of the thread ---- please start your Bush bashing thread elsewhere on the board --- or, heck, pick one of the numerous Bush bashing threads already in existence. I'll even come over and take a look and if your allegation is credibly supported, I'll probably respond. Otherwise, if you actually have something of substance to add to THIS subject, please feel free.

Bush's record, his entire adult life, has been one of getting off on his father's name. And, why would I care if YOU respond to me or not? Who are you anyway?

russ_watters

Sep13-04, 10:33 AM

I can't imagine "60 Minutes" would have put out a story like this without bothering to verify their sources if the story were about Kerry. I've always liked "60 Minutes" and this (apparent) disregard for journalistic ethics (no pun intended) is surprising to me.The DNC got these obvious forgeries and rushed them to the media without even giving them a casual glance to see that they are fake. Now that's just plain stupid. What kind of two-bit campaign is Kerry running? The first question any campaign personnel should ask themselves before taking any action is "can this blow up in my face?" It seems like they just aren't thinking about it. Does anyone know if a Federal law has been violated, if these memos prove to be bogus? Could we be witnessing the opening scene in the defrocking of St. Danny of CBS. Forgery is a federal crime, afaik, as is impersonating a military officer. Even if its proven to a legal certainty that these are forgeries, though, I'd be surprised if anyone gets prosecuted.

Tigers2B1

Sep13-04, 11:02 AM

Bush's record, his entire adult life, has been one of getting off on his father's name. And, why would I care if YOU respond to me or not? Who are you anyway?

:Sigh: - I'm nobody FaverWillets. And if you don't want a response from me - than don’t respond to my posts. But that's really not what I'm talking about ---

Look, assume for a moment that you start a thread – say about the history of terrorism or about this year’s apple crop. I come in and – for reasons known only to me – start calling Kerry a sphinter tot, explode on his illegitimate daughters, and then question his marriage into the Heinz family. People might question my motives and worse – might take up those issues and drown this one. SO ---- if you just have to purge about Bush just please do it elsewhere. I started this thread to talk about the Killian documents – not someone's life-long interest in corn snakes, or the social behavior of honeybees, or how long Bush has been a "slug." Just consider this - when people insist on hijacking threads, making each just another pit stop, another drive-by post, and another opportunity to call Bush a jackbooted thug, it makes the thread difficult to read, and therefore discuss.

LURCH

Sep13-04, 11:09 AM

I've always liked "60 Minutes" and this (apparent) disregard for journalistic ethics (no pun intended) is surprising to me.

I would consider them an excellent source of information for all topics other than political. They do appear to have a definite bias in that area.

russ_watters

Sep14-04, 10:48 AM

It appears that the media is letting this one die. I'm a little surprised since there is nothing a news station loves more than catching another one with their pants down.

kat

Sep14-04, 11:20 AM

Russ- I'm not sure I'd write it off just yet. According to newsmap there are still over 128 news articles on the subject today. Not including the 300+ articles in regards to comedians and politics which also mentions Rathers forgeries.

Tigers2B1

Sep14-04, 11:37 AM

FaverWillets

Sep14-04, 12:32 PM

For your viewing pleasure - here are some of the alleged "Guard documents" produced by CBS for those who want to view them. Note that these are in .pdf format.

For the most obvious - note the superscripted "th" in item two at this first link. The proportional spacing and the New Roman script you'll have to eyeball unless you have the time to create it in MS WORD, bring it to the right size and then superimpose.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay19.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf

For another example of the raised "th" go to this (below) USATODAY site. See the third page, row two and see the words "Pilot Trainee, 111th Fighter Sq." Note that within this same document none of the other "th" are raised or small. Nineteen .pdf pages here.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellaneous.pdf

Looking at page 2 of the .pdf documents I see that more than one font is used. "...70 May 26, then underneath it, next line 71 May 26...different typewriters...different fonts. Some typewriters back then did superscripting, most did not. I have used many typewriters in my time, and wonder if you gentlemen have too? What I am seeing is not suspect... do you have other areas of those documents you think are worthy of a closer look?

How is it that these documents were reported as "accidentally destroyed" then they appear? People have come forward on both sides to say they didn't see George when he should have reported for duty, others say they did, but mostly, like the Swift Boat group it seems this story too is filled with many inconsistensies. For myself, these impressions on those reports look like bonafide typewriter impressions.... the IBM ball selectric model used interchangable ball heads (fonts).

russ_watters

Sep14-04, 01:37 PM

How is it that these documents were reported as "accidentally destroyed" then they appear? These documents in particular are said to have come from a personal collection of the officer who wrote them - but the source is anonymous and no one is substantiating that.Russ- I'm not sure I'd write it off just yet. According to newsmap there are still over 128 news articles on the subject today. Not including the 300+ articles in regards to comedians and politics which also mentions Rathers forgeries. I guess we'll see, kat. In any case, unless the Kerry campaign chooses to reveal info about the source of these memos, there is little chance they'll ever be shown conclusively forged or authentic.

Tigers2B1

Sep14-04, 01:40 PM

...What I am seeing is not suspect... do you have other areas of those documents you think are worthy of a closer look?...

Best ask CBS because these aren't documents in my possession. And CBS refuses to produce the source. Did you do the MS WORD / .pdf document overlay when reaching your conclusion or just eyeball? Anyway, IF you are an expert in the field, call CBS, they need one or two experts to advocate their position – especially since after the recent expert exodus. Especially since Killian, who couldn’t type, had to use a typewrittter during the 70s that produced documents that look exactly like MS WORD - but ONLY when he was critical of Bush and then switched to a 1970s - conventional typewriter for other documents. So, I’m assuming that it is your position than that Killian selectively used this extremely high end typewriter --and 'other' expert opinion notwithstanding -- that you can show us support for those conclusions. A 1972 typewriter, that by mere unlucky coincidence, includes ALL of the mentioned software functions of a MS WORD document ---

The latest from MSNBC concerning expert opinion.

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves….

The analysis shows that half a dozen Killian memos released earlier by the military were written with a standard typewriter using different formatting techniques from those characteristic of computer-generated documents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word.

"I am personally 100 percent sure that they are fake," said Joseph M. Newcomer, author of several books on Windows programming, who worked on electronic typesetting techniques in the early 1970s. Newcomer said he had produced virtually exact replicas of the CBS documents using Microsoft Word formatting and the Times New Roman font.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5993683/

maps

Sep14-04, 02:17 PM

I've always liked "60 Minutes" and this (apparent) disregard for journalistic ethics (no pun intended) is surprising to me. Now that's just plain stupid.

I would suggest that the use of the words "journalistic ethics" in conjunction with CBS's "60 Minutes" program is really an oxymoron.

JohnDubYa

Sep14-04, 03:19 PM

The lack of journalistic ethics doesn't surprise me. The rank idiocy does.

russ_watters

Sep14-04, 03:44 PM

I would suggest that the use of the words "journalistic ethics" in conjunction with CBS's "60 Minutes" program is really an oxymoron. That's why I said "no pun intended." Supposedly, there is such a thing, but its rarely actually followed if it gets in the way of other goals. The lack of journalistic ethics doesn't surprise me. The rank idiocy does. Ehh, I am a little surprised (or perhaps I just combine the two).

Tigers2B1

Sep15-04, 01:45 PM

Well, to be fair, the "documents might be authentic" advocates are really making their best efforts. Grasping at eachh and every possibility. So --- there seems to be one model of 1972 vintage typewriter that MIGHT have had the wherewithal to have typed the “Killian documents” – MAYBE - but probably not. For argument's sake let's assume it did. Let the straw stay for the moment. The IBM Composer is the typewriter in question. Will the IBM Composer save Dan Rather? Well, first let's note that the Composer had a $4,000 price tag (in 1970 dollars), the price of a nice, new 1972 automobile. However Mrs. Knox, Col Killian's secretary is on the record as saying that she used a conventional, standard issue typewriter during that period and that she typed Col Killian's documents. She didn't use this $4,000 typewriter. So, it seems, for the IBM Composer to be the culprit, the deceased Col Killian would have had to use the Composer --- all out of sight. How he got this typewriter and why, since he couldn't type - is left for us to figure out. The article below also points out that it is not reasonable to conclude that a small National Guard Office needed, nor could they could justify a $4,000 typewriter in 1972. However -- IF that National Guard office did have one of these IBM Composer typewriters and Killian used it only when typing memos critical of Bush – ($800 a memo? – you do the math) it would have been, not only an expensive endeavor, but also a labor-intensive job with all the measuring and type-ball changes involved. Questions of why he would do it that way and why the office would have had such a machine (a machine which was unknown to Mrs. Knox, Col Killian’s secretary at the time) ALL remains a mystery. See the quotes below --

…The precisely centered text, the superscript "th" and the proportionally spaced Times New Roman font are all obvious tip-offs. Further analysis of word wrapping and line spacing reveals a perfect match. Anyone using Microsoft Word's default settings and a copier for "aging"can reproduce the memos exactly. A high-resolution comparison can be viewed at mysite.verizon.net/vze6vxcr.

Did a typewriter exist that could mimic these features? Some suggest that an IBM Selectric Composer could have been used, theoretically, to type the memos. But with a $4,000 price tag, it's unlikely that a small National Guard office would have had one. Assuming it did, creating the memos would have involved laborious manual procedures, such as detailed measuring and type-ball changing -- a dubious proposition for a man whose widow says he couldn't type.

Greg Swann, writes that "I did work on the IBM Selectric Composer in the '70s, both the stand-alone model and the magnetic tape version. ... [N]ot even an experienced Selectric Composer operator could have produced those memos, nor a Linotype compositor, nor any other typographer using '70s-epoch equipment. This is not subject to debate by rational men. The Killian memos are forgeries."

http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/14/41465b214495d

IMHO, CBS loses more credibility with each day they refuse to produce the source(s) of these documents.

JohnDubYa

Sep15-04, 03:15 PM

Here is a funny response to the article:

Dan Rather is a saint. I understand he will soon release the Killian memos in their original PowerPoint presentation form.

BTW, has anyone bothered to check to see if there really was a P.O. Box 34567 in Houston in 1972?

If you have, call me at my home number (123)456-7890

JohnDubYa

Sep15-04, 03:26 PM

Okay, now that it is 99.999% certain that the documents are forgeries, how about some more questions?

1. Who supplied the documents to CBS?
2. Did the DNC ever have possession of the documents?
3. Did CBS contact Lt. Col. Killian's stepson before airing the story?
4. If so, why weren't his views included in the story?
5. If not, why not?
6. Did CBS contact Lt. Col. Killian's former wife before airing the story?
7. If so, why weren't her views included in the story?
8. If not, why not?
9. Did CBS contact Lt. Col. Killian's former secretary before airing the story?
10. If so, why weren't her views included in the story?
11. If not, why not?
12. Would CBS be willing to disclose its source if the documents are proven forgeries?

Robert Zaleski

Sep15-04, 03:31 PM

The lack of journalistic ethics doesn't surprise me. The rank idiocy does.
Blind arrogance gives birth to stupidity.

russ_watters

Sep15-04, 11:14 PM

Update: Congressional Republicans are demanding a retraction and disclosure of the source and accusing CBS of fraud and interfering with the electoral process. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-15-cbs-guard_x.htm

Dayle Record

Sep15-04, 11:30 PM

GENIERE

Sep16-04, 12:03 AM

JohnDubYa

Sep16-04, 04:32 AM

Dayle, would you mind repeating what you just said? I want to see if it is just as nonsensical the second time around.

JohnDubYa

Sep16-04, 04:35 AM

According to a Washington Post (Dobbs) reporter today… the documents were faxed from “Kinkos” in Abilene, TX, 20 miles from the residence of Bill Burkett. Burkett left the Guards in 1998 and filed a lawsuit against them, but lost the suit. Since then he has been hospitalized for depression and has been a Bush and Guard “basher” ever since

If this is true (and right now I it looks no more ridiculous than anything else I have heard surrounding the documents) then someone may as well park a U-Haul outside Dan Rather's house.

JohnDubYa

Sep16-04, 04:48 AM

Prediction: Whoever sent in the documents will produce new ones where...

1. Kerning will be turned off.

2. The Courier font will be chosen.

3. Factual mistakes will be corrected.

Then Dan Rather will then state that he has the originals but he doesn't want any more controversy, so in the best interests of the country he is placing them inside a safe. After all, he has no enmity towards the Bush family, right? He is an Independent, right?

Gza

Sep16-04, 04:56 AM

1. Who supplied the documents to CBS?
2. Did the DNC ever have possession of the documents?
3. Did CBS contact Lt. Col. Killian's stepson before airing the story?
4. If so, why weren't his views included in the story?
5. If not, why not?
6. Did CBS contact Lt. Col. Killian's former wife before airing the story?
7. If so, why weren't her views included in the story?
8. If not, why not?
9. Did CBS contact Lt. Col. Killian's former secretary before airing the story?
10. If so, why weren't her views included in the story?
11. If not, why not?
12. Would CBS be willing to disclose its source if the documents are proven forgeries?

I think that people are starting to stare too closely at the trees, rather than seeing the forest. The important issue at hand is Bush's war record. It seems rather convienient for the Republicans to skip right past that and go straight for the messenger. Whether or not the documents are forged(they probably are), that doesn't change the fact that Bush went AWOL.

JohnDubYa

Sep16-04, 05:35 AM

It seems rather convienient for the Republicans to skip right past that and go straight for the messenger. Whether or not the documents are forged(they probably are), that doesn't change the fact that Bush went AWOL.

First of all, it is not a fact.

Second, how is Bush supposed to counter forged documents? I think the Bush people are behaving smart and taking the high road. Dan Rather hung himself. Why not just sit on the sidelines with a soda and pop corn and watch with amusement? That's what I would do.

Bush has said before that he was not AWOL. That is all the explaining he feels he needs to do. And if you feel somehow that isn't good enough, don't vote for him.

Tigers2B1

Sep16-04, 08:02 AM

Seems the CBS and Rather "armor" (so to speak) is beginning to crack --– From the Houston paper –

…CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time Wednesday night that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents.

Yet, I did have to laugh when I got to this part of Rather’s admission

…"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said Wednesday night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.”'

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2798115

Tigers2B1

Sep16-04, 08:06 AM

Judging from Rather statement last night, I suspect that Rather and CBS MIGHT be ready to 'begin' the long and winding admission process. But it will be a slow an painful process and I’m absolutly certain Rather and CBS will be looking for ways out all along the admission rollercoaster. IF Rather follows through and finally admits that these documents are very likely forgeries - Rather and CBS have no obligation to the person who intentionally mislead us and CBS. CBS should then give us that name.

Tigers2B1

Sep16-04, 09:49 AM

Let me add that I think that Rather and CBS will use the Knox interview as their way out of this mess. I can't think of any NEW evidence that has just recently come to light that has caused Rather and CBS to NOW state that these documents may very well be fakes. This is almost a 180 from their position just a day and a half ago. Note that they put her on TV last night after her statement came out that while the documents were fakes, they expressed the sentiment of Col Killian. There are a few things I just don’t get about what Ms. Knox said however --- or at least the part of the interview that CBS aired.

Knox made the statement that whoever produced the fake documents probably did this so they would be caught. How in the hell does THAT work? In what fantasy world do you "retype" documents for fear of being ID'ed.

Second --- in one spot of the interview (that CBS showed us) Knox said that Bush acted as if he "was above" everyone else and that the pressure received from Bush Sr.'s influence made it difficult to management the National Guard post. YET, in another segment of the piece, Knox says that Bush was "very gentlemanly" and she wondered 'what fine people the Bush family must be to produce such a son.' OK --- let me get this straight - Bush acted like he was "above everyone else" and the pressure from the Bush family influence made it nigh impossible to command ----- YET Bush came from fine family and was "very gentlemanly." Shortterm memory issues - Knox??

Third, the CBS spot doesn’t mention this for some reason but Knox is a long time Democrat who is one record as saying that Bush is ‘unfit for command’ - or some such. So - lets look at what we have - the partisans lining up – with the Killian family saying that Col Killian liked Bush and Knox saying he didn't. Fine. What they all agree on is that the documents are fakes. After hearing Knox’s statement to the Houston paper the other day CBS decided to make a call. Hence the Rather admission that these are probably faked documents ----- since Knox has already stated the obvious and indicated that they are forged National Guard docs. CBS and Rather can now line up with Knox on this issue. CBS is attempting to use Knox as a 'way out' after being exposed for what they are. A partisan tool.

Robert Zaleski

Sep16-04, 10:31 AM

Dan Rather thinks you can be both a liar and an honest man. http://www.888webtoday.com/skousen5.html

GENIERE

Sep16-04, 02:47 PM

CBS is following the lead of the NY Times; fiction is fact if it conforms to one’s opinion. The dramatic and rapid drop in the network’s ratings (reruns of “The Simpson’s” get better ratings in NYC) reflects the opinion of Joe Average.

Dayle Record

Sep17-04, 12:34 AM

I conjecture that these files came from another intelligence agency that did use an expensive typewriter for data entry. I bet these files are files that were kept on Killian, and his reporting regarding George W Bush's service records. George's Dad was rather highly placed in the intelligence business at one time. I bet anyone that said squat about the family had huge verbatim files. Those files came to light, most likely, and no they don't look like the originals, because they aren't.

John Dubya, I repeated this as you asked.

Facts are, George W. Bush entered the Guard to avoid Viet Nam, and then avoided the Guard as well. These facts are indisputible. Socially well placed white men, frequently survive war in safe havens, while poor men, and men of color die heroe's deaths. Sometimes socially well placed white men distinguish themselves in time of war, as in the case of John Kerry, and many others. I think the ability to wage peace is the paramount qualification a president needs. And waging peace is what has to happen. The United States cannot behave like the Christian Borg, and expect the world to like it. Americans have the right to know the histories of their leaders, and George W. Bush's military records were destroyed. That is a crime, lest anyone forget.

JohnDubYa

Sep17-04, 12:55 AM

John Dubya, I repeated this as you asked.

Thanks. And I was right... your logic makes no more sense the second time around.

Facts are, George W. Bush entered the Guard to avoid Viet Nam, and then avoided the Guard as well. These facts are indisputible.

Truth by Blatant Assertion. This level of Kindergarten logic may work on some people, but I'm not going to buy it. State your (ahem) "indisputible" proof.

Socially well placed white men, frequently survive war in safe havens, while poor men, and men of color die heroe's deaths.

If you listen carefully, you can hear the Battle Hymn of the Republic being hummed in the background.

Sometimes socially well placed white men distinguish themselves in time of war, as in the case of John Kerry, and many others. I think the ability to wage peace is the paramount qualification a president needs. And waging peace is what has to happen. The United States cannot behave like the Christian Borg, and expect the world to like it.

Holy cow, we're acting like Christian Borg? I had never thought of putting it that way. Now that I think of it, we are acting like Christian Borg. Well, this puts a new light on things. Maybe Bush has acted rash after all, just like Christian Borg would have. So what do we have to do so that we don't act like Christian Borg? And just who is Christian Borg?

Americans have the right to know the histories of their leaders, and George W. Bush's military records were destroyed. That is a crime, lest anyone forget.

Were the records destroyed by Christian Borg? If so, then he is truly a scoundrel, and I can see why we shouldn't act like Christian Borg.

Gokul43201

Sep17-04, 09:23 AM

Woohoo, a right wing orgy, I see.

<don't mind me...I'm already gone>

Dayle Record

Sep17-04, 09:52 AM

FaverWillets

Sep17-04, 10:12 AM

Kindergarden assertion? A matter of record, is not a kindergarden assertion. The military records of GW Bush were disappeared, then recently even more disappeared for good measure. That is a matter of public record.

Politics is never a nice discussion these days, unless it goes right along Republican Party Lines, then everyone is polite. If discussion strays from the speaking points, then it gets nasty.

Kindergarden assertion/Script Boy.

Easy now.... looks like someone pushed your buttons. It happened to me in this thread too. I apologized yesterday to the person I over reacted with. I have not seen a reply from him yet, so I won't know what he and others in this thread are really made of until the day is past. In the meantime I hope you step back and take a series of deep breaths and ask yourself, as I did, just what your intentions in this thread are? Are you trying to change their opinions to fit yours as I finally realized I was? Or, are you just angry like this all the time?

It is an established fact that this Presidential election is polarized. I prefer to avoid hanging around with people who see it my way exclusively. One cannot hope to grow much by staying almost exclusively in a familiar and friendly environment.

FaverWillets

Sep17-04, 10:15 AM

Dan Rather thinks you can be both a liar and an honest man. http://www.888webtoday.com/skousen5.html

Maybe he should change his name to...say.... Dan Janus Rather.

Tigers2B1

Sep17-04, 10:46 AM

Below are links to one of the CBS docs, an exact copy of that CBS doc redone in MS WORD, and the last is a link to that CBS doc with the MS WORD doc overlaid. Note that faxing and photocopying may have caused some ‘blooming’ of the letters in the CBS doc which seem to appear again in the overlay.

The original suspect document from CBS

http://www.mirthless.org/forgery/aug-18-1973-memo.gif

The document retyped in MS WORD

http://www.mirthless.org/forgery/aug1873-pdf-word.gif

An overlay of the two – MS WORD over the CBS document

http://www.mirthless.org/forgery/aug1873-pdf-overlay.gif

You judge.

kat

Sep17-04, 10:54 AM

Kindergarden assertion? A matter of record, is not a kindergarden assertion. The military records of GW Bush were disappeared, then recently even more disappeared for good measure. That is a matter of public record.
.
erm...."disapeared" and "even more disappeared" ? :tongue2:

Why don't we cut through the fustian charade and just get to the straight talking facts eh?

Facts are, George W. Bush entered the Guard to avoid Viet Nam, and then avoided the Guard as well.

Why don't you start with backing this up with facts...you know dates, records and links. Oh, and please...if you link to the Rathergate memo's expect to be heckled.

Tigers2B1

Sep17-04, 11:04 AM

FaverWillets

Sep17-04, 11:13 AM

russ_watters

Sep17-04, 11:41 AM

According to a Washington Post (Dobbs) reporter today… the documents were faxed from “Kinkos” in Abilene, TX, 20 miles from the residence of Bill Burkett. Burkett left the Guards in 1998 and filed a lawsuit against them, but lost the suit. Since then he has been hospitalized for depression and has been a Bush and Guard “basher” ever since That's an interesting twist. Probably unprovable, but interesting nonetheless.

kat

Sep17-04, 12:08 PM

Big Country Chapter Texas Democratic Women (http://www.1tex.net/demo/bcdw.htm)

The speaker for our meeting on Monday, January 5th, will be Lavena Cheek, Taylor Country Tax Assessor Collector. Lavena will give a short talk on how we at the grassroots level can revitalize the Democratic Party in a positive manner.
The meeting will be at 7 p.m. at Kinko's on Danville just north of Buffalo Gap road in their meeting room. There are soda machines, etc. You're welcome to bring other refreshments if you like.

The room will cost us $5.00 per hour and we'll be requesting donations of $1.00 to help defray the cost. Any amount over the room cost will go into the club's general fund.

Please attend and bring a friend! And, think about clearing your schedule the weekend of February 20th for the TDW state convention in Austin! We'll have more information on that at the meeting!

JohnDubYa

Sep17-04, 02:11 PM

FaverWillets

Sep17-04, 02:34 PM

Here is Limbaugh's admission. What is so laughable about it?

"You know I have always tried to be honest with you and open about my life. So I need to tell you today that part of what you have heard and read is correct. I am addicted to prescription pain medication. Immediately following this broadcast I will check myself into a treatment center for the next 30 days to once and for all break the hold that this highly addictive medication has on me."

I would accept something along those lines from Dan Rather. We're not going to get it.

The quote from Rush was unnecessary. We are now discussing Dan Rather and I agree entirely with your last line, on both counts. Rush is another topic altogether.

"...I will check myself into a treatment center for the next 30 days..." How does Rush determine how long his treatment will take? I have been in a twelve step program, and the very audacity of this man to tell us that he is being honest when he is determining his treatment program, length of stay...etc...what a hypocrite and phony... for Limbaugh it never worked for me. For Rather...honestly I can't stand that guy anyway. I think I finally tuned out from him during the Egypt Air 880 air crash... long story, not worth the time and effort to type.

FaverWillets

Sep17-04, 02:36 PM

[QUOTE=JohnDubYa]Here is Limbaugh's admission. What is so laughable about it?

Try, everything. It was more of a dodge from the law and a desperate attempt to save his career than it was a true admission.

russ_watters

Sep20-04, 01:32 PM

Well, CBS (Dan Rather) apologized, but stopped short of a retraction.
HERE (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-20-cbs-bush_x.htm) it is: We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry....

...It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism...

...That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where — if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.... I am surprised that he even said that much.

FaverWillets

Sep20-04, 01:38 PM

Well, CBS (Dan Rather) apologized, but stopped short of a retraction.
HERE (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-20-cbs-bush_x.htm) it is: I am surprised that he even said that much.

It is a point of irony among many in this campaign that Dan Rather apologizes for documents that are in question but the information within them is said to be accurate. In a perfect world we might expect Bush to follow suit about Iraq...or the Swift Boat boys to follow suit about their own treachery. Incredibly one sided, this campaign.

JohnDubYa

Sep20-04, 02:16 PM

It is a point of irony among many in this campaign that Dan Rather apologizes for documents that are in question but the information within them is said to be accurate. In a perfect world we might expect Bush to follow suit about Iraq...or the Swift Boat boys to follow suit about their own treachery. Incredibly one sided, this campaign.

One side has pay for their messages on their own. The other side gets Dan Rather and The Today Show to air theirs.

FaverWillets

Sep20-04, 02:29 PM

One side has pay for their messages on their own. The other side gets Dan Rather and The Today Show to air theirs.

So, we have degrees of right and wrong then? Then you suggest that accountability is entirely a matter of political expediency?

Let's both assume for the moment that Rather and CBS acted on their own sans involvement by the Kerry camp, and that Swift-Boat did the same on their side. Is not wrong, wrong? Or is wrong sort of wrong so long as it supports an inflexible point of view?

russ_watters

Sep20-04, 02:37 PM

Let's both assume for the moment that Rather and CBS acted on their own sans involvement by the Kerry camp, and that Swift-Boat did the same on their side. Is not wrong, wrong? Or is wrong sort of wrong so long as it supports an inflexible point of view? If each entity (CBS and SBV) acted on its own not in cahoots with either campaign, why should either campaign comment on either issue? Or are you suggesting in your last post that CBS is part of the Kerry campaign, so an apology by CBS should be considered an apology by Kerry and the Bush campaign should follow suit? Since I doubt you really mean to say that, the comparison is specious.

In any case, the Iraq info is a separate issue entirely.

FaverWillets

Sep20-04, 02:55 PM

If each entity (CBS and SBV) acted on its own not in cahoots with either campaign, why should either campaign comment on either issue? Or are you suggesting in your last post that CBS is part of the Kerry campaign, so an apology by CBS should be considered an apology by Kerry and the Bush campaign should follow suit? Since I doubt you really mean to say that, the comparison is specious.

In any case, the Iraq info is a separate issue entirely.

It was DubYa, by this unintelligible response that triggered mine: "One side has pay for their messages on their own. The other side gets Dan Rather and The Today Show to air theirs" He made this distinction, not me.

How by any stretch of the imagination did you make such a leap, Russ?

How can the comparison be specious when it has been proven that Bush/Powell presented forged documents to the UN in support of pre emptive war with Iraq. More than a thousand of our military have now died over this center piece of lies and deceit. Rather came clean even though witnesses confirm the inform within them is correct. I am amazed at how inflexible you guys are when presented with the truth about your chosen candidate.

russ_watters

Sep20-04, 03:07 PM

It was DubYa, by this unintelligible response that triggered mine: "One side has pay for their messages on their own. The other side gets Dan Rather and The Today Show to air theirs" He made this distinction, not me. Fair enough, though I thought JD's point was pretty clear. What part did you not understand?

In any case, I consider the media biased and unafraid to show it, but I would never say they are actually part of the Kerry campaign (nor, would I expect, JD would). Would you? How by any stretch of the imagination did you make such a leap, Russ? Well, you said: It is a point of irony among many in this campaign that Dan Rather apologizes for documents that are in question...

...Incredibly one sided, this campaign. which implies that they are a part of the campaign (for Kerry) and that CBS coming clean is equivalent to the Kerry campaign coming clean. Obviously, the SBV are part of the campaign - are you implying that CBS is as well? How can the comparison be specious when it has been proven that Bush/Powell presented forged documents to the UN in support of pre emptive war with Iraq... I said the Iraq issue is irrelevant, its the other part thats in question: CBS vs the SBV - the the speciousness of the comparison you made depends on if you think CBS is part of the Kerry campaign. If you think CBS is a part of the Kerry campaign, then we have other issues here...

FaverWillets

Sep20-04, 03:17 PM

Fair enough, though I thought JD's point was pretty clear. What part did you not understand?

In any case, I consider the media biased and unafraid to show it, but I would never say they are actually part of the Kerry campaign (nor, would I expect, JD would). Would you? Well, you said: which implies that they are a part of the campaign (for Kerry) and that CBS coming clean is equivalent to the Kerry campaign coming clean. Obviously, the SBV are part of the campaign - are you implying that CBS is as well? I said the Iraq issue is irrelevant, its the other part thats in question: CBS vs the SBV - the the speciousness of the comparison you made depends on if you think CBS is part of the Kerry campaign. If you think CBS is a part of the Kerry campaign, then we have other issues here...

DubYa made the implication that the Kerry camp got Rather and Today Show to do his dirty work. How did this get so messed up. I answered that we should assume that neither Bush nor Kerry had anything to do with either issue. On that assumption we should then look at what went down: Rather apologized. SBV has never come clean about their lies and deceit. Fair enough. I have to get to work... this is informative and entertaining to an extent, but I have to earn the bread now. Thank you both for your time and inputs, even if we clearly disagree.

JohnDubYa

Sep20-04, 03:26 PM

So, we have degrees of right and wrong then? Then you suggest that accountability is entirely a matter of political expediency?

You were talking about a perfect world. In a perfect world, the three major news networks wouldn't be siding with one side of the political debate. So while Kitty Kelly gets free exposure on The Today Show and Dan Rather presents forged documents, the Swift Boat Veterans have to pay to have their messages delivered.

If Kitty Kelly, given her past idiocies, had written the book on John Kerry, she would never have landed on The Today Show -- she would have had to buy air time out of her own pocket. So you are right; we don't live in a perfect world.

russ_watters

Sep20-04, 03:57 PM

DubYa made the implication that the Kerry camp got Rather and Today Show to do his dirty work. No, I don't think JD implied that. The mainstream media is left leaning - Kerry didn't have to get them to do anything. They do it on their own. I answered that we should assume that neither Bush nor Kerry had anything to do with either issue. Ok, good... On that assumption we should then look at what went down: Rather apologized. SBV has never come clean about their lies and deceit. Ok, but that still assumes an equality between CBS and the SBV that doesn't (and shouldn't) exist. Media is supposed to be unbiased. You should assume that the SBV is biased.

IMO, the SBV didn't lie, but I'll certainly agree they were deceitful. But that's marketing. That's what you get from a biased marketing campaign with an adjenda. And there is a parallel on the Left: MoveOn.org and Michael Moore. Neither will ever come clean about their deceptions - and you shouldn't expect them to.

The fact that you don't seem to want to separate a supposedly unbiased observer from one that is obviously a biased and active part of the campaign is disturbing to me.

JohnDubYa

Sep20-04, 04:42 PM

I think the Left's howling about the SBV campaign is hilarious, given their defending of Michael Moore. Freedom of speech, right?

Tigers2B1

Sep20-04, 09:39 PM

Burkett has already indicated he was "the source" of these documents to CBS BUT claims that he received them from another source where, he claims, he made a promise of confidentiality. Smell a rat? – just wait to you read what else is involved here. No comment needed. Just read.

CBS arranged for a confidential source to talk with Joe Lockhart, a top aide to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, after the source provided the network with the now-disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Texas National Guard….

…Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a female producer talked to him about the 60 Minutes program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer who gave CBS the documents. Lockhart couldn't recall the producer's name. But CBS said Monday night that it would examine the role of producer Mary Mapes in passing the name to Lockhart.

Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would help arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

The network's effort to place Burkett in contact with a top Democratic official raises ethical questions about CBS' handling of material potentially damaging to the Republican president in the midst of an election….

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-20-cbs-documents_x.htm

russ_watters

Sep21-04, 12:45 AM

The mainstream media is left leaning - Kerry didn't have to get them to do anything. They do it on their own. Looks like I may have to take this one back. If there is collusion, thats real bad for Kerry and CBS. More tomorrow...I think the Left's howling about the SBV campaign is hilarious, given their defending of Michael Moore. Freedom of speech, right? And don't forget Limbaugh. He's so offensive that they complain about him on the House floor. But MoveOn.org and Moore are just unbiased, astute observers and reporters (like CBS :rolleyes: ). Heck, they even keep a straight face when saying that "F 9/11" is a "documentary." Riiiiight.