Oh, this is funny

[SuperJerk 0]

And my mom used to have a typewriter that had the "th" key on it.

 

Nice try, Mike.

I think Mike was referring to typewriters that were around at the time something like that would've been written.

My mom's 51, so its entirely possible she had a type-writer in the early 70s.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Your mom's a liar!

 

the only way to settle this is to get 30 year old typewriters, type, wait 30 years, and compare the results

[Guest GreatOne]

Again, the one side that preaches it the most should be the one that, god forbid, sets the example.

 

I doubt when Kerry was the next big thing coming out of the primaries, CNN or whoever was in Terry McAuliife's ear saying 'Let's bring up this AWOL Bush thing even though it was already debunked and see if we can make some hay out of it'

Again, your missing the point. It doesn't matter who is yelling louder. Both sides are being refuted and then just churning out more people in droves to repeat the same thing over and over again. Add this to the media's willingness to give validity to any group with the word "for truth" in their name, and you have a mixture which results in what we currently have. If the media simply stopped covering this bullshit from both sides and took it upon themselves to ask questions about the issues and not about who did what, 30 years ago, maybe we would hear discussions about the issues. The media however, has decided to swarm themselved knee deep into this endless pit of nonsense, and milk it for every last ratings drop it can.

I was referring to today's speech by Kerry where he mentioned--and I watched the fucking thing--'George Bush is not focusing on the real issue,' let's stop right there.

 

So I guess the economy, education, and health care aren't 'real issues'. So CNN specifically told him to say that?

 

Don't confuse this for a defense of the media, like when CNN trumped their ratings successes as some medal of honor for like the next week following 911. But let's not assume for one second that candidates, parties, whoever (most come from the Kerry camp IMO but I'll play ball here) aren't fueling any of this and don't deserve the blame, especially the ones that proclaim themselves to be 'all about the issues' and then when the opposition actually DOES address the issues their candidate says he's missing the point of the so-called 'real one'.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

You still don't get it.

 

Nearly all campaign rhetoric is bullshit. From both sides. Get over it. Focus on the actual issues and the platforms as best you can - not the dick-waving either candidate uses in stump speeches or TV ads. It's meaningless crap designed to win votes in a specific state. When the debates come around, they can put up or shut up for probably the closest thing to 'real' we'll get.

[Guest Cerebus]

To get back on the topic a bit:

 

OMGFAUXNEWS~! (Don't worry, its not any of their famed biased reporting, its actually the AP's biased reporting they're passing along):

 

Bush Guard Memos Questioned

Thursday, September 09, 2004

 

DALLAS  — The authenticity of newly unearthed memos stating that George W. Bush failed to meet standards of the Texas Air National Guard (search) during the Vietnam War was questioned Thursday by the son of the late officer who reportedly wrote the memos. "I am upset because I think it is a mixture of truth and fiction here," said Gary Killian, son of Lt. Col. Jerry Killia (search)n, who died in 1984.

 

Another officer who served with Killian and a document expert also said Thursday the documents appear to be forgeries.

 

Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said one of the memos, signed by his father, appeared legitimate. But he doubted his father would have written another, unsigned memo that said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.

 

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things. ... No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

 

News reports have said the memos, first obtained by CBS's "60 Minutes," were found in Jerry Killian's personal records. Gary Killian said his father wasn't in the habit of bringing his work home with him, and that the documents didn't come from the family.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines (search) said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software, which wasn't available when the documents were supposedly written in 1972 and 1973.

 

Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (search), pointed to a superscript — a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" — as evidence indicating forgery.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Washington Post is weighing on this too.

 

Experts consulted by a range of news organizations pointed out typographical and formatting questions about four documents as they considered the possibility that they were forged. The widow of the National Guard officer whose signature is on the bottom of the documents also disputed their authenticity.

 

Check out the signatures yourself (the real one is on the left):

 

Drudge is also claiming CBS is launcing an internal investigation.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Clearly, neither of these men are the kind of President that the people of 1970s America are looking for.

[Guest Cerebus]

Clearly, neither of these men are the kind of President that the people of 1970s America are looking for.

Fair enough.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The Washington Post is weighing on this too.

 

Experts consulted by a range of news organizations pointed out typographical and formatting questions about four documents as they considered the possibility that they were forged. The widow of the National Guard officer whose signature is on the bottom of the documents also disputed their authenticity.

 

Check out the signatures yourself (the real one is on the left):

The memos appeared to be written by Killian to himself and were maintained in his own files, "60 Minutes" reported.

 

The news program cited the opinion of a handwriting expert and a close friend of Killian's who said all four memos appeared authentic.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...1,2532154.story

[Guest Cerebus]

Edit: You already did. I'm just stupid.

 

Look I'm not an expert. At all.

 

BUT when ABC, Washington Post, the guy's son and widow, the entire blogosphere, and common sense (the two signatures look nothing alike) are against you (and you don't name the "independent experts" you consulted) it's hard to hold up very long.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

See the quote box above it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

BUT when ABC, Washington Post, the guy's son and widow, the entire blogosphere, and common sense (the two signatures look nothing alike) are against you (and you don't name the "independent experts" you consulted) it's hard to hold up very long.

Perhaps. I can speak from my own experience that my signatures have never looked very alike. I can sign two documents and they'll look very different. I've never been one of those persons who can apply the same signature with the same details to every document, and I know I can't be alone out there.

 

Much of this controversey seems to be stemming from the Drudge/FreeRepublic crowd, and then being echoed on much more balanced boards by people who are for Bush. We'll see if it evolves into anything.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

While my signatures vary, I know the way I form the first letters of my first and last name don't change...

 

This is all bullshit...Are there no issues worth discussing of relevance today...

 

i hate politics

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This is all bullshit...Are there no issues worth discussing of relevance today...

 

i hate politics

DICK CHENEY HASN'T BEEN HONEST ABOUT WHAT GEORGE BUSH ATE FOR LUNCH ON MARCH 18th.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Echoing Jobber's sentiment, I never sign my shit the same way twice.

[Guest TJH]

Echoing Jobber's sentiment, I never sign my shit the same way twice.

That is an utterly pathetic argument. The signatures look NOTHING alike. Time to concede this one and move on.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Echoing Jobber's sentiment, I never sign my shit the same way twice.

Especially if I eat raw veggies the night before -- I wouldn't even go 5 feet near the bathroom after making my deposit...

[Guest MikeSC]

And my mom used to have a typewriter that had the "th" key on it.

 

Nice try, Mike.

I think Mike was referring to typewriters that were around at the time something like that would've been written.

My mom's 51, so its entirely possible she had a type-writer in the early 70s.

It's also exceptionally unlikely that the Nat'l Guard would have owned one of the 7 or 8 models that could do this --- AND bothered with the ridiculous headache of actually using the feature --- for a memo.

 

They'd use such things for recruitment pamphlets and the like. But, hey, believe lies if you wish. Some people probably think the Hitler diaries (the most infamous forgery ever) were real, too.

 

Oh, and jesse, everybody acknowledges the existance of the IBM Executive. There is a realm of SERIOUS doubt about the Nat'l Guard having it.

And my mom used to have a typewriter that had the "th" key on it.

 

Nice try, Mike.

Your mom's the Nat'l Guard from circa 1973? Wow.

My mom's 51, so its entirely possible she had a type-writer in the early 70s.

Also possible she didn't.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tom 0]

Echoing Jobber's sentiment, I never sign my shit the same way twice.

No one does. But there are definite identifiable patterns in your handwriting, even if the two signatures are not identical. And while not identical, they'll still look quite similar. The two in question look NOTHING alike, and it's very unlikely they could have been made by the same person.

[Guest MikeSC]

Should we mention that Chris LeHane now says that the forgeries --- are Bush's fault?

Koppel returned to the forgery issue late in the show during an interview with former Gore operative Chris Lehane. This was the damage control segment but, significantly, the damage being controlled was not that inflicted on CBS, but rather the potential damage to the Kerry campaign. Koppel and Lehane agreed that the campaign almost certainly was not responsible for the forgery because the consequences of being caught are too high. (Lehane even floated the idea that the Bush campaign might have been responsible). Under this analysis, the Nixon campaign couldn't have been behind the Watergate break-in either -- it must have been the work of Democrats or the CIA. But, again, the real point is that the MSM and the Democrats have figured out that CBS and its report are probably lost causes, and that the key thing now is to protect the Kerry campaign. It looks as if the campaign that wants so desperately to go back on the offensive after weeks of being pounded may have to play some serious defense for a while longer.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007771.php

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Holy shit, the people on that site are crazy.

[Guest MikeSC]

Now, the question is: Will CBS reveal who gave them the documents?

 

It's hard to justify NOT revealing a source who lied to you.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

They'll probably say they got the documents via e-mail...

[Guest MikeSC]

They'll probably say they got the documents via e-mail...

Even crazier --- they still think they're completely legit and stand by it.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Now, the question is: Will CBS reveal who gave them the documents?

 

It's hard to justify NOT revealing a source who lied to you.

-=Mike

I think you're jumping the gun calling them forgeries already.

 

Is it impossible? Of course not. But CBS has money and reputation to lose here. A forgery would have likely been detected by the White House, and not by the brilliant P.I. work of Drudge Report and GOP-leaning blogs and it's not like this is smoking gun evidence. Who in the hell would want to face the punishments of forgery for this?

 

It doesn't seem very likely, but I do have my doubts.

[Guest Cerebus]

The brilliant PI work was the kind that brought the NY Times, Washington Post, AP, and ABC News to check for themselves if the documents were indeed forgeries. Before, they simply passed it along as fact.

[2GOLD 0]

I really wish both sides would take a nice long walk off a short pier. This is beyond high school now.

 

What's next? A push up contest? Kerry going to accuse Bush of having cooties? Bush going to say Kerry wets his bed?

 

Both parties are just too damn childish now. I've seen bitter divorces that made more sense than all of this bullcrap.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Bush going to say Kerry wets his bed?

Doesn't he?

 

I bet he has to sleep with a nightlight on. Of course, if my rich wife were a nutcase, I'd sleep with a nightlight on, too...

[Guest MikeSC]

Now, the question is: Will CBS reveal who gave them the documents?

 

It's hard to justify NOT revealing a source who lied to you.

        -=Mike

I think you're jumping the gun calling them forgeries already.

 

 

It appears forgery is a FAR more likely possibility than them being real. I could go down the list of problems, if you'd like.

Is it impossible? Of course not. But CBS has money and reputation to lose here.

Perhaps they should have done the basic investigations that the internet has done.

A forgery would have likely been detected by the White House

Says who? The documents in question were faxed to the WH --- by CBS. It's not like they were in the files for a long time or anything.

and not by the brilliant P.I. work of Drudge Report and GOP-leaning blogs and it's not like this is smoking gun evidence. Who in the hell would want to face the punishments of forgery for this?

Probably as many people who'd put down, in writing, that they were going to sugar-coat an evaluation for a squad member due to pressure from an already-retired general.

It doesn't seem very likely, but I do have my doubts.

Keep in mind, ABC and MSNBC have both reported the serious doubts, as well. And shall we go over the long list of stories that "the mainstream press" showed less-than-diligent fact-checking on?

 

Glass ring a bell? How about Blair?

 

Why our newspaper circulations going down and broadcast network news ratings plummeting? Because they have a group out there who will hold them to the fire on things and the press seldom lives up to their lofty ambitions.

-=Mike

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The brilliant PI work was the kind that brought the NY Times, Washington Post, AP, and ABC News to check for themselves if the documents were indeed forgeries. Before, they simply passed it along as fact.

Yeah, and those are the kind of guys I believe more than a bunch of crackpots with websites.

[Guest Cerebus]

The brilliant PI work was the kind that brought the NY Times, Washington Post, AP, and ABC News to check for themselves if the documents were indeed forgeries. Before, they simply passed it along as fact.

Yeah, and those are the kind of guys I believe more than a bunch of crackpots with websites.

You mean this crackpot? The guy who originally broke the story and supplied Drudge with his story? Which then got the ball rolling?

 

Oh yeah he's likes Bush. He's trash.