Oh, this is funny

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Sure. That crackpot will do.

 

You can see how it works. Some people on FreeRepublic (which is basically the right-wing version of DemocraticUnderground) spotted some irregularities. Someone mentions it in their blog and that moves it out to the likes on Drudge and NewsMax. It gets printed there and then Rush notices it and then Fox News hops on board. The mainstream media has to make mention of it by this point and by the time a non-partisan investigator hired by someone other than CBS/Viacom looks at it and makes an opinion, the story has already faded from view and ingrained into the public minds.

 

 

It's like you don't make much noise and squint, you can see the right-wing press machine at work.

[Guest Cerebus]

Sure. That crackpot will do.

 

You can see how it works. Some people on FreeRepublic (which is basically the right-wing version of DemocraticUnderground) spotted some irregularities. Someone mentions it in their blog and that moves it out to the likes on Drudge and NewsMax. It gets printed there and then Rush notices it and then Fox News hops on board. The mainstream media has to make mention of it by this point and by the time a non-partisan investigator hired by someone other than CBS/Viacom looks at it and makes an opinion, the story has already faded from view and ingrained into the public minds.

 

 

It's like you don't make much noise and squint, you can see the right-wing press machine at work.

So what you're saying is the story (that the memos are very possibly faked) has no validity. It's all the right-wing press machine. And we would have been better off not hearing about it.

 

(By the way, for the record, I think the Bush ANG story is dumb to begin with, but doesn't excuse fake records as "proof" for the dumb story since it IS a major news network)

[2GOLD 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...

 

"John! Wake up! The bed bugs have told me where I can find the Lucky Charms! Get on your shoes and grab a shovel...we are going to Montana."

 

John Kerry's wife might be the best first lady ever if he gets elected. I don't think it'll be a contest that she'll be the most insane first lady in history.

 

For now, he really needs to put a muzzle on her and sedate her.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Here's what it comes down to: I trust CBS in the sense that they have a reputation to protect. They actually have to worry about pissing their credibility down the toilet, unlike the people who don't have any (powerlineblog.com, Fox News.) When people find out a network has lied to them like that, they stop watching.

 

I told you what I'd like to see, a non-partisan verification not hired by Viacom. In the meantime, one man's proof is another man's partisan shitstirring.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Drudge has the latest on this. Rather and CBS are insisting they are real.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

The downfall of CBS:

CBS Defends Report on Bush Guard Memos

 

By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - CBS News mounted an aggressive defense Friday of its report about President Bush (news - web sites)'s service in the Air National Guard, with anchor Dan Rather saying broadcast memos questioned by forensic experts came from "what we consider to be solid sources."

 

On Friday's "CBS Evening News," Rather said that "no definitive evidence" has emerged to prove the documents are forgeries. "If any definitive evidence comes up, we will report it," Rather said.

 

The show also showed excerpts of interviews with Marcel Matley, a San Francisco document expert, who said he believed the memos were genuine.

 

CBS can state "with absolute certainty" that the disputed memos could have been produced on typewriters available in the early 1970s when the memos are purported to have been written, the network said. Rather said the typeface and style of the memos were available on typewriters since well before the 1970s.

 

Some forensic experts were quoted by news organizations, including The Associated Press, saying the memos appeared to have been computer-generated with characteristics that weren't available three decades ago.

 

But CBS News said in a statement: "The documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but sources familiar with their content." Matley was the only expert cited, and he focused on signatures on the memos.

 

Matley and Rather acknowledged the memos were difficult to definitively authenticate because CBS has only photocopies, not the originals. Matley did not return a telephone message left at his office immediately after Friday's report.

 

At question are memos that carry the signature of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who was the commander of Bush's Texas Air National Guard fighter squadron. They say Killian was under pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's record, and Bush refused a direct order to take a required medical examination and discussed how he could skip drills.

 

"60 Minutes" relied on the documents as part of a Wednesday segment — reported by Rather — on Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968 to 1973.

 

Former colleagues of Killian disagreed Friday on the authenticity of the documents.

 

One, who appeared in the TV newsmagazine segment, said Friday he did not see anything in the memos that made him think they were forgeries. Robert Strong noted he's not a forensic expert and isn't vouching for the documents.

 

"I didn't see anything that was inconsistent with how we did business," Strong said in an interview. "It looked like the sort of thing that Jerry Killian would have done or said. He was a very professional guy."

 

Both Wednesday and Friday, Strong was the only associate of Killian quoted by CBS as supporting the memo's contents.

 

Retired Col. Maurice Udell, the unit's instructor pilot who helped train Bush, said Friday he thought the documents were fake.

 

"I completely am disgusted with this (report) I saw on '60 Minutes,'" Udell said. "That's not true. I was there. I knew Jerry Killian. I went to Vietnam with Jerry Killian in 1968."

 

Killian's son also questioned some of the documents, saying his father would never write a memo like the "sugar coat" one.

 

Several of the document examiners said one clue that the documents may be forgeries was the presence of superscripts — in this case, a raised, smaller "th" in two references to Guard units.

 

Rather said typewriters were available in the early 1970s which were capable of printing superscripts. CBS pointed to other Texas Air National Guard documents released by the White House that include an example of a raised "th" superscript.

 

That superscript, however, is in a different typeface than the one used for the CBS memos. Document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines of Paradise Valley, Ariz., who examined the documents for the AP, said she was "virtually certain" they were generated by computer.

 

Lines said that meant she could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer.

 

CBS has not revealed its source or sources for the documents or the names of experts besides Matley it said examined the memos before Wednesday's report.

 

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday the White House, which distributed the memos after obtaining them from CBS News, was not trying to verify their authenticity. "We don't know if the documents are fabricated or authentic," McClellan told reporters traveling with the president to West Virginia.

 

McClellan suggested the memos surfaced as part of "an orchestrated effort by Democrats and the Kerry campaign to tear down the president."

 

___

 

Associated Press Correspondent Kelley Shannon contributed to this report from Austin, Texas.

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ard_questions_8

[Guest MikeSC]

Here's what it comes down to: I trust CBS in the sense that they have a reputation to protect.

So did the NY Times. Didn't stop Jayon Blair.

 

So did A LOT of periodicals. Didn't stop Stephen Glass (that was his first name, correct?)

 

The media is LAZY. They've been lazy for many, many years --- and now they deal with people who, flat-out, ENJOY making the press look bad.

They actually have to worry about pissing their credibility down the toilet, unlike the people who don't have any (powerlineblog.com, Fox News.)

Of course, God knows the "real" media wouldn't keep actual campaign advisors on the payroll as "political consultants"

When people find out a network has lied to them like that, they stop watching.

You know, burying your head isn't going to make the story suddenly bullshit.

 

Fact is, these people explain PRECISELY the problems, have experts give their opinion on the issue --- and outside of CBS, nobody is standing behind this joke of a story.

I told you what I'd like to see, a non-partisan verification not hired by Viacom. In the meantime, one man's proof is another man's partisan shitstirring.

CBS won't do it, because they know the truth.

-=Mike

...BTW, note that in the AP story, they have an expert stating that they appear to have been computer-generated...

[teke184 0]

The way Rather is sticking to his position tells me one of several things is true:

 

1. The documents are true, despite all of the concerns about their legitimacy.

 

2. Dan Rather and company did NOT research the story properly

 

3. They researched the story and, despite any doubts, went forward with it because of the source who provided them

 

OR

 

4. Dan is so vain and arrogant that, if the documents are proven to be total forgeries, his ego won't allow him to fall on his sword and admit he got duped.

 

 

I'm leaning towards a combination of 3 and 4 personally, as I think that Rather took these documents on the strength of the source, despite any possible issues with the documents, and that his ego won't let him admit that he's probably been duped.

 

I'm wondering who this source is because, depending on who they are, it could explain a LOT about where these documents seem to have appeared from.

[Guest MikeSC]

The way Rather is sticking to his position tells me one of several things is true:

 

1. The documents are true, despite all of the concerns about their legitimacy.

 

2. Dan Rather and company did NOT research the story properly

 

3. They researched the story and, despite any doubts, went forward with it because of the source who provided them

 

OR

 

4. Dan is so vain and arrogant that, if the documents are proven to be total forgeries, his ego won't allow him to fall on his sword and admit he got duped.

 

 

I'm leaning towards a combination of 3 and 4 personally, as I think that Rather took these documents on the strength of the source, despite any possible issues with the documents, and that his ego won't let him admit that he's probably been duped.

 

I'm wondering who this source is because, depending on who they are, it could explain a LOT about where these documents seem to have appeared from.

I'm leaning towards 2 - 4.

 

CBS --- like the mainstream press --- has not even remotely kept up with the times. Do you think ANYBODY at CBS knows shit about military forms, typesets, type formatting, etc? I definitely do not.

 

Do I assume they went with documents they KNEW were false? No, I really don't. I assume somebody who is supportive of Kerry --- not Kerry's campaign at this point (it might turn out to be the case, but presently, I do not think anybody in the campaign actually had anything to do with it) --- fed them the docs, knowing that CBS would run the story rather than verify the authenticity.

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

I'm going with 3 and 4 considering that people told CBS that the documents were of questionable authenticity and they ran with the story anyway.

 

Specifically, the wife and son of the dead officer told CBS that they doubted the documents were real and gave them names of people who worked with the man and would be able to examine the documents for authenticity. According to the son, none of those people were ever contacted and CBS didn't acknowledge that they interviewed people who doubted the papers' authenticity.

 

 

 

If all of the above is true, it starts to destroy the image that Dan Rather and CBS News are JOURNALISTS and not talking heads on TV. A journalist is supposed to verify the authenticity of information they are given and CBS appears to have gone forward despite legitimate doubts that the papers were authentic.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hell, why would they have a HANDWRITING expert on to discuss the legitimacy of typed materials (which Rather did earlier this evening)?

 

How would his PERSONAL files have so many copies up and about, considering that Killian didn't type?

-=Mike

...CBS was just sloppy as hell and is too ashamed to admit the obvious problems...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

How many of these analysis experts are actually looking at the real physical files? Not someone looking at a PDF, please.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, it's over. The documents are 100% real.

 

The proof? Well, HE said so:

 

[Guest MikeSC]

How many of these analysis experts are actually looking at the real physical files? Not someone looking at a PDF, please.

CBS won't release anything else --- nor will they actually investigate. Apparently, all CBS has ARE photocopies.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Hell, why would they have a HANDWRITING expert on to discuss the legitimacy of typed materials (which Rather did earlier this evening)?

The transcript referred to Manley as a "Document and Handwriting Expert"..

 

I'd guess document experts will comment on documents, such as the CYA memo

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The proof? Well, HE said so:

And I think I'll nominate you to replace him at his old job. "The documents were never real, never!" can be the "There are no US enforcers in Baghdad, never!" of a new generation.

 

And for the new people in the crowd, I'll summarize the conspiracy:

 

Someone, probably someone liberal, decided to forge a document to attack the President of the United States. This person went through all the work of adding age marks to the document, distorting the type in various places to really give it that whole "really old document" feel, but failed to use any kind of a font that did not scream PC-based word processor. Then, because even though he owned Word, he forgot to get a scanner and/or Photoshop just signed a bullshit signature. Then he passed it off to the press as legit.

 

 

Okay. You know, that's all quite a stretch. If someone put enough craft into their fake to completely copy the aging process of a document, why did they cheap out elsewhere?

 

My opinion on this thing is starting to change, although it's not meeting yours. I'm wondering if this was leaked by someone (Rove?) to make it look like a bad DNC hatchet job.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

"I go both ways!"

[teke184 0]

I seriously doubt that a Republican, even Karl Rove (whose name seems synonymous with "Satan" when mentioned by many liberals), would leak something like this on the off chance that no one actually noticeed that they were fakes.

 

 

That being said, the burden of proof is STILL on CBS to prove that the documents are legit since they're impuning the reputation of a sitting president.

 

If they couldn't verify they were real and accurate, they shouldn't have run them. An institute of journalism such as CBS should have known better.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hell, why would they have a HANDWRITING expert on to discuss the legitimacy of typed materials (which Rather did earlier this evening)?

The transcript referred to Manley as a "Document and Handwriting Expert"..

 

He's an expert on handwriting, and as far as ANYBODY can tell (based on his previous work) --- that's ALL he's an expert on. Google searches on Manley ONLY show him as a handwriting expert.

 

Hell, he even said the signatures match --- which to my admittedly untrained eye, they do not appear to even be close.

I'd guess document experts will comment on documents, such as the CYA memo

Since CBS refuses to investigate --- they won't utter a syllable.

-=Mike

...I wonder if Barnes was behind this...

[Guest MikeSC]

The proof? Well, HE said so:

And I think I'll nominate you to replace him at his old job. "The documents were never real, never!" can be the "There are no US enforcers in Baghdad, never!" of a new generation.

 

 

I have gone down a laundry list of problems with them --- and, mind you, the list only increases. You can choose to pursue the ostrich defense if you wish.

And for the new people in the crowd, I'll summarize the conspiracy:

 

Someone, probably someone liberal, decided to forge a document to attack the President of the United States. This person went through all the work of adding age marks to the document, distorting the type in various places to really give it that whole "really old document" feel, but failed to use any kind of a font that did not scream PC-based word processor. Then, because even though he owned Word, he forgot to get a scanner and/or Photoshop just signed a bullshit signature. Then he passed it off to the press as legit.

 

 

Okay. You know, that's all quite a stretch. If someone put enough craft into their fake to completely copy the aging process of a document, why did they cheap out elsewhere?

Hey, I fully agree the story makes no sense. Doesn't make it untrue.

 

Hell, Watergate made no sense. Didn't make it less true of a story.

 

Fact is, CBS has a running history of blindly bashing Bush. So be it.

My opinion on this thing is starting to change, although it's not meeting yours. I'm wondering if this was leaked by someone (Rove?) to make it look like a bad DNC hatchet job.

Oh yeah, THAT makes sense. Rove would leak it in the hopes that the internet would notice it?

 

Makes MUCH more sense than, say, Barnes leaking it.

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

I need to scan and post the old Bloom County strips lampooning the Hitler Diaries hoax...

 

 

In the strips, "anonymous journalist" Milo Bloom sells obviously forged Elvis Diaries to a major news organization.

 

Everyone claims they're authentic until a major news report hits the air- "Document experts have examined the twenty-year old documents and determined the following fact: They're written on official Dukes Of Hazzard stationary."

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

He's an expert on handwriting, and as far as ANYBODY can tell (based on his previous work) --- that's ALL he's an expert on. Google searches on Manley ONLY show him as a handwriting expert.

 

Hell, he even said the signatures match --- which to my admittedly untrained eye, they do not appear to even be close.

You were searching for Marcel Matley, right?

 

http://www.thedocumentexperts.com/

 

http://www.documentexaminers.org/nadeconf2004.html

 

http://www.experts.com/showArticle.asp?id=53

 

http://www.handwritingfoundation.org/pros/qd.htm

 

http://expertpages.com/news/expert_ambush.htm

 

http://fennel.assumption.edu/~guest/view/1996/View0396.htm (an evil link~!)

 

that was from searching for "MARCEL MATLEY" document

 

http://www.forensic.org/experts/matley.html

 

http://www.justiceforkurt.com/coverage/tel...mysteries.shtml

 

that was from a search for "MARCEL MATLEY"

 

So.. at the very least.. you can now say "He's a coverup artist"

[Guest MikeSC]

If you'd like, I could post his resume, which seems a bit heavy on the whole "handwriting" part of the equation.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm going to bed now. I still remain skeptical of this story because all the information (and I mean ALL the information) is flowing out of the conservative media. I'm going to say something though that I hope everyone can agree on:

 

Fuck CBS for trying to run this story. It's more of the same Vietnam shit that we (everyone) barely got our heads above last month, and now here we go again.

 

What happened 30 years ago is still every bit as unimportant as it was when it was Kerry's record getting all the attention. So screw this shit, let's stop talking about the 70s and discuss an incumbant President and a challenger, not two guys in the old days.

 

Nobody brought this on themselves. Yes, Kerry talks about Vietnam endlessly to the point where the idea of it as a cliche stopped being funny six months ago. Yes, Bush is way too proud to talk about himself as a war President while having never faced armed resistance.

 

Real or fake, this is fucking stupid and making this election one of the dumbest ones ever, which is quite a dishonorable accomplishment.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm going to bed now. I still remain skeptical of this story because all the information (and I mean ALL the information) is flowing out of the conservative media. I'm going to say something though that I hope everyone can agree on

That is actually a massive condemnation of the press.

 

HOWEVER, CNN and ABC had experts who said they were fake.

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software.

 

Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 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, Arizona

 

She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/...d.ap/index.html

More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they had doubts about the memos' authenticity.

 

"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available … indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"

 

Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:

 

  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.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vo...s_040909-2.html

Good enough?

Nobody brought this on themselves. Yes, Kerry talks about Vietnam endlessly to the point where the idea of it as a cliche stopped being funny six months ago. Yes, Bush is way too proud to talk about himself as a war President while having never faced armed resistance.

Bush never ran on his war record.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

Nobody brought this on themselves. Yes, Kerry talks about Vietnam endlessly to the point where the idea of it as a cliche stopped being funny six months ago. Yes, Bush is way too proud to talk about himself as a war President while having never faced armed resistance.

Keep believing that.

 

It wasn't Bush mind you, who began every campaign stop with 'My fellow Americans, I can defeat these terrorists because of the training I received during my Guard tenure'.........................He referred to his Guard service in passing a couple times, oooooooo DEFLECTINGTHEISSUESLOL2004!~

 

Whereas Kerry was just yesterday referring to Bush 'ignoring the real issue of how he sent young people to die in Iraq' (which means that the 'real issues' like the economy, education, and health care are only important when Kerry wants them to be).

 

But how dare Bush refer to himself as a wartime president when a)the country's at war and b)he's the president? I know, that 2+2=4 logic, how lame.............He wasn't doing it 24/7 though.

 

And why SHOULD McAuliffe and his minions have to play the 'You didn't go to Vietnam' card in the first place (yes and every sitting wartime president was on the battlefield, gotcha)? Are they not basically admitting whoever their candidate is has the same chances as me nailing Reese Witherspoon?

[teke184 0]

And why SHOULD McAuliffe and his minions have to play the 'You didn't go to Vietnam' card in the first place (yes and every sitting wartime president was on the battlefield, gotcha)? Are they not basically admitting whoever their candidate is has the same chances as me nailing Reese Witherspoon?

Speaking of McAuliffe, he had some comments reported in the Washington Times in which he denies any DNC or Kerry camp involvement with CBS obtaining the records while quietly accusing Karl Rove of cooking up false documents to discredit the Kerry camp.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...11417-2610r.htm

 

 

The denial doesn't really surprise me, although the Rove comment DOES. He should know by now that accusing Rove of everything, ESPECIALLY something that could have blown up in the RNC's face, makes McAuliffe look like a goddamn idiot.

 

Hell, a butterfly could flap its wings in China, cause a hurricane in the Atlantic, and he'd say it's all a part of mastermind Karl Rove's plan to swing the vote in Florida to Bush.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'll just ignore GreatOne because his posts always just come down to "no I'm right you're wrong <3 Bush." And teke, be careful of the WashTimes when it comes to quoting Democrats although chances are he really did say them, I'm betting. Just saying. It's like Fox News except without all the subtlety.

 

It certainly is curious though why the WH didn't contest these, but instead handed out copies to the press.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Not for nothing but the Globe weighs in. More in the link.

 

Authenticity backed on Bush documents

 

By Francie Latour and Michael Rezendes, Globe Staff | September 11, 2004

 

After CBS News on Wednesday trumpeted newly discovered documents that referred to a 1973 effort to ''sugar coat" President Bush's service record in the Texas Air National Guard, the network almost immediately faced charges that the documents were forgeries, with typography that was not available on typewriters used at that time.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

But specialists interviewed by the Globe and some other news organizations say the specialized characters used in the documents, and the type format, were common to electric typewriters in wide use in the early 1970s, when Bush was a first lieutenant.

 

Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the documents in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.

 

Analysts who have examined the documents focus on several facets of their typography, among them the use of a curved apostrophe, a raised, or superscript, ''th," and the proportional spacing between the characters -- spacing which varies with the width of the letters. In older typewriters, each letter was alloted the same space.

 

Those who doubt the documents say those typographical elements would not have been commonly available at the time of Bush's service. But such characters were common features on electric typewriters of that era, the Globe determined through interviews with specialists and examination of documents from the period. In fact, one such raised ''th," used to describe a Guard unit, the 187th, appears in a document in Bush's official record that the White House made public earlier this year.

 

Meanwhile, ''CBS Evening News" last night explained how it sought to authenticate the documents, focusing primarily on its examiner's conclusion that two of the records were signed by Bush's guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. CBS also said it had other sources -- among Killian's friends and colleagues -- who verified that the content of the documents reflected Killian's views at the time.

 

One of them, Robert Strong, a Guard colleague, said the language in the documents was ''compatible with the way business was done at that time. They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being."

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, the guy CBS asked to verify it (Maj. Gen. Hodges) said later that CBS misled him and it's not true. He believes that they are computer-generated fakes. As does Killian's son.

 

Also doesn't really explain how a man who retired a year before one of the memos was typed could pressure anybody.

 

The Globe has carried the water for the Kerry campaign from the get-go. Reading their coverage is shameful.

 

Keep in mind --- even Terry McAuliffe assumes that they're fake now. THAT says a lot.

-=Mike

...Looks like Estrich's comments are coming true...