CBSNEWS LAUNCHES INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AFTER SUSPICIOUS BUSH DOCS AIRED
 

They so wanted it to be true. Burned again.

CBS NEWS executives have launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush's National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday.

The source, who asked not to be named, described CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather as being privately "shell-shocked" by the increasingly likelihood that the documents in question were fraudulent.

Rather, who anchored the segment presenting new information on the president's military service, will personally correct the record on-air, if need be, the source explained from New York.


ABC NEWS:
False Documentation?
Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush's Guard Service

Sept. 9, 2004 — Questions are being raised about the authenticity of newly discovered documents relating to George W. Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War.

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's 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, and though he did take notes, they were usually on scraps of paper. "He was a person who did not take copious notes," she said. "He carried everything in his mind."

Killian's son, Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father, also told ABC News Radio that he doubts his father wrote the documents. "It was not the nature of my father to keep private files like this, nor would it have been in his own interest to do so," he said.

"We don't know where the documents come from," he said, adding, "They didn't come from any family member."

Connell said her late husband would be "turning over in his grave to know that a document such as this would be used against a fellow guardsman," and she is "sick" and "angry" that his name is "being battled back and forth on television."

Her late husband was a fan of the young Bush, said Connell, who remarried after her husband died in 1984. "I know for a fact that this young man … was an excellent aviator, an excellent person to be in the Guard, and he was very happy to have him become a member of the 111th."

Experts Question Veracity

Questions are also being raised about the memos by document experts, who say they appear to have been written on a computer, not a typewriter.
The memos are dated 1972 and 1973, when computers with word-processing software were not available.

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.
The White House is declining to comment on the veracity of the documents. Many Democrats are worried that if they are found to be forgeries, it will be a setback for Sen. John Kerry's campaign to defeat Bush in November

They aren't faked. The admin already indirectly admitted to them being real.

HERE
If you don't question their accuracy, that means you admit they are real. Why would the Admin circulate after being exposed, and not discredit them if they thought they might be fakes?

We'll see Superbelt...

Let's say a document surfaces that says you... snorted coke at your dads office. You make copies and hand it out all over the place without comment.

Should others not assume that that document is real and verified by you?

For those who have been working to discredit these documents.

The Times New Roman typeface that is shown has existed since 1931. It is decidedly different from Times New Roman of today, Especially when you view numericals.

the superscript TH did exist on many typrwriters back then as a shift combination. The 111th may well have wanted typewriters that had the "th" superscript I wonder why the 111th would want that?

Proportional spacing Oops! DID exist.

1966 IBM Selectric Composer Typewriter
Times New Roman, proportional spacing. One of many, including variants of other IBM's that would have been able to produce the document.

i don't think anyone is arguing that that variety of typewriter didn't exist, i think the contention is that they were either prohibitively expensive for widespread use and/or weren't used by the armed forces during that time. thus, making it unlikely that such a typewriter would make it into a remote national guard office with a small budget for such things.

Odd that Dan Rather wouldn't do the same kind of interview for a Swift boat vet :rolleyes:

Odd that Superbelt is so quick to dismiss the idea, despite that Pentagon thread :crazy:

Odd that the man interviewed by Dan rather is a BIG time Kerry supporter :eek:

Odd that the same man said just the opposite in 1999 :hmm:

Odd that I'm using so many damn smillies :D

For the font. Look at CBS's documents. Look at the "e's" They float above the baseline. That only happens with typewriters, not computers. The capital M and J's also do not match up with computer aided baselines.

The times new roman on the typewriter is close but DOES NOT MATCH Microsofts version of it.

The IBM Selectric has the open 4 that is in the memos, Microsoft's 4, does not.

The EXISTANCE of the IBM selectric, while expensive, proves that the documents very well can be real.

Proof that the Airforce used selectrics at the time
Another reference to selectrics in the ANG
If any of you worked in government, like I do, you know that you should NEVER have extra money at the end of the fiscal year. If you do you are in danger of having your budget cut. So, you come to the end with enough money to spend, and you go buy some fancy typewriters to fill our your budget. Not hard to imagine.

Oh I just love how this stupidity will never seem to go away. Bush's national guard service was already questioned earlier in this race, and those accusations were discredited. The news media would so love John Kerry to be elected, that they are ready and willing to buy into this crap. I think it's stupid anyway to be resurfacing this. Bush has already shown himself to be a proven leader, was very strong, and demonstrated this further at the RNC. The public won't really care much anyway at this point. It's debate time. This is where the focus is going to lie, and what'll convince those 7 or so percent that are undecided.

Plane not flying into Pentagon in some wierd Illuminati like plot *possible*

Someong forging a document (and there is more then just the typeface in question) *not possible*

That sum up your thinking Superbelt?

I tend to think that they might be fake, but it really comes down to the sources and what CBS's internal investigation reveals. The evidence is pretty good that they were produced using microsoft word.

It's just odd that someone wouldn't go through the trouble to get a simple typewriter to do the job, if they are actually forgeries.

this republican response, once again, smells of karl rove--it does not matter if they are fake or not, what matters is creating doubt, the possibility that they might be fake, which is in itself enough. the pattern will probably run out along the usual lines--the questions will get coverage, the eventual concession that this is all a smokescreen aimed at shielding cowboy george from his own fratboy past will come later and maybe end up on page 8 of most dailies.

for god sake, even conservatives know that rove is operating in this space--why are they not more informed of his m.o. and more suspicious of the results of that m.o.? does being conservative mean that you necessarily have to suspend disbelief when it comes to any and all claims that originate from conservative sources? quite a display of intellectual autonomy, if that is the case....real americans, one and all.

i'm scared to open my closet at night because i'm afraid karl rove is hiding in there waiting to get me. :lol:

rove is a pretty unassuming figure--nothing to be paranoid about---personally, i would love to meet him in a dark alley.

if you are thinking about the bushcampaign---and i assume that bushsupporters would think about the campaign rather than just functioning as mouthpieces for the content of the campaign----you have to think about rove.

unless you believe that cowboy george is running the show....which would be far more delegitimating than giving the vague impression of paranoia in a post is.

Please watch the personal comments.

I love how Bush can get away with calling anything that might look him bad a lie or liberal bias. But yet those swiftboat verterans can tell blatent lies and people believe them.

I think Bush has half this nation brainwashed and he used 9/11 to do it. He took advantage of 9/11 and played peoples fears. When 9/11 first happend no one could even so much as question the president without being called unpatriotic and lynched. And people wonder why Kerry flip/flopped on the war.

Ironic, that a report questioning the veracity of another organization's fact checking would appear on drudge. I don't really care either way. It won't change my vote.
My prediction(pull out your tinfoil hats): This will just add fuel to the "liberal media" argument.

Apperantly the wife of the dead who supposedly wrote these notes was on the radio saying that her husband never learned to type and always wrote everything by hand. She also says that all his personal documents are in their basement at the house. She says that the signature on the paper doesn't even look correct.

I smell something very fishy

i would maintain that most of the fish smell emanates from karl rove.
this could be a really damaging set of documents given the way bushworld is being spun---instant dissolution of all the very military claims that are the center of such appeal as bush has.

on this, gil scott-heron's classic later song "b movie" sems all too prescient.
i would recommend having a listen,if you dont know the track--it is about ronald reagan, but much of it applies to bush as well.
(presto macho...)

And the son is saying they are his. But he isn't sure of the CYA document.

That Karl Rove has powers we don't even suspect :D

Again, the truth is lost in the maelstrom of political voleyball. There is enough to give the Kerry and Bush supporters each further evidence that the other side is playing dirty pool and further galvanize them behind their candidates.

I personally don't care whether or not someone served in Vietnam. I respect those who did and think that the actions of Kerry, McCain, and others speaks positively about their character. I don't hold it against Clinton, Bush, and others who dodged involvement though. I do think it is dissappointing when one isn't forthright about the path they took, though, whichever it was.

I don't support Kerry because he was in 'Nam, and I don't oppose Bush because he didn't. There are many I support who didn't go, and many I don't who did. I support Kerry because of where I want to see this country go and do over the next four years, and Kerry is a lot more aligned with my views in that regard.

And that is what I think an election should come down to: the next four years, not the last forty. Record is valuable in gauging what a candidate is capable of, and what their tendencies are, but it shouldn't be all consuming.

the only power rove has is that he exploits the fact that lots of perfectly nice folk assume that they are not being lied to, and then lie to them.

the only power rove has follows from the fact that you believe.

I wouldn't put it past karl rove. I really mean that. Rove's the guy who bugged his own office, and then insinuated that the other campaign did it. As he said then (and I paraphrase) "I don't know who planted the bug (or forged the documents), but really, who stands to gain from it?"

Democrats look stupid and its Karl Rove's fault.

Its never their own fault.

All this started with a Dredge report. Surprised Faux News hasn't been airing it all day. Well, maybe they have. I would believe Dan Rather telling us the sky is green before I believed a word out of Dredge's mouth. Sorry folks but Dredge DOES have an agenda and his accuracy is that of throwing darts at a dartboard some 300 yards away against the wind, in a heavy fog on a dark night.

If the records are fake I am sure that will come to surface, if not and they are proven accurate, I wonder where dredge's appology will be. Probably the same place every GOP right winged kook's is, there won't be one because he won't be able to admit to being wrong.

Now let's look at ABC.... owned by Disney, in turmoil, have their own news problems and would probably love to see CBS's 60 Minutes gone. Also, ABC (owned by Disney) has a lot to lose if the Bush dynasty falls. First there are the Fla. tax breaks, secondly they own the rights to Limbaugh and I believe Dredge shows so...... and are primarily aired on CBS' owner Infinity radio's biggest competitor Clear Channel. Clear Channel has everything to gain by watching CBS and all go down in flames and nothing to lose, likewise, ABC/Disney.

Now let's look at CBS, owned by Viacom, which owns Infinity Radio. Along with Clear Channel they have gained very very much by this administrations laxidaisical care over media conglomerates. Viacom has been able to buy CBS and keep the UPN network, while Stern may argue differently, the battles with the FCC gave him new life.

pan, i've got to say it... it really looks like you're grasping for straws already. that's quite a long line of ulterior motives. do you perform a similar exegesis on every news controversy? if so, that must be exhausting.

the silver lining of the issue is that perhaps for once we can have some empirical evidence as to the veracity of these political charges. hopefully the truth of the matter will be decided by research and forensics and not decided along party affiliation. i think that would be a breath of fresh air to us all.

You want a wacky theory which has been tossed around since the start of the primaries?

Who has the most to gain from the democrats and Kerry failing besides GWB?

Hilary Clinton.

Whos people just took over the Kerry campaign?

Clinton's

Who would have the easiest time getting 'forged' documents to seem real to the likes of Dan Rather?

Clinton's people.

The American spectator said the documents went from the DNC to Kerry's campaign to CBS.

Who's people control the DNC?

Clinton's

I find this more plausable then Karl Rove somehow getting the democrats to take this hook line and sinker.

EDIT: When you type 80 wpm its best to be able to proof reading.

RATHER DIGS IN: THE DOCUMENTS ARE AUTHENTIC

CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather publicly defended his reporting Friday morning after questions were raised about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos aired on CBS which asserted that George W. Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer in the Texas Air National Guard.

CNN TRANSCRIPT:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology?

QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or...

RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don't like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CBS NEWS executives on Thursday launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush's National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. "The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday.

I share the hope, but doubt that it will be the reality. Every day I have people tell me that they wish that Kerry/Bush would talk more about their plans for office, but every day I see Kerry/Bush talk about just that. The media doesn't want to waste valuable space with an old man droning on about the details of a Medicare plan or the intricacies of foreign relations. It is much more scintillating to put up Swift Boat Vets and Fired Administration Officials smearing all kinds of allegations across the airwaves, and talking heads to play badminton with the hot potato of the moment.

The people of this nation have to take responsibility for their government. The mainstream media has invalidated itself as a worthy source of objective analysis. This isn't some tin-hat thing, and I don't believe the media is in some pocket and being used for some big conspiracy. Certain outlets certainly are, but that is to be expected. No, it is merely the reality of corporate media.

Personally, I make my decision almost entirely on the basis of what I personally hear the candidates say, what I feel they are likely to achieve if elected, and how well those are aligned with my personal views. If a candidate shares my positions and is likely to achieve what I consider to be positive actions in office, I support them.

Do candidates lie? Sure, but at least it is direct from their mouth, not a lie turned over, disected, spun, and painted before delivery. It is up to me as a voter to analyze the statements of the candidates and determine their accuracy and how they affect my vote.

http://www.iht.com/articles/538218.html

Not grasping at straws just stating I don't trust a word out of Dredge's mouth and gave a reason as to why other media sources would like to see CBS's rep hurt.

When you look at what companies will do to each other to further their profit margin or the corporate espionage (and the media is no different, if not worse, because he who controls the media controls the opinions of the majority) it is a possibility.

I didn't say I was speaking fact, just gave a purpose as to why the CBS attack.

Look around the media is cutting each other's throats, much like the hatred that abounds in the partisan politics we have. To believe that there is no ulterior motive behind one news agency calling another's into question is IMO, blind. That's all I was doing was questioning who had the most to gain by just putting out this rumor. To which I gave a very feasible answer.

I didn't say conspiracy, I didn't say it was fact. I laid an opinion and a scenario out that could be a very plausible possibility. If we have become a nation that is so blind as to not consider plausible possibilities or allow another to give an opinion without labelling them a conspiracy nut or saying they are grasping at straws then we are doomed to eventually no individual thinking and we shall face the loss of our freedom of speech, because noone will exercise it. We'll be either too scared of what others may think of us, or we may just believe that our opinion and our questions don't matter. And to me that is the worst thing we can allow to happen. Questioning and opinions are what allows mankind to better itself and progress as freewilled individuals.

Not really. This issue is one of documentary evidence that supports it. The SBVT issue is one of hearsay vs. documentary evidence that denounces it. In other words, the difference between having a leg to stand on and not.

And Dan Bartlett is... ?

Not really considering he repeated what he said in 1999 which is the same thing Bush thanked him for saying in 1999 - that someone other than a Bush family member asked him to help lil' Bush into the National Guard.

But you know what is odd ...

- If the documents are fake, why has the Bush crew spent so much time defending themselves on merit instead of questioning the docs if they knew the documents didn't accurately reflect the events which took place?

Opie - Partisan glasses make you blind. What I like about my liberal friends is they are honnest about this sort of thing. I have a friend who is a homosexual lawyer who worked for Jim Jeffords after he left the Republican party. Hes joking about the whole thing, thinks Kerry is sunk in general, thinks the liberal media is great, but he doesn't try to pretend people like Dan Rather are unbaised.

You know, ustwo - you can keep repeating that nonsense whenever anyone points out the failures of your own logic, but repetition ain't gonna make it come true.

Well its not just dredge....its been all over Fox news today too

Its on several places, Yahoo, MSNBC had a piece and CNNonline had one too. Drudge just links.

Ustwo, generally both conservatives and liberals love it when those of the opposite ilk confirm or play to their stereotypes and/or suspicions of that other side. I'm not exempt on this count.

Is Dan Rather unbiased? Probably not. I doubt anyone truly is, but bias does not prevent objectivity. It is not a liberal or conservative media, it is a corporate media. There are liberal and conservative individuals at various stations in the media, but I have a strong belief in the reality of the market which drives me to believe the market has a lot more to do with the decision making than either left or right wing ideologies.

By the way, your signature quote ('Conservative by 35') is incorrectly attributed to Churchill, one of many quotes thus misattributed. There is no evidence that he ever either said this or would have. Visit the Churchill Center for more info: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/...cfm?pageid=388

you act like rather writes his own scripts, ustwo, which is naieve.
and how come it is only other people who have partisan blinkers on, never you? do you really think that it is only the far right that controls "the objective"--if you do, there is really no helping you...the position is laughable.

what you cannot acknowledge is the basic features of the campaign being run for your boy bush. if you cannot even acknowledge the tactics, which are evident to all, well-known, documented, then there is really nothing to talk about with you.

Edited for rudeness to another member

Well then I guess if it's on all the other news channels it must be fact then.

Like I stated in my first post I was too busy with school today to really catch any news. I just went by the original statement that it was Dredge and ABC. (which are the sources the others are probably using.)

Faux News does not surprise me in using this.

NBC, the news source I personally prefer over anyone else, using this, shows me there maybe some fact to it.

As for my defense of Rather, just so noone says I defended Rather. I stated I would trust him over Dredge. I lost respect for Dan rather back in the 80's when he walked off during a news broadcast that had like 7 minutes left to go over something that didn't seem that important. (Can't remember what it was, but I'm sure someone on here will find it.)

I will defend CBS though, because they have been pretty reliable. Although they hold onto correspondants way way too long. How old is the youngest anchor on 60 Minutes anyway?

Also I've heard from people, I trust, that have met/known him and they all have said he is an arrogant asshole.

I still say this is just more of the neverending attack on Viacom for whatever reason.

PS for those that get irate at some, I highly suggest using it... I have recently found the ignore post feature to work quite nicely, and I do not believe I am missing any facts. I have done it to only 1 but it is so much nicer now, because most posters on here even if we don't agree provide facts and treat others with due respect.

i'm irate all the time! oh wait, that's not what you meant. :)

where are you getting this?

I just got this off ABCNews

Killian's son, Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father, also told ABC News Radio that he doubts his father wrote the documents. "It was not the nature of my father to keep private files like this, nor would it have been in his own interest to do so," he said.

"We don't know where the documents come from," he said, adding, "They didn't come from any family member."

His daughter and wife both have come out against this.

If this is true and these are false, Kerry is sunk for sure.

No you don't understand these documents are obviously true, even if his widow, his son, and his fellow officers say they are fake and totally out of the character of the man who wrote them, while people who served with Kerry in Vietnam are obviously lying and paid for by Bush.

This is the interesting thing about the thought processes of some of the people here. When I first heard about the new Bush files I figured it was something of the classic 'October Surprise' and I didn't think they would be stupid enough to use fakes. I assumed they were sitting on these and released them now as a political ploy of course, and Dan Rather would be a willing accomplice, but I did assume they would be true. (btw whoever said that Dan Rather doesn't write his own stories, that my well be true because he is big enough to not have to, but if you think he doesn't get final approval on what he goes with after all these years as their #1 guy you are sadly mistaken).

I can't say I am unhappy that they look like they may well be fakes, but I gave them the possibility of being true.

Others here seem to assume that if its something bad about Kerry is said, it must be somehow planed, paid for and manipulated by the Bush campaign and can be ignored. When a former POW in Vietnam says Kerry's lying testimony to congress was used to justify his torture, they say 'see the guy who funded the add that let this man speak is a Bush supporter therefore it can't be trusted!'

But when a scandal ridden Kerry fundraiser changes his story on Bush's guard duty and Dan Rather gives the guy an interview there is nothing untoward with it.

When you allow your intellectual honesty to suffer in order to maintain your beliefs you exchange your philosophy for a religion. Ironic when you think how some members of the left think about religious faith.

Edit: I felt I should add this.

If the worst things said about Bush in the Vietnam Years are true then his father tried to keep him out of the war, he was crappy at showing up on time, and used his connections to get away with it.

If the worst things said about John Kerry are true, he knownly gave aid and comfort to the enemy by lying to congress, and added to the suffering of American POW's in Vietnam.

The first one shows a spoiled foturnate son.
The second shows a traitor.

I'd love to come back on the first portion of your post, but I've already had my response to your standard "I know the truth and because you disagree, you're blind fools" nonsense deleted.

But I will come back on the second -

If we're going to start comparing the depths of accusations, I submit mine: Bush eats little babies because he likes the taste of little baby flesh.

That clearly trumps the moral depravity of Kerry's treason.

But since it's ultimately juvenile to compare the depths of accusations - let's take a look at the situation where we throw out both sets of accusations:

- Bush, as a youth, could have tried to go to Vietnam. He didn't.
- Kerry, as a youth, could have avoided going to Vietnam. But he didn't.

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=254

No one is disputing the facts put forth in the documents. The only thing is that they have already been known for 4 years or longer. Of course, a lot of swing voters probably forgot or didn't know (because they didn't pay attention back then). That's why it's "coming out" again. I don't see how there's any room to dispute the facts here.

Opie I don't know why I bother, but I will try yet again.

Kerry tried to get out of going to Vietnam by getting a deferment to go study in France. It was rejected. He took the quickest way out. I would commend him for his service if he didn't lie to congress etc when he got back.

Kerry TRIED to avoid Vietnam, he failed, he figured out a quick way home getting three purple hearts with zero hospitalization time, and then he lied about his service causing suffering for US POW's. We have what he said to congress on tape, with his long face lying his way to political fortune with the left, that can not be denied. You won't address it I know.

At the very least I can say I'm jealous of Bush for being a rich little white boy and not having to go to Vietnam, and therefore I wouldn't vote for him.

Sorry Ustwo - but once again your "truth" is nothing more than a baseless accusation. I could respond with a dozen accusations about Bush and how everything has been handed to him on a platter and he then proceeded to bankrupt it/screw it up or otherwise fail ... but why should I bother? you're a blind partisan.

And honestly, I don't know why you bother either. I mean, really - what is it you hope to gain by logging onto an Internet discussion board, expressing opinions almost exclusively without any supporting evidence (sometimes even denouncing the scientific applicability of supporting evidence, no less!) and then labeling anyone who questions your "logic" as a partisan subject to blindness? Do you get paid to do it or is it just your hobby to avoid dealing with the details of what you claim in grand generalizations?

This is a place for discussion - yet you seem to want to shut them down as soon as you've had your say as to what is true and who is blind.

I don't always agree with your politics Ustwo, but that gave me a laugh.

:D

Mr Mephisto

why stop at dozens? you could make hundreds of accusations about Bush but it wouldn't effect Kerry's record.

I've heard the points Ustwo brought up several times and i cannot find a source that disproves their veracity. can anyone cite me a reliable source?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in641481.shtml

Key passage:

Can we just say we don't know? While it's true that the allegations made about Kerry are more serious (or perhaps more preposterous and dishonest) than the ones made about Bush, the fact of the matter is that we have documents that validate a lot of the claims made about Bush's conduct in uniform. Serious allegations have been made about the documents, but we just don't have all the facts to conclude anything. Although CBS is in a position of bias when it comes to protecting their credibility, or perhaps covering up a mistake, they are also the ones with the most information. In much the same way that partisans on the left have rushed to support these memos, partisans on the right have rushed to support the accusation that they are forgeries. Me, I don't know. Nobody knows. I think we have to be patient with this story, because nobody has all the facts yet.

Exactly my point. Kerry's record is that he served in Vietnam and received various medals for his service. The accusations claim that he didn't deserve those medals, that he never wanted to go to Vietnam, that he shot himself to get out, that he lied to Congres, etc. etc. But those are not his record.

Bush's record is that he did not go to Vietnam, he served in the National Guard.

Scipio - I agree. It is undetermined at this point if the documents are real.

Ustwo, although you have recently exempted yourself from providing site sources for the purpose of validating your statements <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1398079&postcount=5"> (Link Here)</a>by posting that:

<i>"while I’ve done long threads in the past where I site sources, look at page after page of information, and waste a lot of Googles bandwidth I am not going to do that here. I’ve done it enough and quite frankly I don’t have a lot of time for it. I will give you the information I have garnered over the last couple of years in everything from articles to interviews but if you ask me for a source I won’t have it. My brain doesn’t work that way, to me only the information is important, and from personal experience as a scientist, if you find someone who likes to quote sources while he talks about a subject, odds are he doesn’t know anything of his own on said subject."</i>

Your statement is that Kerry lied. You say it twice; but it is still only your unsubstantiated opinion. Is your post usefull, or appropriate in this forum ?

I'm going to risk your assumption that I am uninformed by advising you that your accusations that Kerry "lied to congress" in his 1971 testimony, directly contradicts the research and conclusions of the experts at <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244">FACTCHECK.org</a> Here is the information from their website, complete with links:
<table width="758" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">

<b>Swift Boat Veterans Anti-Kerry Ad: "He Betrayed Us" With 1971 Anti-War Testimony</b>
<!--BEGIN FactCheck Meta Info-->
<p class="lede">Group quotes Kerry's descriptions of atrocities by US forces. In fact, atrocities did happen.</p>
<p class="date">August 23, 2004</p>
<p class="mod">Modified:
August 23, 2004
</p>
<!--END FactCheck Meta Info-->
<!--BEGIN FactCheck Body-->
<h2>Summary</h2>

<p><p> </p>

<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica">"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" announced a second anti-Kerry ad Aug. 20, using Kerry's own words against him. It features the 27-year-old Kerry in 1971 telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stories about American troops cutting off heads and ears, razing villages "in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan" and committing "crimes . . . on a day-to-day basis."</font></p>

<p><font face="Arial">The Kerry campaign called it a smear and said his words were "edited" out of context. The</font> <font face="Arial">ad does indeed fail to mention that Kerry was quoting stories he had heard from others at an anti-war event in Detroit, and not claiming first-hand knowledge. But Kerry passed them on as true stories.</font></p>

<p><font face="Arial">The ad characterizes Kerry as making "accusations . . . against the verterans who served in Vietnam." The Kerry campaign denies that, saying Kerry was placing blame on the country's leaders, not the veterans. But Kerry himself said earlier this year that his words were those of "an angry young man . . . inappropriate . . . a little bit excessive . . . a little bit over the top."</font></p>

<p><font face="Arial" size="+0">Kerry's critics point to a 1978 history of Vietnam that challenged some of the witnesses Kerry quoted. But other published accounts provide ample evidence that atrocities such as those Kerry described actually were committed.</font></p></p>
<h2>Analysis</h2>
<p><p> </p>

<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica">The ad's title is "sellout," and features Vietnam veterans saying Kerry "dishonored his country" and aided the enemy by airing allegations in 1971 of US atrocities in Vietnam.</font></p>

<p></p>

<table cellpadding="10" width="45%" align="left" bgcolor="#DC143C">

<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong><font face="Verdana" color="#F8F8FF">SBVT Ad</font></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><font face="Verdana" color="#0000a0">"Sellout"</font></strong></p>

<p align="left"><strong><font face="Times New Roman, Times">John Kerry</font></strong> <font face="Times New Roman, Times">(from Senate Testimony in 1971): They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads...</font></p>

<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Joe Ponder</strong>: The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating.</font></p>

<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>John Kerry</strong>: ...randomly shot at civilians...</font></p>

<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Joe Ponder</strong>: ...and it hurt me more than any physical wounds I had.</font></p>

<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>John Kerry</strong>: ...cut of limbs, blown up bodies...</font></p>

<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Ken Cordier</strong>: That was part of the torture, to sign a statement that you had committed war crimes.</font></p>

<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>John Kerry</strong>:...razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan...</font></p>

<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Paul Galanti</strong>: John Kerry gave the enemy for free, what I and many of my comrades, in the North Vietnamese prison camps, took torture to avoid saying. It demoralized us.</font></p>

<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>John Kerry</strong>: ...crimes committed on a day to day basis...</font></p>

<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Ken Cordier</strong>: He betrayed us in the past, how could we be loyal to him now?</font></p>

<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>John Kerry</strong>: ...ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam...</font></p>

<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Paul Galanti</strong>: He dishonored his country, and more importantly, the people he served with. He just sold them out.</font></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size="4">Out of Context? </font></p>

<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica">On Aug. 20 the Kerry campaign issued a <a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0820b.html">statement</a> calling the ad an a smear and a distortion, saying it "takes Kerry’s testimony out of context, editing what he said to distort the facts."</font></p>

<p><font face="Arial">There is some missing context. What's missing from the ad is that Kerry was relating what he had heard at an an event in Detroit a few weeks earlier sponsored by Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and was not claiming to have witnessed those atrocities personally.</font></p>

<p><font face="Arial">Here is a more complete excerpt of what Kerry said, with the words used in the ad bold-faced so that readers can judge for themselves how much the added context might change their understanding of how Kerry was quoted in the ad:</font></p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Kerry Senate Testimony (1971):</strong> I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but <strong>crimes committed on a day-to-day basis</strong> with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.</font></p>

<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times">It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.</font></p>

<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times">They told the stories at times <strong>they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads</strong>, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, <strong>cut off limbs, blown up bodies</strong>, randomly shot at civilians, <strong>razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan</strong>, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally <strong>ravaged the country side of South Vietnam</strong> in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.<br />
</font></p>
</blockquote>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica">The record gives no sign that Kerry doubted the stories he was relating. In fact, he said earlier this year that he still stands by much of what he said 33 years earlier (see below) and that "a lot of them (the atrocity stories) have been documented."</font></p>

<p dir="ltr" align="center"><font face="Arial" size="4">Accusing Veterans? Or US War Policy?</font></p>

<p dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial">One veteran who appears in the ad says "The accusations that John Kerry made <strong>against the veterans</strong> who served in Vietnam was just devastating."</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica">Kerry's campaign insists his 1971 testimony as "an indictment of America’s political leadership—not fellow veterans." </font></p>

<p dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica">As an example, Kerry aides point to a portion of Kerry's testimony in which he places the blame for the 1968 My Lai massacre not on the troops, but on their superiors: "I think clearly the responsibility for what has happened there lies elsewhere. I think it lies with the men who designed free fire zones. I think it lies with the men who encourage body counts." But that statement came only in response to a direct question, long after Kerry volunteered his description of rapes and mutilations.</font></p>

<p dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial">Earlier in 1971, during an NBC "Meet the Press" interview, Kerry explicitly spoke of "the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas" and said he considered them "war criminals." But he did not draw such a sharp distinction between leaders and followers during the"atrocity" portion of his Senate testimony.</font></p>

<p dir="ltr" align="center"><font face="Arial" size="4">Winter Soldier Event Discredited?</font></p>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Arial">Kerry critics have long disputed that atrocities by US forces were as prevalent as Kerry suggested. And at least some of the testimony at the </font> <font face="Arial">"<a href="http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_03_1Marine.html">Winter Soldier</a>" event was called into question by historian Guenter Lewy in a 1978 book, <u>America in Vietnam</u>. Lewy noted that the event had been staged with financial help from Jane Fonda. He stated that many of the Winter Soldier participants later refused to speak to investigators for the Naval Investigative Service even though they were assured that they wouldn't be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally. Lewy also suggested that some of the witnesses were imposters:</font></p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size="3"><strong>Guenter Lewy, <u>America in Vietnam</u> (1978):</strong> But the most damaging finding consisted of the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit. One of them had never been to Detroit in all his life. He did not know, he stated, who might have used his name.</font></p>

</blockquote>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size="3">Kerry's critics point to that as evidence that he was irresponsibly passing on false atrocity stories. However, there's </font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica">no question that events such as Kerry described did happen, as Lewy himself stated:</font></p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Lewy:</strong> Incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing undoubtedly did occur. We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated.</font></p>
</blockquote>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica">Some atrocities by US forces have been documented beyond question. Kerry's 1971 testimony came less than one month after Army Lt. William Calley had been convicted in a highly publicized military <a href="http://www.courttv.com/archive/greatesttrials/mylai/background.html">trial</a> of the murder of the murder of 22 Vietnamese civilians at My Lai hamlet on March 16 1968, when upwards of 300 unarmed men, women and children were killed by the inexperienced soldiers of the Americal Division's Charley Company.</font></p>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica">And since Kerry testified, ample evidence of other atrocities has come to light:</font></p>

<ul dir="ltr">
<li>
<div><font face="Arial, Helvetica"><strong>Son Thang:</strong> In 1998, for example, Marine Corps veteran Gary D. Solis published the book <u>Son Thang: An American War Crime</u> describing the court-martial of four US Marines for the apparently unprovoked killing 16 women and children on the night of February 19, 1970 in a hamlet about 20 miles south of Danang. The four Marines testified that they were under orders by their patrol leader to shoot the villagers. A young Oliver North appeared as a character witness and helped acquit the leader of all charges, but three were convicted.</font></div>

</li>

<li>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong>Tiger Force: </strong></font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica">The <em>Toledo Blade</em> won a Pulitzer Prize this year for a series published in October, 2003 reporting that atrocities were committed by an elite US Army "Tiger Force" unit that the <em>Blade</em> said killed unarmed civilians and children during a seven-month rampage in 1967. "Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed - their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings," the <em>Blade</em> reported. "Investigators concluded that 18 soldiers committed war crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty. But no one was charged."</font></div>

</li>

<li>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong>"Hundreds" of others:</strong> In December 2003 <em>The New York Times</em> quoted </font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica">Nicholas Turse, a doctoral candidate at Columbia University who has been studying government archives, as saying the records are filled with accounts of atrocities similar to those described by the <em>Toledo Blade</em> series. "I stumbled across the incidents The <em>Blade</em> reported," Turse was quoted as saying. "I read through that case a year, year and a half ago, and it really didn't stand out. There was nothing that made it stand out from anything else. That's the scary thing. It was just one of hundreds."</font></div>

</li>

<li>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial, Helvetica"><strong>"Exact Same Stories":</strong> Keith Nolan, author of 10 published books on Vietnam, says he's heard many veterans describe atrocities just like those Kerry recounted from the Winter Soldier event. Nolan told FactCheck.org that since 1978 he's interviewed roughly 1,000 veterans in depth for his books, and spoken to thousands of others. "I have heard the exact same stories dozens if not hundreds of times over," he said. "Wars produce atrocities. Frustrating guerrilla wars produce a particularly horrific number of atrocities. That some individual soldiers and certain units responded with excessive brutality in Vietnam shouldn't really surprise anyone."</font></p>
</div>
</li>

</ul>

<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size="4">"A Little Bit Excessive"</font></p>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica">Aside from his Senate testimony, the young Kerry spoke publicly in 1971 of "war crimes," and said in his April 18, 1971 NBC "Meet the Press" interview that he had personally engaged in "atrocities" like "thousands of others" who engaged in shootings in free-fire zones. He said then that he considered the officials who set such war policies to be "war criminals." But 30 years later, anticipating a run for the White House, Kerry took a more conciliatory tone when confronted by NBC's Tim Russert, again on</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica">NBC News' "Meet the Press" program:</font></p>

<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Kerry (May 6, 2001; Meet the Press):</strong> I don't stand by the genocide I think <strong>those were the words of an angry young man</strong>. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the description--I don't even believe there is a purpose served in the word "war criminal." I really don't. But I stand by the rest of what happened over there, Tim.</font></p>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman, Times">. . . (We) misjudged history. We misjudged our own country. We misjudged our strategy. And we fell into a dark place. All of us. And I think we learned that over time. And I hope the contribution that some of us made as veterans was to come back and help people understand that.</font></p>

<p dir="ltr"><strong><font face="Times New Roman, Times">I think our soldiers served as nobly, on the whole, as in any war, and people need to understand that.</font></strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica">And earlier this year, Kerry was again pressed on his 1971 antiwar views, and responded to some of the same points now being raised anew in the Swift Boat Veterans ad. He said his 1971 words were "honest" but "a little bit over the top." </font></p>

<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Q:</strong> <strong>You committed atrocities?</strong></font></p>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Kerry (Meet the Press Apr. 18, 2004:)</strong> Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me. You know, I thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and <strong>I think the word is a bad word. I think it's an inappropriate word.</strong> I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. <strong>I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.</strong></font></p>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Q:</strong>You used the word "war criminals."</font></p>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Kerry:</strong> Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but <strong>I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame,</strong> and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them. <strong>But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top.</strong> And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled that, so I'm not going to walk away from that. But <strong>I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way</strong>.</font></p>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Q:</strong> But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...</font></p>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Kerry:</strong> Actually, a lot of them have been documented.</font></p>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Q: </strong> So you stand by that?</font></p>

<p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><strong>Kerry:</strong> <strong>A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. </strong> The problem is that's not where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not--I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, <strong>I'm proud that I stood up. I don't want anybody to think twice about it. I'm proud that I took the position that I took to oppose it. I think we saved lives, and I'm proud that I stood up at a time when it was important to stand up, but I'm not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more artfully at times.</strong></font></p>

</blockquote></p>
<h2>Sources</h2>
<p><p> </p>

<p><font face="Courier New, Courier" size="2">"Kerry <a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0820b.html">Campaign Statement</a> on New Swift Boat Veterans for Bush Ad," Kerry-Edwards 2004, 20 Aug 2004.</font></p>

<p><font face="Courier New, Courier" size="2"><a href="http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp">Testimony</a> of John Kerry, "Legislative Proposals Relating to the War in Southeast Asia," US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 22 April 1971.</font></p>

<p><font face="Courier New, Courier" size="2">Guenter Lewy, "America in Vietnam" Oxford University Press NY 1978</font></p>

<p><font face="Courier New, Courier" size="2">"Buried Secrets, Brutal Truths: <a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGERFORCE/110190169">The Series; Elite unit savaged civilians in Vietnam</a>," Toledo Blade 22 Oct 2003.</font></p>

<p><font face="Courier New, Courier" size="2">Michael D. Sallah and Mitch Weiss, "<a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGERFORCE/110190168">Rogue GIs unleashed wave of terror in Central Highlands</a>," Toledo Blade 22 Oct 2003.</font></p>

<p><font face="Courier New, Courier" size="2">Joe Mahr, " <a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040512/SRTIGERFORCE/405120331">Tiger Force answers still elusive</a>; Washington slow in responding to calls for Army prosecution," Toledo Blade, 12 May Jo2004.</font></p>
<p><font face="Courier New" size="2">John Kifner, "Report on Brutal Vietnam Campaign Stirs Memories," New York Times, 28 Dec 2003: A24.</font></p>
<p><font face="Courier New" size="2">Interview with Keith Nolan, 23 Aug 2004.</font></p>
<p><font face="Courier New, Courier" size="2">John F. Kerry, "Meet the Press" NBC News 18 <st1:date Month="4" Day="18" Year="2004">April 1991.</st1:date></font></p>
<p><font face="Courier New, Courier" size="2">John F. Kerry, "Meet the Press" NBC News 6 May 2001.</font></p>
<p><font face="Courier New, Courier" size="2">John F. Kerry, "<a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030">Meet the Press</a> " NBC News 18 April 2004.</font></p>
<p><font face="Courier New, Courier" size="2"><br />
</font> </p>
Ustwo, I find this article about Colin Powell and his link to My Lai interesting.
You can click anywhere on the quote below to read the whole salon.com source.
<a href="http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:9NvjdxRqv7sJ:www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/06/kerry/+%22my+lai+was+an+isolated+incident%22&hl=en">
" Kerry's critics argue that My Lai was an isolated incident, but at least one celebrated general doesn't agree.

Secretary of State Colin Powell held a command position in the Army's Americal Division, which had included Calley's unit, and he was asked to investigate the earliest allegations about My Lai. He failed to uncover the massacre and was later accused of facilitating the coverup. Whether that accusation is fair or not, Powell knows what happened in Vietnam.

"My Lai was an appalling example of much that had gone wrong in Vietnam," he wrote in his bestselling autobiography, "My American Journey." "The involvement of so many unprepared officers and noncoms led to breakdowns in morale, discipline and professional judgment -- and to horrors like My Lai -- as the troops became numb to what appeared to be endless and mindless slaughter." </a>

And so it seems the claims that the memos are forgeries are not based on accurate information:

Basic rundown of claims of forgery:
http://dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

Refuting the 'facts' presented by the experts claiming they are fake, also includes the expert quoted in the NYtimes as reversing his opinion:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/213416/348

uhh... surely you don't think that reading something at dailykos makes it so, do you opie? i would think that if you're going to present some development as fact, at least wait till NBC/ABC/CNN/FNC/NYT/WSJ picks it up first. regardless of how it turns out, isn't it a bit irresponsible to place your trust in some online blog?

let's see... i'm looking at the ad sidebar, i see: "Dates for Democrats", "Progressive" tshirts featuring a picture of the President with the caption "Idiot" and last but not least "Are AK-47s Compassionate?". i honestly dislike impuning the source as a rebuttal, but if you want to get some credibility from a person who doesn't take your side already i suggest finding sources that aren't blatantly partisan.

its all a bit silly. at this moment, no-one is thinking about today or tomorrow. i think maybe that was the whole idea. neither one wants to talk about the real scandal.
the here and now.

Haha. Isn't that a fundamental point of this whole forgery issue? That blog's 'determined' that CBS got suckered/lied? Now you're telling me not to trust blogs because a mainstream source hasn't picked it up?

I don't discount blogs automatically regardless of the motives of the writers. If you read the information, which provides numerous non-blog sources for that information, you will see that the basic premise of the forgery claims, that the technology didn't exist, is false.

There is always a possibility that any document is forged. But as of now, you'll need to find actual proof to claim these documents are fake.

There's one aspect about this subject that keeps bugging me: the fact that Bush himself, or some official representative, has not said anything about it.

Assume the memos are false. Bush, presumably, would know that the memos are false, because.... he was there. Now wouldn't the first thing he should do is to make sure that the puts out a clear, strong denial of the memos? All these forgery theories have come from journalists and experts and what have you, but neither Bush nor a representative of his administration have said *anything* about the authenticy of these memos. Well, excluding the fact the White House received and distributed them, but that doesn't really say anything concrete.

This is the most compelling reason for me that makes me think the memos are real. Bush doesn't want to deny them, because if the memos are proven to be true, he takes two blows instead of one.

So to anyone who thinks these memos are part of some conspiracy against Bush, why hasn't the Bush administration come out and clearly said they know the memos to be false?

These were personal memo's that he would know nothing about. They were not in his file. It would be like me saying your personal journal was fake.

As for more 'issues' with the memos...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shguard11.html


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/polit...Noted_Now.html

And now for the latest, to get us back on track, it appears the memos was written about 18 months to late .....

read if you dare

This is hilarious... I still don't get wtf the big deal is about military records. Who cares? Seriously..

This is like trying to prove to someone whether or not you bought toilet paper from the grocery store, and for some reason, it REALLY bothers them that they don't know whether or not you bought toilet paper. So you dig through your receipts to show them, and they turn around and claim the receipt is forged along with slamming your "credibility". This big controvery is born when really... who gives a good goddamn if you bought toilet paper or not?!

This stuff is seriously retarded. As if serving in the military affects how they act as president. Oh you didn't run through jungles with an M-16? Sorry, you can't veto this bill! Didn't go through boot camp and get shipped off to another country? Damn, better think twice before you deal with health care policies!! :lol::lol::lol:

My feeling is that they are fake.

It is way too close to election for them to suddenly turn up now by coincedence.

You know what the canidates should do? They should settle this once and for all. Drop there pants and measure their dicks then we know who has the bigger one. Then maybe we can talk about the real issues.

I think its a smoke screen. Kerry has a lot of things he did and said after Vietnam he would like to keep out of the press (he won't allow a reprinting of his book he wrote right after). They are hoping to muddy the waters and make it seem silly enough to 'get back to the issues' and get off his character. Of course he has 20 years of ultra-liberal votes in the senate to hide too :D

I think Kerry would win. He is not an attractive man yet married TWO very very very wealthy women. Something must be there :p

The Boston Globe weighs in...
Media Matters provides more insight: Forgery feeding frenzy: Media falling afoul of the facts

lol, are these people on crack?

"too large" making something unprobable?

"too expensive" for a government contract?

Where they hell were these people and what kind of technology were they exposed to in the 70's?

Let me tell you about my first personal floppy drive:

It was the size of a shoebox and cost $300 hundred fucking dollars!

Just look in a catalog from the 1980's under TRS-80 components--that's where I bought mine from.


I talked to my mom, who was a legal secretary during that time, and she remembers typing on a selectric.

Just who was buying these super-duper-expensive-miracle-water-producing-typewriters that made Big Blue, well, big? I'd have to wager it was large corporations and the military--just like all the other pork we pay for in the modern era.

And so it continues.....

That article rehashes "questions" that have already been demonstrated to be false. I would hardly call that a continuance.

I know this story has been hashed to death, and the consensus is that they were fake, but I couldn't leave this story quoted above up without adding to it. Don't know if it has been pointed out here yet, but the boston globe is backtracking from that story. I won't bother to cut and paste the whole thing.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ard_documents/

another very interesting link containing where a blogger who interviewed the expert quoted by that Boston Globe story.

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000859.php


edit:
I've read a whole lot of blogosphere writing and documentation on this issue, and I think this is the best yet understandable-to-those-of-us-who-aren't-document-experts stuff out there, just wanted to share. you really need to click on the link for the graphics.
http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_s...m_selectr.html

Boston Globe = Tool of DNC, this surprises me not.

Globe makes the NYT look fair and balanced :)

Can't help but notice that this JBX character has failed to post in here since his initial 2 ill-founded rants.

Seems to me that what happened is pretty simple.

CBS broke the story on the documents (dammit. They're a competitor ;) )

Some asshat said they were fake.

CBS said "well we don't think so but we're responsible journalists so we'll investigate to find out"

JBX saw them being responsible journalists and decided to twist it and make it sound like the fact that CBS is making sure they didn't screw up, is evidence that they screwed up.


Amazing that JBX can't see the logical disconnect in his/her line of reasoning.

Eh, on second thought, not all that amazing at all. After all, JBX still supports Bush after all the negative evidence that's surfaced against him over the past 4 years.

What you have to believe in order to be a Democrat.

(1) That the late Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer, typed the documents--though his wife says "he wasn't a typist."

(2) That Killian kept the documents in his personal files--though his family says he didn't keep files.

(3) That the disputed documents reflect his true (negative) feelings about Bush and a contemporaneous official document he wrote lauding Bush did not.

(4) That he typed the documents on a technically advanced typewriter, an IBM Selectric Composer--though that model has been tested and failed to produce an exact copy of the documents.

(5) That this advanced typewriter, which would have cost $15,000 or so in today's dollars, was used by the Texas National Guard and that Killian had gained the significant expertise needed to operate it.

(6) That Killian was under pressure to whitewash Bush's record from a general who had retired 18 months earlier.

(7) That Killian's superior, Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, was right when, sight unseen, he supposedly said the documents were authentic, but wrong when, having actually viewed the documents, he declared them fraudulent.

Now if you can't accept all that, there's another side. To believe the documents are forgeries, you have to believe this:


(1) The documents were typed recently using Microsoft Word, which produces documents that are

exact copies of the CBS documents.

(2) There's no number 2. All you have to believe is number 1.

A quick look at what experts could not make the IBM Selectric or the laughable $18,000 IBM Composer in the hands og National Guard do.Amazingling Microsoft Word gets the font,superscript,spacing everything done pat.

http://www.spacetownusa.com/bushdoc.gif

You didn't read anything in the thread did you? Why do you post?

Can I quote you on this?

:D

Mr Mephisto

Please do. There are some fractured pottery types I just ignore, but I do try to read.

So if these do come up to be fake should CBS's credibilty be questioned?

if proven fake, what are the implications? who do you think was responsible for creating the documents if they are, in fact, forgeries?

The documents do appear false, but is anyone actually arguing that Bush served and fulfilled his duty? Or that he didn't avoid active duty during a war that he supported? I didn't see the CBS report, but I understand that they treated the documents with skepticism. It seems that CBS jumped the gun in order to be the first to report this. CBS deserves criticism, but it doesn't completely negate the network's ability to report news. If these papers are false it means that Bush's military record is slightly less nefarious. Congratulations to you conservatives who investigated further. It's unfortunate that you can't display the same level of cognizance and skepticism with Fox news, the Drudge Report, or Rush Limbaugh. You win the battle but lose the war.

How dare you question Dan Rather, the liberal spewing deity that he is!!!

Mostly a lurker, and certainly not a Bush fan. I also have some limited experience with typesetting and can assure you that it is extremely difficult to create identical documents using different technologies, even deliberately. Despite the fact that they are supposed to be, fonts are not constant. The Times New Roman of 1931 is not the TNR of 1972 is not the TNR of 2004.

The important issue here is why a respected news organization refuses to acknowledge the valid criticisms coming from a growing number of experts. Consider that the individual who supposedly validated the documents does not stand by the story, nor do any of the family members closest to Killian who is, conveniently, dead.

The question of forgeries obviously needs to be validated, but for now the burden clearly lies upon CBS. Liberal bloggers have frantically attempted to...ahem, 'justify' the document by asking us to:

a) assume it is merely coincidental that hasty attempts to reproduce the documents using MSWord's default settings generated documents nearly indistinguishable from the CBS documents which have been copied, faxed, scanned, downloaded, and reprinted.

b) believe that an individual, who by his own family's testimony never typed, happened to assemble a variety of limitedly available and unrelated technologies generally only known to typographic professionals to create four casual memos which then sat undisturbed in hidden files for 32 years until the week after the RNC.

Others reply with the argument that the documents validity is irrelevant because they somehow represent a larger truth. This fatuous line of thinking is disturbing, not to mention hypocritical when invoked for the purpose of criticizing - of all people - Bush.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that Rather has been either recklessly negligent or deviously dishonest, yet he continues to even consider the possiblility. Yet CBS and the Boston Globe have closed ranks and continued to mislead, at this point apparently deliberately. Furthermore, they refuse to provide any further proof or independent examination asking us to essentially "take their word for it."

The question is vitally important. The government can, and will, lie to the public. The media is the arbiter of truth and this issue goes far beyond bias to the even more fundamental issue of integrity.

CBS is putting a slew of document experts verifying the documents veracity.

They firmly stand by their assertion the documents are real. This has little, if anything, to do with Rather.

A little over two years ago, the administration pissed off the mainstream media and got a heap of bad commentary for it. It looks like the same thing will occur. This could be a fatal error for the Bush admin.

If nothing else, the mainstream media is extremely fucking powerful and don't like to be called a bunch of propagandists--regardless of the documents' truth value. They don't like the admin's actions and lack of responses to them (which are extremely lacking, btw) and it shows in the reporting style.

For me personally, I'm going to take the word of people on the screen over the word of someone who spoke to someone on a website. When experts are willing to come on screen for interviews, and I can hear their conversation in whole, not just snippets, I choose to believe them.

I also don't get this nitpicking about the documents in regards to really ridiculous assertions. For example, the issue of centering the letterhead. My understanding of letterheads is that they are pre-made forms. I don't know what they did in the 70's, but my guess is that a guy didn't type each on up. The lt. most likely had access to a stack of identical blank sheets of paper with the squad's splash across the top. Sounds like so much grasping at straws here that I cant even believe I posted--damn it, I was refraining for so long...

i think a media establishment with a retaliatory attitude is extremely dangerous. i hope you aren't correct smooth, though i fear that you are.

locobot, how is the President's military service still impuned if the documents are false? to me, the President's military record would remain to be unremarkable. he served honorably in the limited capacity of a national guard pilot, but didn't see combat duty. big whoopie! certainly nothing to run on politically. he certainly hasn't tried. there is absolutely nothing nefarious about it.

the democrats have been trying to get traction on this issue for 5 years now. it hasn't stuck before, it's just getting sillier now.

I agree with irate.

Isn't the whole issue of military records so very old and stale now? I think both condidates should move on and consider other more relevant facts.

The Democrats' focus on this is silly. The Republicans' attack on Kerry equally so.


Mr Mephisto

I believe in my last post I said "we'll see" to Superbelt. I believe I'm right and Rather we'll be ousted as a willing accomplice in trying to defeat President Bush. Rather should just fall on the sword and admit that he failed as a journalist, he didn't check his sources, all in a hope that the story was true.

Now shakran, I'll post at my own pace with my own thoughts. BTW I'd cross through Hurricane Ivan to vote for Bush and am proud of it. You can't vote for Kerry, just against Bush. How sad is that. Nuff said.

Well that's not really hard to believe now is it? Times New Roman is an established font. It will look the same whether produced off of a laser printer, a daisywheel (remember those?), or a typewriter. So a document written on a typewriter equipped with a Times New Roman ball/keys will look pretty much the same as one written on MS Word.


And Ustwo, what the hell are you talking about? Yes, I read the thread. Did you?

Please watch the personal comments :)

Shouldn't Bush do the same thing about the Nigerian documents then? Admit he failed as a president and passed on forged documents?

For those who care and just don't hate for hates sake.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=222

It goes on....

But don't let facts get in you way.

Are you suggesting the the Nigir documents are real? Despite being signed by someone who wasn't in power for many years? Despite that it wasn't the guys signiture....

Nope, and if you read you would see the Italian docs were fake (quote above. * Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
) Unfortunately for you, they are not where all the information came from. It wasn't as if the entire case was built upon a couple of fake documents. If the only proof of this were the fake docs, and after they were discovered to be fake Bush still defended them as true, then you might have a point. But it wasn't, he didn't and you don't.

I know this won't phase you.

Isn't this the same thing Dan Rather said? That there is more evidence then the documents?

Also please post some refrences to reputable sources when citing articles.

http://www.factcheck.org/

Check it out before saying false statements. You sound like Dan Rather.

I will no longer respond to you until you try reading before you post. Seriously this is silly.

Stay on the issues, people!

I hate locking threads and warning folks!

what I am saying is that the article you posted seems incorrect on a lot of its points. The mainstream media isn't saying that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from niger but this article is? I'm sorry but I don't buy it.

That contention is not true. Particularly for popular fonts, there are many different variations of the "same" font. And they can vary dramatically. The TNR of Microsoft is not the same as Adobe's TNR is not the same as the original TNR of Linotype.

Factcheck.org is a well-regarded, non-partisan, non-profit source based in the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Anyone interested in politics should read this site before heading off to the ideological bobbleheads in the blogosphere (or the sloppy cut-and-paste journalism of the mainstream outlets).

It and other sites like Spinsanity are excellent resources for well-researched, spin-free information.