Chicken George? Media Falls For Biggest Document Hoax Since Hitler's Diaries?

Today's big Boston Globe story on President Bush's Air National Guard service is based on memos to file from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian: "Bid cited to boost Bush in Guard."

The Globe story is itself based on last night's 60 Minutes report: "New questions on Bush Guard duty." The online version of the 60 Minutes story has links to the memos. Killian died in 1984; CBS states that it "consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic." Readers Tom Mortensen and Liz MacDougald direct us to the FreeRepublic post and thread (see post no. 47) to this effect:

Every single one of the memos to file regarding Bush's failure to attend a physical and meet other requirements is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing (especially in the military), and typewriters used mono-spaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction high-end word processing systems from Xerox and Wang, and later of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's.

Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang and other systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used mono-spaced fonts. I doubt the TANG had typesetting or high-end 1st generation word processing systems.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively.

UPDATE: Thanks to all the readers who have written regarding this post. Several have pointed out that the Executive line of IBM typewriters did have proportionally spaced fonts, although no reader has found the font used in the memos to be a familiar one or thought that the an IBM Executive was likely to have been used by the National Guard in the early 1970's. Reader Monty Walls has also cited the IBM Selectric Composer. However, reader Eric Courtney adds this wrinkle:

The "Memo To File" of August 18, 1973 also used specialized typesetting characters not used on typewriters. These include the superscript "th" in 187th, and consistent ’ (right single quote) used instead of a typewriter's generic ' (apostrophe). These are the sorts of things that typesetters did manually until the advent of smart correction in things like Microsoft Word.

UPDATE 2: Reader John Risko adds:

I was a clerk/typist for the US Navy at the Naval Underwater Systems Center (NUSC) in Newport RI for my summer job in 1971 when I was in college. I note the following with regard to the Killian memos:

1) Tom Mortensen is absolutely correct. Variable type was used only for special printing jobs, like official pamphlets. These documents are forgeries, and not even good ones. Someone could have at least found an old pre-Selectric IBM (introduced around 1962). Actually, I believe we were using IBM Model C's at the time, which was the precursor to the Selectric.

2) I also used a Variype machine in 1971. I fooled around with it in my spare time. It was incredibly difficult to set up and use. It was also extremely hard to correct mistakes on the machine. Most small letters used two spaces. Capital letters generally used three spaces. I think letters like "i" may have used one space. Anyway, you can see that this type of machine was piloted by an expert, and it would NEVER be used for a routine memo. A Lt. Colonel would not be able to identify a Varitype machine, let alone use it.

3) US Navy paper at the time was not 8 1/2 x 11. It was 8 x 10 1/2. I believe this was the same throughout the military, but someone will have to check on that. This should show up in the Xeroxing, which should have lines running along the sides of the Xerox copy.

4) I am amused by the way "147 th Ftr.Intrcp Gp." appears in the August 1, 1972 document. It may have been written that way in non-forged documents, but as somone who worked for ComCruDesLant, I know the military liked to bunch things together. I find "147 th" suspicious looking. 147th looks better to me, but the problem with Microsoft Word is that it keeps turning the "th" tiny if it is connected to a number like 147. And finally......

5) MORE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF FORGERY: I had neglected even to look at the August 18, 1973 memo to file. This forger was a fool. This fake document actually does have the tiny "th" in "187th" and there is simply no way this could have occurred in 1973. There are no keys on any typewriter in common use in 1973 which could produce a tiny "th." The forger got careless after creating the August 1, 1972 document and slipped up big-time.

In summary, the variable type reveals the Killian memos to be crude forgeries, the tiny "th" confirms it in the 8/18/73 memo, and I offer my other points as icing on the cake.

UPDATE 3: We have received so much information from readers that it's hard to keep up. Reader Fred Godel points us to Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly "Smoking gun update" stating that the White House has released copies of two of the memos and left their authenticity undisputed. Reader John Burgess adds:

I'm afraid the Post 47 at Free Republic is not compelling. By 1969, I was using an IBM Selectric typewriter, with proportional type balls. They were widely available in the public sector-and thus readily available to the military. I do not recall having used a Palatine typeface, but Times Roman was certainly common. While I do think the entire argument about "Bush/AWOL" is bull, the raising of type faces is not useful. In fact, it's counterproductive because it's demonstrably false.

Reader Chris Rohlfs points to another "document in Bush's record (http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/doc27.gif) which, if real (I got that link from here) appears to have some typing from the same typewriter. Look at the word 'Recommend.'" Reader Larry Nichols adds:

What a freakin' joke! I served in the Air Force for 21 years -- 1968 to 1989 -- the first 7 as a Personnel Specialist and the remainder as a PSM (Personnel Systems Manager). I also spent 2 years as an inspector at Hq SAC, Offutt AFB, NE in Omaha, inspecting Personnel Offices at all 26 SAC bases. As a PSM I had to know every job in Personnel, including the proper filing of documents in individual military records. Memos were NOT used for orders, as the one ordering 1LT Bush to take a physical. This would have done as a letter, of which a copy should have been sent to the CBPO (Consolidated Base Personnel Office) to be filed in 1LT Bush's military record. Memos DID NOT get filed in personnel records.

I first used a computer in the Air Force in 1971 while stationed at Albrook AFB, Canal Zone. The computers were used only for updating records data. The Air Force was the first branch of the military to use a mainframe (Burroughs B-3500) computer for updating military records. Punch cards were used up until then. There were no Word Processors used until the late 1970's or early 1980's. Typewriters were still used extensively until the mid-1980s. These memos appear to be bogus.

As far as an Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) on Bush, unless he was under a supervisor for X number of days during a reporting period, no report could be written. Under special circumstances, a report could be written with only 60 days of supervision. The period may cover an extended period. Example: FROM 1 JUN 1970 THRU 15 DEC 1971 (more than 1 year) DAYS SUPERVISED: 60. The "vanilla civilian" Liberals and Journalists should quit trying to talk and write about things they know nothing about. In Sen. Kerry's case, that includes almost everything!

Finally -- finally for the moment -- reader Joshua Persons writes:

I've written a post regarding the forgery post on my weblog (click here). Mostly a rehash, but I googled and found a comparable, unrelated government memo from 1972 for visual comparison. Check it out at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/72e30.pdf .

UPDATE 4: Charles Johnson has written to let us know that he has resolved the issue: "Bush Guard documents: Forged."

UPDATE 5: Reader Timothy Sampson writes:

There is no confirmation of authenticity by the White House. See Kevin Drum's update:

I now have copies of the memos the White House released, and they are just versions that CBS faxed to the White House the day before the 60 Minutes segment aired. There's no indication that the White House had its own copies of these memos and had been sitting on them. Apologies.

UPDATE 6: Reader Elbow Elbow provides this "link to the PDFs of the memos the White House released." We are unable to confirm that the White House has "released" anything other than copies of the memos it may have been provided by CBS.

UPDATE 7: INDC Journal has posted an interesting summary of the review of the memoranda by forensic document examiner Dr. Phillip Bouffard: "Are the National Guard documents fake?"

UPDATE 8: The signatures on the CBS documents do not appear to be authentic. Check out the two signatures below. The one on the left is an actual signature of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. The one on the right is from one of the CBS documents. It's not even close; in fact, it doesn't even look like the person who signed it made any attempt to copy Killian's signature:
sigs.jpg

UPDATE 9: Reader Andy Devlin takes issue with John Burgess, quoted above:

From 1973 until late 1982 I was a repairman for the Office Products Division of IBM. I can assure you that the comments on your site by Mr. Burgess regarding the Selectric typewriter are incorrect. The Selectric was available only in mono type. At that time my customers who wanted proportional type used either the IBM Executive typewriter or IBM Composer. The Composer was an expensive and complicated piece of equipment which would normally be found only in printing and communications departments. I doubt that it would be used to write memos to file.

UPDATE 10: Reader Jon-Erik Prichard adds what strikes me as an especially persuasive point:

[A]nother aspect of the type on [the August 18, 1973 memo] suggests, perhaps proves, forgery.

1. The type in the document is KERNED. Kerning is the typsetter's art of spacing various letters in such a manner that they are 'grouped' for better readability. Word processors do this automatically. NO TYPEWRITER CAN PHYSICALLY DO THIS.

To explain: the letter 'O' is curved on the outside. A letter such as 'T' has indented space under its cross bar. On a typewriter if one types an 'O' next to a 'T' then both letters remain separated by their physical space. When you type the same letters on a computer next to each other the are automatically 'kerned' or 'grouped' so that their individual spaces actually overlap. e. g., TO. As one can readily see the curvature of the 'O' nestles neatly under the cross bar of the 'T'. Two good kerning examples in the alleged memo are the word 'my' in the second line where 'm' and 'y' are neatly kerned and also the word 'not' in the fourth line where the 'o' and 't' overlap empty space. A typewriter doesn't 'know' what particular letter is next to another and can't make those types of aesthetic adjustments.

2. The kerning and proportional spacing in each of the lines of type track EXACTLY with 12 point Times Roman font on a six inch margin (left justified). Inother words, the sentences break just as they would on a computer and not as they would on a typewriter. Since the type on the memo is both proportionally spaced and kerned the lines of type break at certain instances (i.e., the last word in each line of the first paragraph are - 1. running, 2. regarding, 3. rating, 4. is, 5. either). If the memo was created on a typewriter the line breaks would be at different words (e. g., the word 'running' is at the absolute outside edge of the sentence and would probably not be on the first
line).

3. The sentences have a wide variance in their AMOUNT of kerning and proportional spacing. Notice how the first line of the first paragraph seems squished together and little hard to read but the last line of the first paragraph has wider more open spacing. Even the characters themselves are squished in the first line (as a computer does automatically) and more spread out on the last line where there is more room.

There's no way a typewriter could 'set' the type in this memo and even a good typesetter using a Linotype machine of the era would have to spend hours getting this effect.

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

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

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

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

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

Second article and investigation as follows.

'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 09, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.

The "60 Minutes" segment included an interview with former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who criticized Bush's service. The news program also produced a series of memos that claim Bush refused to follow an order to undertake a medical examination.

The documents came from the "personal office file" of Bush's former squadron commander Jerry B. Killian, according to Kelli Edwards, a spokeswoman for "60 Minutes," who was quoted in Thursday's Washington Post. Edwards declined to tell the Post how the news program obtained the documents.

But the experts interviewed by CNSNews.com homed in on several aspects of a May 4, 1972, memo, which was part of the "60 Minutes" segment and was posted on the CBS News website Thursday.

"It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with," said Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass. "I'm suspect in that I did work for the U.S. Army as late as the late 1980s and early 1990s and the Army was still using [fixed-pitch typeface] Courier."

The typography experts couldn't pinpoint the exact font used in the documents. They also couldn't definitively conclude that the documents were either forged using a current computer program or were the work of a high-end typewriter or word processor in the early 1970s.

But the use of the superscript "th" in one document - "111th F.I.S" - gave each expert pause. They said that is an automatic feature found in current versions of Microsoft Word, and it's not something that was even possible more than 30 years ago.

"That would not be possible on a typewriter or even a word processor at that time," said John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com.

"It is a very surprising thing to see a letter with that date [May 4, 1972] on it," and featuring such typography, Collins added. "There's no question that that is surprising. Does that force you to conclude that it's a fake? No. But it certainly raises the eyebrows."

Fred Showker, who teaches typography and introduction to digital graphics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., questioned the documents' letterhead.

"Let's assume for a minute that it's authentic," Showker said. "But would they not have used some form of letterhead? Or has this letterhead been intentionally cut off? Notice how close to the top of the page it is."

He also pointed to the signature of Killian, the purported author of the May 4, 1972, memo ordering Bush, who was at the time a first lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard, to obtain a physical exam.

"Do you think he would have stopped that 'K' nice and cleanly, right there before it ran into the typewriter 'Jerry," Showker asked. "You can't stop a ballpoint pen with a nice square ending like that ... The end of that 'K' should be round ... it looks like you took a pair of snips and cut it off so you could see the 'Jerry.'"

The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.

"I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government," Showker said.

"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."

But Haley added that the use of the superscript "th" cast doubt on the use of any typewriter.

"There weren't any typewriters that did that," Haley said. "That looks like it might be a function of something like Microsoft Word, which does that automatically."

According to an article on the CBS News website, the news program "consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."
Link

So I guess these "new" documents that didn't come up when Bush ran for governor twice and President in 2000 are new after all. Someone MADE them? Oh and good job Dennis_T falling for this hoax hook line and sinker along with the rest of the media wing of the Democratic party ie CBS, ABC, NBC and the major newspapers in the U.S.

Ah, PAD, you can always be counted on to repeat whatever right-wing propaganda is being presented to you. (I.E., the Kerry shotgun fiasco of a few days past, the Abu Nidal blunder of a month ago.)

I note that you neglect to mention that the White House itself released these memos to the rest of the media, and have not made any attempt to argue their inaccuracy. Don't you think they might have said something were these such "obvious" forgeries?

I further note that you neglect to mention that two of the documents are official, not made just for Killian's private files.

In the first document Killian orders Bush to appear for a physical, a direct order that Chicken George flouted in contravention of military law.

The second official document noted Killian's suspension of Bush for "failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination (flight) as ordered."

Yeah, not to mention that some of Bush's earlier documents contained super-scripted "th"'s as well.

You guys are funny. And by funny, I mean idiots.

seppo

By BOBBY ROSS JR., Associated Press Writer

DALLAS - The authenticity of newly unearthed memos stating that George W. Bush failed to meet standards of the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War was questioned Thursday by the son of the late officer who reportedly wrote the memos.



"I am upset because I think it is a mixture of truth and fiction here," said Gary Killian, son of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is It a Hoax?
Experts weigh in on the 60 Minutes documents. Says one: "I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but . . . I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/09/2004 7:20:00 PM

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

And according to several forensic document experts contacted by THE WEEKLY STANDARD say the Killian memos appear to be forgeries. Although it is nearly impossible to establish with certainty the authenticity of documents without a careful examination of the originals, several irregularities in the Killian memos suggest that CBS may have been the victim of a hoax.

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

Several other experts agree. "They look mighty suspicious," says a veteran forensic document expert who asked not to be quoted by name. Richard Polt, a Xavier University philosophy professor who operates a website dedicated to typewriters, says that while he is not an expert on typesetting, the documents "look like typical word-processed documents."

There are several reasons these experts are skeptical of the authenticity of the Killian memos. First the typographic spacing is proportional, as is routine with professional typesetting and computer typography, not monospace, as was common in typewriters in the 1970s. (In proportional type, thin letters like "i" and "l" are spaced closer together than thick letters like "W" and "M". In monospace, all the letter widths are the same.)

Second, the font appears to be identical to the Times New Roman font that is the default typeface in Microsoft Word and other modern word processing programs. According to Flynn, the font is not listed in the Haas Atlas--the definitive encyclopedia of typewriter type fonts.

Third, the apostrophes are curlicues of the sort produced by word processors on personal computers, not the straight vertical hashmarks typical of typewriters. Finally, in some references to Bush's unit--the 111thFighter Interceptor Squadron--the "th" is a superscript in a smaller size than the other type. Again, this is typical (and often done automatically) in modern word processing programs. Although several experts allow that such a rendering might have been theoretically possible in the early 1970s, it would have been highly unlikely. Superscripts produced on typewriters--the numbers preceding footnotes in term papers, for example--were almost always in the same size as the regular type.

So can we say with absolute certainty that the documents were forged? Not yet. Xavier University's Polt, in an email, offers two possible scenarios. "Either these are later transcriptions of earlier documents (which may have been handwritten or typed on a typewriter), or they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but I won't let that cloud my objective judgment: I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."

Says Flynn: "This looks pretty much like a hoax at this point in time."

CBS, in a statement Thursday afternoon, said it stands by the story. The network claims that its own document expert concluded the memos were authentic. There are several things CBS could do to clear up any confusion:

(1) Provide the name of the expert who authenticated the documents for Sixty Minutes.

(2) Provide the original documents to outside experts--William Flynn, Gerald Reynolds, and Peter Tytell seem to be the consensus top three in the United States--for further analysis.

(3) Provide more information on the source of the documents.

(A spokeswoman for CBS, Kelly Edwards, said she was overwhelmed with phone calls and did not respond to specific requests for comment.)
Weekly Standard

The White House released documents provided to them by CBS News. They did not question their accuracy along the way. The original source here was not the White House, DoD or the Bush Campaign but CBS News.

Oh and since you like to constantly remind me, and yourself, that Abu Nidal killed himself in his apartment and did not die in a Baghdad hospital like I stated months ago? Here's the ultra right wing conspiracy investigation from "Jane's Defense Weekly" to once and for prove you wrong.

Abu Nidal murder trail leads directly to Iraqi regime

By Mohammed Najib

It has now become very clear and much confirmed that the Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the assassination of the Palestinian terrorist Sabri al-Bana, known to the world as Abu Nidal.

A wide-ranging Jane’s investigation into the incident, gathering information from various official and non-official sources in Ramallah, Amman, Baghdad, London, Washington and Beirut, has confirmed the Iraqi regime’s involvement in the killing of Abu Nidal, whose death in a Baghdad apartment from gunshot wounds was announced last Friday (16 August).

So why has Saddam acted now? The best explanation is that the Iraqi dictator is now feeling the pressure from the ongoing US deliberations over a potential invasion to topple his regime. In any such adventure, the anti-Saddam elements within Iraq would most likely play an important role in turning the tide against Saddam. He has therefore moved to eradicate those dangerous elements, both as a pre-emptive measure to protect his position and as an example to other prospective internal enemies still at large.

Given Abu Nidal’s propensity to ‘go with the smart money’ to survive and his past treachery during the 1990-91 Gulf War (he sided with Kuwait), any suggestion of him plotting against the regime would have been enough to sign his death warrant.

Various Palestinian and Arab officials and sources contacted by Jane’s have confirmed the reports of Abu Nidal’s death in his Baghdad apartment under “mysterious circumstances”. It remains unclear, however, whether Iraqi agents killed him or whether he committed suicide. His body bore several gunshot wounds, according to Palestinian sources.

A senior Iraqi official said on 20 August that Abu Nidal, who had returned to Iraq several months earlier bearing a false Yemeni passport and was placed under house arrest, killed himself after Iraqi agents accused him of conspiring with anti-Iraqi forces, including Kuwait [and Saudi Arabia]. Iraqi intelligence had apparently confronted Abu Nidal with evidence of his involvement with foreign agents to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime, with an Iraqi senior official claiming that classified documents and plans concerning a US attack on Iraq were found in his house.

Iraqi intelligence agents had followed Abu Nidal to check on his alleged dealings with the Gulf states, according to Palestinian sources in Ramallah on 20 August, who said that Iraqi intelligence arrested three of Abu Nidal's men early last week before raiding his Baghdad house late on 14 August. The raid sparked clashes between the agents and Abu Nidal's guards, two of whom were wounded, the Palestinian official said. Abu Nidal then ran into another room where he “committed suicide”. The Iraqi agents apparently arrested three more of Abu Nidal's assistants, later releasing two of them.

Tahhir Jalil Haboush, the head of Iraqi Intelligence, told reporters in Baghdad on 21 August that Abu Nidal shot himself as Iraqi officials waited to take him to court. He was then rushed to hospital where he died eight hours later. Haboush was asked what day Abu Nidal died, but did not reply.
Link

Sit on it!

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh and since you like to constantly remind me, and yourself, that Abu Nidal killed himself in his apartment and did not die in a Baghdad hospital like I stated months ago? Here's the ultra right wing conspiracy investigation from "Jane's Defense Weekly" to once and for prove you wrong.[/quote]

Jesus, you are dumb. The article you cite proves my point...under international pressure, Saddam Hussein ordered Abu Nidal killed by Iraqi intelligence agents. Not exactly what I call harboring a known terrorist, nor providing him a peaceful death in a Baghdad hospital under Saddam's protection -- which is exactly what you intimated in your earlier post, which said Nidal's presence was proof of Iraqi complicity in terrorism.

Do you ever try to keep track of your arguments, PAD?

Seriously, this Vietnam stuff is getting so old. I was really appalled when the first Swift Boat Veterans ads came out against Kerry, not because of the content of the ads, but I was appalled at the fact that Kerry himself didn't come out and rebut them. He wimped out and complained that Bush wasn't denouncing the ads, meanwhile Kerry had all these negative ads on his side that he wasn't saying a word about. It started to make me think the accusations were true, and that Kerry was bobbling the whole thing like an idiot. But you know, at this point, I really don't care anymore. Even with all the Swift Boat garbage, if this election is about Vietnam, Kerry wins. Kerry volunteered and risked his life, while Bush was the well-connected privileged kid who was eased to the top of the list for stateside Guard duty. This is just another example of bait and switch from the Bush team. They don't want to have a campaign on their administration's failures, so they're going to focus on what else... Vietnam! If Bush succeeds, political discourse in this country will have reached a new low. So much for "restoring the decency" and "changing the tone" of Washington politics.

Maybe if you're lucky, you can find a videotape of Killian directly contradicting the memos. Then again, maybe that only happens to the Swift Boat Liars.

And even if (and this is a huge if) the documents from Killian turn out to be inauthentic, there is still plenty of 'splainin' Dubya needs to do about his undocumented time in the Guard.

"The CNS News.com story, echoed by other conservative outlets, helped sparked a debate over proportional spacing, fonts, electric typewriters and superscripts as independent typographical experts weighed in with their own doubts. Some experts contacted by the Washington Post, New York Times and Salon suggested that the raised, or superscripted, "th" in one of Killian's memos was a telltale sign that the documents were created well after 1972. Yet independent researcher Marty Heldt notes that he had received an undisputed Bush military document in 2000 from the Vietnam era that clearly contains a superscripted "th." He also notes that when Killian's Aug. 14, 1973, memo is enlarged and the word "interference" is examined, it's clear the two middle e's rest higher on the page than the other two e's; that is not something a modern-day word processor would likely do.


CBS, for its part, stands by its story, saying its "report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking ... Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned." CBS News vice president Betsy West said, "We are continuing to pursue the story and will report tonight on the "'CBS Evening News.'"


As for the memos in which Killian complained about the pressure he was getting from his superiors to "sugarcoat" Bush's spotty service record, Killian's superior told CBS producers that Killian had made similar contemporaneous statements to him in the early 1970s, according to the Washington Post.


The forgery flap has created a firestorm among mainstream media, but it is merely a sideshow in the larger National Guard controversy. The disputed Killian documents represent just a fraction of what is known about Bush's Guard duty. To date, the voluminous information about the issue comes from Bush's own Texas Guard file, none of which has been called into question. And in fact, the veracity of the contents of the Killian memos remains undisputed. For instance, one memo dated May 4, 1972, ordered Bush to obtain a physical exam. There has been no controversy whatsoever about the fact that Bush was required to take a physical that year and failed to do so.


In April 1972, with 770 days left in his military commitment, and unwilling to have his physical, Bush was suspended from flying and walked away from his required duties. Though he says he subsequently served in the Guard in Alabama, Salon reported last week that according to an eyewitness, Linda Allison, a Bush family friend whose husband was in charge of overseeing Bush's activities in Alabama, Bush never gave any evidence of having done any Guard duty. This week, the Boston Globe reported that after leaving the Texas Air National Guard in 1973 to attend Harvard Business School, Bush again shirked his responsibility by failing to serve the remaining nine months of his commitment with a Massachusetts Guard unit. And to this day, not one member of Bush's Alabama unit has come forward with a credible recollection of having served with the future president. Whether or not the Killian memos turn out to be forgeries, those facts are irrefutable."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/10/forgery/index.html

The bottom line here MBE isn't the national guard story.

The bottom line is that enough people at CBS wanted to believe that they were true that they pushed them on the air as legit. It was truly partisan. This more than anything is the issue now. CBS's credibility can be shot to hell over this.

NBC is in danger of the same thing happening to them with their planned 3 days of coverage on the Kitty Kelley book. No Kelley book hasn't had massive gaps of credibility.

What pundits fail to see out of all of this is that this is a nail in the coffin of mainstream media and the emergence of new media. It was blogs and unknown websites that turned this story on. It was the same thing with the Swift Vets.

There are thousands of independent experts and concerned citizens that see the job the mainstream media used to do not being done. Reporters for the networks have relied for far too long on leaks, "annonymous" sources and failed to do any investigative work on their own.

Political junkies no longer are limited to the Sunday morning shows for their fixes. It's not enough even to have CNN, MSNBC or FOX and talk radio. Operatives on both sides are digging 24/7, investigating, researching and asking questions.

The mainstream media is dying on the vine. The real mystery here is who landed CBS these "documents" where did they come from? What was the motivation?

This is blowing up everywhere on every news page/source in America and is far from a right wing conspiracy. Sorry to disappoint you Dennis.

Except that it is still a right-wing nuttery at work. THe notion that that document "couldn't" be from 1971 has been blown to pieces six ways from Sunday. Superscripts? Check. Kerning, or lack thereof? Check. Times New Roman not existing? Check. Spacing/Half Spacing/Double Spacing? Check. Blah blah blah. Not only does the list go on, there are several typewriters from that era that would have done the job just fine.

I *love* the way that a bunch of RWNJs (Right Wing Nut Jobs) are saying that because they made the doc in Word, after substantially lowering the resolution of the .pdf, that it's "proof" it's a forgery. Well, given that word processors were designed to mimic print, and typewriters, it's really no surprise. And no, the docs don't look exactly alike. Not even close, from a font perspective. Open 4's, different apostrophes, etc. These are big deals when it comes to font analysis.

Sure, a bunch of armchair nutjobs cooked up a conspiracy theory. Hooray for them. But that doesn't make it true. I'd love for CBS to reveal their sources. Hell, I hope they do. And if they do, I hope Robert Novak, who's called for the sources to be revealed, reveals his source on the Plame issue, as well.

The problem with you, PAD, is that you're stupid. You're stupid, but vocal. So you'll say anything, parroting the Righties, even if it makes you look like a complete idiot. I'm not gonna say the documents are authentic, because I have no idea whether they are or not. But I can say, with some confidence, that the things that the right wingers have posted so far are *all* disproven. They raise doubts, but not a single one has been a "nail in the coffin" of these documents' veracity.

seppo

The 60 minutes representative just appeared on Fox and insulted all the people who found this story and said that they didn't need to give up the documents for independant examination.

60 minutes has my unwavering trust.

60 Minutes vs. Fox News? I'll give 60 Minutes the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Dan Rather's response:

Rather feeling Freeped, but standing by his story

Dan Rather appeared miffed that he even had to spend five minutes of his broadcast tonight responding to what he called the none-too-surprising counterattack led by partisan operatives against his 60 Minutes segment on Wednesday about Bush's Guard service. Putting the whole superscript frenzy into perspective, Rather recapped the central points of his piece: Did Ben Barnes use his influence to get Bush into the Guard? Did Bush refuse a direct order from his commanding officer? Was he suspended for failing to perform? Did he take his physical as ordered, and if not, why not? And did Bush complete his commitment to the Guard?

The 60 Minutes story was based, Rather reminds us, not just on documents but on new credible witnesses and other evidence. But the hype has centered on the memos. Some people, Rather said, "including many who are partisan political operatives," contend the documents are fake. Rather was not impressed with their arguments. "These critics have focused on something called superscript that automatically makes a raised 'th.' Critics claim it didn't exist," he said. But CBS showed one document not in dispute -- it looked like the document we linked to earlier -- that was released by the White House. The document is from 1968, but lo and behold, there is a raised, smaller "th."

Then there's the font question. "Some analysts outside CBS," as Rather called them, claim the font looks like Times New Roman, which they say was not available in the 1970s. CBS called the company that distributes this typing style, Rather said, and it turns out the style has been available since 1931.

And he pointed out that all of the critics of these memos -- and experts who are being quoted by news organizations, including Salon, are basing their judgments on copies that inevitably deteriorate with photocopying, faxing and downloading.

Putting the type-style and superscripting aside, there is the issue of Killian's signature, which is not a main focus of the debate. CBS' analyst, Marcel Matley, says the signature on the memos was the same as another document signed by Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer.

It's clear that Rather is feeling Swift Boated by the allegations that began in the right-wing blogosphere and crept into the major newspapers under headlines that warned of "serious questions" about his work. "Are you surprised these questions are coming about?" Rather asked his analyst Matley. "We're not," Rather added.

Clearly, Rather said, his piece was based not solely on the documents -- that were provided by solid sources, he said -- but on a "preponderance of evidence." As far as Rather is concerned, his work here is done. He ended tonight by saying: "If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

Also at the same link:

William Flynn, a forensic expert, has been cited in several news accounts claiming the Killian memos were almost certainly faked. A few people have sent us this link showing that Flynn is also famous for alleging that the KGB forged John "Ivan the Terrible" Demjanjuk's death-camp ID in order to "frame" him.

As for one of the other "debunkers" cited in the AP account among other stories, Sandra Ramsey Lines, it turns out that she has strong GOP ties and is a member of the WISH List, a group that raises money for Republican women running for the House and Senate.

And Eric Boehlert writes in Salon that a PR firm pushing the CBS memo forgery story was also a force behind the anti-Kerry Swift Boat campaign.

[quote name='helava']The problem with you, PAD, is that you're stupid. You're stupid, but vocal. So you'll say anything, parroting the Righties, even if it makes you look like a complete idiot. I'm not gonna say the documents are authentic, because I have no idea whether they are or not. But I can say, with some confidence, that the things that the right wingers have posted so far are *all* disproven. They raise doubts, but not a single one has been a "nail in the coffin" of these documents' veracity.

seppo[/quote]

So "stupid" in your mind means I can't comment on a topic and issue that every major media outlet in the country has looked at and raised substantial doubt over. This story has been addressed on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, practically every major newspaper, talk radio, web sites leaning left, right and "mainstream". It is a topic that I heard on bar stools last night. The Democratic party sent out a "action alert" email, which I'm subscribed to BTW, telling people to ask their newspapers to bring up the information found in these documents that may not even be real.

Yet some tool online who signs every posting he/she/it makes signed "seppo" calls me stupid for bringing up points this widespread in every day life. Who the do you think you are? This is so typical of the left when something hits close to home they never address the points they just attack someone personally. In your case you lament that I'm "stupid, but vocal" fine... disprove me.

Tell me why the late Colonel's family says this is BS are wrong. Tell me why CBS consulting a handwriting expert on these documents as opposed to a typewriting expert doesn't create massive gaps in credibility. Tell me why CBS provided these documents to the White House which in turn released them to other working members of the press never once questioning if these documents veracity because of their policy of making every document they have regarding national guard service to the press. Tell me why none of these records were found in the official military personnel archives files in East St. Lous, MO, Texas National Guard Units or the Pentagon but supposedly had to come from a deceased Colonel's "personal" files who has been dead for 22 years and can't defend or explain himself.

Sorry I'm not stupid enough not to question these massive gaps. Sorry you feel the need to belittle someone that sees the same facts you do but choose not to believe this story as presented.

If you wish to go through life as ignorant and unquestioning as you apparently are that's fine. I don't want to.

As of Friday the people questioning the memos authenticity had only seen copies of copies. They had not seen the originals.

The handwriting analysis was for the signature.

Other memos from that time period had the same superscript "th."

The White House released their copies of the memos because they knew CBS was going to do the story anyway and the documents would be made public.

So far no one had made any hardcore proof that the memos are fake. I am sure that the documents will be getting plenty of scrutiny in the coming days.

And the memos are not even the crux of the allegations. There is still plenty of other evidence and records that Bush did not fulfill his Guard service.

One question for PAD: If it's proven that Bush refused a direct order to take his physical, would you still support him for president?

Do you think I wouldn't?

Honestly, why would you even ask.

No issue short of Bush launching a nuclear attack on one of our own cities to clear out terrorist cells would get me to vote for Kerry.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Do you think I wouldn't?

Honestly, why would you even ask.

No issue short of Bush launching a nuclear attack on one of our own cities to clear out terrorist cells would get me to vote for Kerry.[/quote]

That still wouldn't make me vote for Kerry. I'd vote for my left nut for president before I'd vote for Kerry. I know where my nuts stand on the issues. I think Kerry's nuts are prosthetic, if he even has any.

That's what I liked about Clinton, he had BALLS. I'm not being facetious here or sarcastic. That guy could get up and lie to your face and you'd believe him -- BEACUSE HE HAS BRASS FREAKING BALLS. He was no pussy. Kerry is a pussy. He's still learning how to walk and talk with those fake new danglies they've hung on him for this election. He just doesn't have the swagger down like Georgie does.

Eh won't get involved. Now the documents have been proven bogus so

Who give two shits about the docs. If there' forgeries, it only matters WHO forged them. Why hasn't Kerry released his service documents yet? Maybe there are some good forgeries there too...

[quote name='Pope On A Rope']Prove it; there weren't any typewriters in 1972 that could produce superscripts such as those in the document.
And the spacing is exactly the same as Microsoft Word uses.[/quote]

Look back up seven posts.

But CBS showed one document not in dispute -- it looked like the document we linked to earlier -- that was released by the White House. The document is from 1968, but lo and behold, there is a raised, smaller "th."

Click to expand...

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Do you think I wouldn't?

Honestly, why would you even ask.

No issue short of Bush launching a nuclear attack on one of our own cities to clear out terrorist cells would get me to vote for Kerry.[/quote]

Well, I thank yo, PAD and bmulligan, for at least admitting that you have no rational reasons for voting for Bush.

And I never asked what it would take for you to vote for Kerry. I asked would you still support Bush if it was proven that he disobeyed a direct order. Nice standards you have for the commander in chief.

PAD: So "stupid" in your mind means I can't comment on a topic and issue that every major media outlet in the country has looked at and raised substantial doubt over. This story has been addressed on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, practically every major newspaper, talk radio, web sites leaning left, right and "mainstream". It is a topic that I heard on bar stools last night. The Democratic party sent out a "action alert" email, which I'm subscribed to BTW, telling people to ask their newspapers to bring up the information found in these documents that may not even be real.

>>>>>>>>> Hardly. The point isn't that you commented on it, and zillions of other news outlets did. The issue is that you parroted the standard right wing spin points word for word, without even marginally verifying whether they were true, and adding virtually no new thought to the process whatsoever.


PAD: Who the shaq-fu do you think you are? This is so typical of the left when something hits close to home they never address the points they just attack someone personally. In your case you lament that I'm "stupid, but vocal" fine... disprove me.

>>>>>>>>> Who do I think I am? I think I'm someone who's substantially more intelligent, and more informed than you. I addressed the points, tangentially - I don't feel the need to rebut every one of your "points," because they've already been thoroughly debunked. Superscripts, spacing, font style, the comparison of a really reduced-resolution version of a document to a word processor that was *designed* to emulate the system in question, blah blah blah. I attacked you personally, because the preponderance of evidence over the last couple months I've had the so-called pleasure of reading your posts is just so overwhelming. You're an idiot. Period. You're like an echo. There's simply nothing behind your posts, other than the standard right-wing swagger.

PAD: Tell me why the late Colonel's family says this is BS are wrong. Tell me why CBS consulting a handwriting expert on these documents as opposed to a typewriting expert doesn't create massive gaps in credibility. Tell me why CBS provided these documents to the White House which in turn released them to other working members of the press never once questioning if these documents veracity because of their policy of making every document they have regarding national guard service to the press. Tell me why none of these records were found in the official military personnel archives files in East St. Lous, MO, Texas National Guard Units or the Pentagon but supposedly had to come from a deceased Colonel's "personal" files who has been dead for 22 years and can't defend or explain himself.

>>>>>>>>> Killian's family isn't important because they simply don't have any useful knowledge of the guy's job. I'm a slob at home, but meticulous in my documentation at work. I don't know jack or shit about the details of my parents' work activities, and I have no reason, based on what I've read, to believe the Killians are more knowledgeable about his work life than his immediate supervisor. Why weren't the docs found in Bush's records? 'Cause his records, and related records, were scrubbed when he ran for governor. That's pretty much common knowledge, and reasonably well documented in and of itself.

PAD: Sorry I'm not stupid enough not to question these massive gaps. Sorry you feel the need to belittle someone that sees the same facts you do but choose not to believe this story as presented.

>>>>>>>>> I'd understand if you actually *did* question the gaps. But you're not questioning *valid* gaps. You're parroting bullshit. The notion that a "perfect" match can be made via Word is bullshit. Not only bullshit, but completely backwards, logically, and *totally* irrelevant to proving the veracity of the documents. If you're seeing the same facts as me, and these are the conclusions you're coming to, all that proves is that you don't have a brain in your head.

PAD: If you wish to go through life as ignorant and unquestioning as you apparently are that's fine. I don't want to.

>>>>>>>>> And yet you do. How sad it must be for you.

seppo

Regardless of whether the memos are real or not, we are looking at another lie from the White House. We were told that all documents relating to Bush's service had been disclosed. I'm not sure why they would wait this long to present such a crucial piece of evidence in his favor, but, assuming they did, all documents had not been disclosed. If they told us the truth in the beginning- that all documents had been released- then they are forgeries. I'm not really concerned with whether or not they are authentic. Either way this is further evidence pointing to the lack of integrity of this White House. I don't care whether Bush technically met the requirements put before him while dodging any actual service in the war or not. Poor kids were not carrying out their service within the safety of US borders; they were in Vietnam dying.

Snore.

Ah yes, the ever popular, I'm liberal, I'm more intelligent and better informed than you response. You sound like a Senator running for President and the majority of the California Congressiaonal delegation. Congratulations, you'll make a fine liberal specimen someday.

I've been put in my place by you by golly.

This is so typical of the right when something hits close to home they never address the points they just attack someone personally. In your case you lament that I'm "more intelligent and better informed than you" fine... disprove me.

*yawn*

Since I never made any sort of claim about attacking people personally...

Not only are you an idiot, you're a self-absorbed hypocrite.

Good for you!
seppo

Ah, and to the point - since it's pretty well obvious that the memo could have been generated on a 1971 era typewriter, and given that Killian's immediate supervisor says that it sounds like something he said, how 'bout addressing the actual *content* of the memo, now that the right wingers' arguments have been pretty well taken care of?

Wanna focus on the "issue"?

How idiotic is it that a guy who went AWOL from his unit, according to the evidence, is accusing someone who served his country, by all accounts (of people who would actually know) performed admirably, by record, was awarded several citations, and had the courage to speak out about things he felt weren't right, upon his return home? Oh - not only did Bush not obey a direct order, there are photos of him wearing medals that *no* documentation ever shows that he got?

All this, of course, would be both tangential and stupid, except for the fact that the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Liars made it an issue. If it were up to me, we'd focus on Bush's disastrous international and domestic policies, and Kerry's clear alternatives to them instead. But that's an argument the White House knows clearly it can't win. *NO* data supports that Bush's policies have done good, so they've been doing their darndest to focus the media's attention on someone else. And like a bunch of saps, they've fallen for it.

But that's a different issue.

seppo

And just 'cause I'm bored... Let's talk about the notion that the memo being recreated in word is "proof" it's a forgery. What sorts of standards are bloggers held to? None. Seriously - they're not bound by any sort of journalistic integrity save for what they feel like applying. So let's look at the "evidence" they've put out.

1.) Resolution - the PDF's been lowered to approximately 500 pixels wide. What does this do? It blows out any detail in the memo itself. Given the size, it makes the style of apostrophe and comma used almost indiscernable, it makes alignments in the letters disappear, it makes irregularities in the printing of the letters invisible. If I were to create a 500 pixel wide image of a person's face, I have no doubt that I would be able to find another person who was an exact photographic duplicate at that resolution, given enough time. With a version of the PDF with the resolution that low, so much information is lost that a valid comparison isn't possible *at all*.

2.) Document verification isn't even generally done on photocopies, lowered resolution notwithstanding.

3.) The superscript TH was found on another of Bush's documents whose veracity has never been questioned.

4.) Killian's signature was verified by a handwriting expert.

5.) An IBM typewriter technician from the time has confirmed that all the features of the document present at the time were available on a number of single typewriters available in 1970. They were expensive, yes, and some of the features needed to be special ordered - like the superscript TH. But given that the various flight groups were referred to as the XXXth, it seems like a logical addition to a typewriter ordered by the military.

6.)The White House did not doubt the veracity of the memos. If Bush believed the content of the memos to be suspect, he could easily have ordered that they be questioned. Dan Bartlett, the communications director for the White House was interviewed about the memos not long after the broadcast - in no place does he deny the information contained within the memos - instead, he gives several evasive answers, and refuses in many cases to address the content of the memos directly. Transcripts are available online. IF the content of the memos were suspect, why did he not immediately address the issues directly? Why has *no one* yet addressed the content directly?

Thoughts?
seppo

My thoughts center around the fact that I really can't believe you care enough about one conservative online poster to try and prove your points so vociferously.

More comes out daily including CBS's "trump card" Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges saying he was misled and believes the docs are forgeries.

Dallas Morning News Septermber 12th 2004

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

An order obtained by The Dallas Morning News shows that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged March 1, 1972. CBS News reported this week that a memo in which Staudt was described as interfering with officers' negative evaluations of the future president's service was dated Aug. 18, 1973.

Click to expand...

Face it, you're no expert on the subject of document verifcation and neither am I but signs continue to point to the fact that these were forgeries.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Snore.

Ah yes, the ever popular, I'm liberal, I'm more intelligent and better informed than you response. You sound like a Senator running for President and the majority of the California Congressiaonal delegation. Congratulations, you'll make a fine liberal specimen someday.

I've been put in my place by you by golly.[/quote]
I'm sorry. Did I say something that isn't true? Did that not make sense? What's the problem? I don't think you have to be "liberal" to hate being lied to by your President.

I wasn't talking to you.

I'm shocked more people haven't read or posted in this thread due to multiple uses of the word "WANG" that appear in the first post.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I wasn't talking to you.[/quote]
My mistake.

Here's the facts....

BOTH Bush and Kerry lied about something to do with shit no one cares about todays.

BOTH Bush and Kerry will destroy this country if elected.

BOTh Bush and Kerry are dumbs that should have never been allowed to get this far in life.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Face it, you're no expert on the subject of document verifcation and neither am I but signs continue to point to the fact that these were forgeries.[/quote]

I think you mistyped "signs" instead of "Fox News."

[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Face it, you're no expert on the subject of document verifcation and neither am I but signs continue to point to the fact that these were forgeries.[/quote]

I think you mistyped "signs" instead of "Fox News."[/quote]

That was pretty funny.

As far as the docs in question, it seems to me like the Democratic equivalent of the Swiftboat BS from the Republicans.

It might seem that way, except the Swift Boat vets have been *proven* to be liars on virtually every single charge they've brought up, whereas no one has yet come forward to question the validity of the memo's contents, and so far, no one's brought up anything that's remotely proven that the memos were forgeries. So, they're quite different, in execution.

seppo

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Face it, you're no expert on the subject of document verifcation and neither am I but signs continue to point to the fact that these were forgeries.[/quote]

Actually, that was a good portion of my point. Signs do *not* continue to point to the fact that these were forgeries. They don't, in fact, point anywhere. They brought up a number of relevant questions. Questions which have been answered. It was absolutely possible the memo could have been typed on a 1971 era typewriter, and moreover, that it was reasonably likely that that was indeed the case.

seppo

I just read the transcript of Bill Mahr on Bill O'Reilly and Mahr made a very good and I think important point to remember: Republicans are not so worried about winning an argument, they just want to muddy up the debate and claim it's a wash. Vietnam service for example. Going into this campaign Kerry had the better position there. He volunteered, won Silver & Bronze stars and came home to valiantly protest a war he (and a good portion of other Americans) believe was unjust. Bush had his dad's friends pull strings so he wouldn't be drafted then he failed to complete his Guard service. No comparison; Kerry wins that debate hands down.

But the you get the Swift Boat Liars out there to smear Kerry and at this point it doesn't matter that they have been proved wrong. They have successfully muddied the waters. When anyone questions Bush's record, they claim there are questions about Kerry's record too so it's a wash, a tie.

It's a very effective tactic and if people don't stay informed, it will keep on working for them. Just watch how often it happens. When you attack a Republican, they don't argue the facts - they attack the Democrat with a smear.

PC Magazine weighs in on the docs

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp

You know if the media paid as much attention as to whether or not the information they were being fed on Iraq was accurate as they are these docs and the swift boat liars, maybe we would not be in Iraq right now.

[quote name='MrBadExample']
But the you get the Swift Boat Liars out there to smear Kerry and at this point it doesn't matter that they have been proved wrong. They have successfully muddied the waters. When anyone questions Bush's record, they claim there are questions about Kerry's record too so it's a wash, a tie.

It's a very effective tactic and if people don't stay informed, it will keep on working for them. Just watch how often it happens. When you attack a Republican, they don't argue the facts - they attack the Democrat with a smear.[/quote]

I agreee. This really sucks. Unfortunately, it does seem to work. The blue-collar people in the swing states that those ads are aimed at DON'T stay informed. They see the swift boat ads, believe them, and then don't later read all the news articles, etc proving them false.

At the very least it changes their general feeling about a candidate. It's kind of like in court when a witness says total BS or verbally attacks someone and then the judge tells the jury to disregard the remarks. The jury can try, but they the remarks, once said, must influence them in some way.

I think there should be some sort of non-governmental, non-partisan body that reviews campaign commercials before they are aired and scrutinize them for factual errors. Sort of like a Good Housekeeping Seal. All ads that meet that standard would display a logo in the corner. It would have to be a voluntary process ot there would be Free Speech concerns. If nothing else, people may be more skeptical of ads without the seal of approval.

Politicians will never agree to it though...

Now you guys are reduced to "the American population isn't smart enough to determine fact from fiction"?

Boy, if this is September I can't wait to hear your whines on 1/20/05 when Bush is sworn in again.

What I love about the liberals on here is that media outlet after media outlet has experts that say the docs are fake so guess what? Now the liberals are attacking the media outlets.

Oreilly is gonna talk about secret memos that CBS has been sending around cause of the fake docs tonight at 8pm est.

[quote name='MrBadExample']I think there should be some sort of non-governmental, non-partisan body that reviews campaign commercials before they are aired and scrutinize them for factual errors. Sort of like a Good Housekeeping Seal. All ads that meet that standard would display a logo in the corner. It would have to be a voluntary process ot there would be Free Speech concerns. If nothing else, people may be more skeptical of ads without the seal of approval.

Politicians will never agree to it though...[/quote]

And you believe the Patriot Act is bringing us closer to 1984?

And by making your panel voluntary you make it mandatory.

Somehow I bet you were for campaign finance reform, and wow, it didn't work out the way you wanted. And you will continue to attempt to tinker with it until you get your desired result.

Thats not freedom.

CTL

[quote name='Scrubking']Oreilly is gonna talk about secret memos that CBS has been sending around cause of the fake docs tonight at 8pm est.[/quote]
I get all my news from The Sun. (also owned by Fox!)
http://www.thesun.co.uk/
Check it out guys. The credibility just oozes off the page!

Seeing how Oreilly is constantly attacked by both liberals and conservatives I must ask you - How is the liberal koolaid?