Reply With QuoteFor something a little lighter until the CBS followup story try this link
www.fakecons ution.50megs.com/
biz.yahoo.com/prnews/0409...100_2.html
Press Release Source: CBS
Statement From CBS News
Friday September 10, 3:53 pm ET
NEW YORK, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Later today, CBS News will address on the air and in detail the issues surrounding the do ents broadcast in the 60 MINUTES report on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. At this time, however, CBS News states with absolute certainty that the ability to produce the "th" superscript mentioned in reports about the do ents did exist on typewriters as early as 1968, and in fact is in President Bush's official military records released by the White House. This and other issues surrounding the authenticity of the do ents and more on this developing story will be reported on tonight on THE CBS EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER.
For something a little lighter until the CBS followup story try this link
www.fakecons ution.50megs.com/
Who gives a ? I thought this election was about who can best lead our country the next four years.This isn't about 1973 this is about 2004 and his continued lie about why he didn't take the medical exam.
All I see out of Democrats is that apparently Bush is unfit because of something that happened in 1973, while coming out of the other side of their mouths is screaming that what Kerry did or didn't do in 'Nam 30 years ago is a non-issue.
Which is it? Make up your damn minds.
One direction the DNC might have been headed in is that Bush missed that physical because he had coke in his system.
With Kitty Kelley's book coming out and her slated to make various network appearances (I believe Katie Couric is slated to have multiple interviews with her) then you have the 'Bush is a cokehead' allegation hitting the media cycle right after you have the NG do ents coming out showing that Bush missed the all important physical.
Of course, now that the authenticity of the do ents has become the major issue and Kelley's source for the cokehead story has recanted, the best laid plans of mice and girlie men will go poof.
I thought Ben Barnes's daughter coming out and calling her dad a liar, today, was a nice touch. Don't you?
Aggie calm down man. I clearly explained why this is an issue today. He didn't lie about why he didn't take the medical exam in in 1972. He did that in the last few months, and in the 2000 election.
So what?
Kerry lied about Cambodia what, two weeks ago?
You need to calm down, and realize that this has absolutely ZERO to do with his ability to lead the next four years.
I know Demos have to reach, because Kerry's campaign has nothing to do with a platform or initiatives and everything to do with hating Bush, but that doesn't mean you have to cling to this insignificant crap to trash Bush.
Kerry didn't lie about Cambodia. His story has been corroborated multiple times by commanders of the boat that served along side of him.
You're in denial man. Catch a cruise to the Carribean and relax.
Now would be a good time to see the Florida Keys from a Carnival Cruise ship.
"Here's what we in America ought to hate: ungrateful mother ers. George Bush is one ungrateful mother er. Here he is, our goddamned President, who every time he has stumbled in his life, every time he has faced adversity or failure, has had a goose down pillow waiting for his ass when he hit the ground. What's so frustrating about the whole Air National Guard debacle is not that he weaseled out of his commitment. It's that he's not grateful for every break he's ever gotten. We who hate Bush hate him because he acts as if his stupid-ass luck of being born into one of the most powerful families in the world en les him to be a complete mother er."
Um yes he did if he claimed that he was in Cambodia on Xmas Day 1968 and Nixon was president.Kerry didn't lie about Cambodia.
Who are you quoting Nbadan? Yourself?
And Al Gore was not an ungrateful mofo? Was he not a "senator's son"?
Kerry friggin joined the Naval Reserves in order to get out of being drafted into the Army and only by a twist of fate did he end up in combat. Kerry wasn't born a pauper and certainly isn't one now.
Reagan and Clinton. Now those were a couple of self-made individuals.
Drudge has hilarious lead story about The Dan right now...different typesets...good stuff
       
Here's the transcript of Rather's "on the street" interview with CNN:
Rather: The story is true. And the questions raised in the story are serious and legitimate questions.
The questions are: Did Lt. Bush refuse a direct order from a military superior in time of war? That's Question One. Question Two: was he suspended for failure to perform up tothe standards of the U.S. Air Force and the Texas National Guard? That's Number Two.
Three. Did he ever take the physical he was ordered to take by his military superior? Or if he didn't take that physical, why didn't he take that physical?
I want to emphasize that I stand behind my president. We're in a time of war and I stand behind my president. There's no joy in reporting such a story, but my job as a journalist is not to be afraid and when we come up with facts and legitimate questions that are supported by witnesses and do ents which we believe to be authentic, to raise those questions no matter how unpleasant they are.
I do want to underscore with you that the White House took their shots at us today. The Bush Cheney campaign took their shots at us. They have not answered the question: did or did not the president obey a direct order from his military superior while he was a lieutenant, was he or was he not suspended for failure to meet performance standard of the Air Force and TANG, if he didn't take the physical, why didn't he take the physical? Also, one of the questions that's out there, where is the efficiency report every officer, particularly a flying officer, is supposed to have a yearly efficiency report. There is no such report for the last year. I emphasize again that there is no joy in asking these questions, but I think these are legitimate questions and I stand by the story.
Q. I wonder how you feel about the whole investigation
Rather: What investigation?
Q. We read that CBS is doing an internal invest
Rather: Where did you read that?
Q. Unintelligible
Rather: You should stay away from rumor mills. Where did you read that?
Q. The Washington Post article
Rather: No. They didn't say that in the Washington Post article. I don't want to argue with you. You were asking about a rumor. You know the internet is filled with all kinds of rumors. I like a rumor as much as the next fella. But it's umportant to recognize what's a rumor and what's a fact. Sometimes the rumors are true. In this case they're not. There's no internal investigation. I'm happy in my work, as you can see. I'm proud of our story. I'm proud of CBS News I'm proud of the team I work with and stand with them completely. I appreciate the sources who took risks to authenticate our story. One - there's no internal invest. Two - someone may be s shocked but it is not I and not anybody at CBS news. And you can tell who's s shocked by the ferocity of people who are spreading these rumors.
Q. When there's significant evidence that those do ents may have been forged or created at a later date, do you think there's any requirement or are you considering any kind of apology or retraction"?
Rather: Number One. I know that this story is true. I believe the witnesses and do ents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they had not been. There isn't going to be an apology . . . hasn't even been discussed, nor should there be.
I want to make clear to you this story is true. And more important questions than how we got the story which is where those who don't like the story would like to put the emphasis. The more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story.
Basically Strong's view is that the do ents are "compatible" with his view of the Guard and Killian. I really wonder what his view of George W. Bush might be. Also, from whom did Rather obtain the do ents? (Probably the DNC). Didn't catch if Rather had any expert on authenticating do ents on. Caught the tail end of the handwriting expert. Someone could have easily copied his signature.
Did CBS interview Rufus Martin?
apnews.myway.com/article/...UGD82.html
Did CBS interview Killian's widow and son? They believe the do ents are fake.The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time said he believes the do ents are fake.
"They looked to me like forgeries," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years." Killian died in 1984.
And of course Rather interviews "an author who has written two books critical of President Bush" to give his view on what this means.But Killian's son, one of Killian's fellow officers and an independent do ent examiner questioned the memos. Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he doubted his father would have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.
Again, this is clearly a Demo setup and Rather is the mouthpiece for it. The real question is what is this designed to do. Personally I think they are headed towards suggesting that Bush missed the physical because he was a cokehead just like Kitty Kelley claims. Of course Kerry needed something to hit Bush on after the convention and with the 9/11 anniversary tomorrow.
Again, if all this is about is that Bush got into the guard due to the influence of his dad and that he missed a physical, well, this tempest in a teapot is over.
Sounds like its legit. CBS did its homework. The critics apparently did not.
CBSnewsCBS Stands By Bush-Guard Memos
NEW YORK, Sept. 10, 2004
Rather: Its Real
"The do ents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic do ent experts but by sources familiar with their content."
CBS News statement
A decorated Vietnam combat veteran, John Kerry recently has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester. (Photo: AP)
Dig Deeper
MORE INFORMATION
View the following do ents obtained by 60 Minutes:
Memorandum, May 4, 1972
Memo to File, May 19, 1972
Memorandum For Record,
Aug. 1, 1972
Memo to File, Aug. 18, 1973
Read a transcript of Dan Rather's interview with Ben Barnes:
Also view do ents released by the White House reflecting President Bush's National Guard service:
Memo from retired Lt. Col. Albert C. Lloyd on whether Mr. Bush satisfied Guard requirements
Personnel Card listing points Mr. Bush earned from May 1972 to May 1973
Service Record showing days Mr. Bush was credited with service from October 1972 to May 1973
Service Record showing days Mr. Bush was credited with service from May 1973 to July 1973
Pay Record listing days of service in 1972 and 1973, along with computer printouts of each quarter
Dental Record showing the results of a dental examination Mr. Bush had on Jan. 6, 1973.
       
(CBS/AP) Questions have been raised about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos acquired by CBS News that say President Bush's National Guard commander believed Mr. Bush was shirking his duties.
The network is defending the authenticity of the memos, which were obtained by CBS News' "60 Minutes," saying experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic do ents produced by Mr. Bush's former commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.
In a statement, CBS News said it stands by its story.
"This report was not based solely on recovered do ents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including do ents 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," the statement read.
"In addition, the do ents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic do ent experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."
CBS News Anchor Dan Rather says many of those raising questions about the do ents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th."
Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript including one from 1968.
Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.
But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style says it has been available since 1931.
Do ent and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the do ents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. But he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the do ents, because deterioration occurs each time a do ent is reproduced. And the do ents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the do ents CBS started with.
Matley did this interview with us prior to Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. He looked at the do ents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known do ents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.
"We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person."
Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence.
Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures."
Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the do ents have come up.
"I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it."
Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the do ents. And paper work, like these do ents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the do ents are real.
"They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the do ents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved."
Killian died in 1984.
Strong says the highly charged political atmosphere of the National Guard at the time was perfectly represented in the new do ents.
"It verged on outright corruption in terms of the favors that were done, the power that was traded. And it was unconscionable from a moral and ethical standpoint. It was unconscionable," Strong said.
The president's service record emerged as an issue during the 2000 race and again this winter. The Killian do ents revived the issue of Mr. Bush's time in uniform after weeks in which Democratic challenger John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester.
The questions about Mr. Bush's service center on how Mr. Bush got into the Guard and whether he fulfilled his duties during a period from mid-1972 to mid-1973.
What the Killian memos purport to show is that Mr. Bush defied a direct order to appear for a physical exam, that his performance as an officer was lacking in other ways and that Mr. Bush used family connections to try to quash any inquiry into his lapses.
In a separate revelation, the Boston Globe this week reported that Mr. Bush promised to sign up with a Boston-area unit when he left his Texas unit in 1973 to attend Harvard Business School. Mr. Bush never signed up with a Boston unit.
©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Oh get ing real. CBS claims they got these do ents out of the blue and of course they are sitting on the "originals" which of course the "critics" don't have access to. CBS offered very little in the way of an honest and fair assessment of those do ents.Sounds like its legit. CBS did its homework. The critics apparently did not.
Lest we forget they had Kerry fundraiser Ben Barnes making an accusation against Bush with only himself as the source.
Oh of course. Since these are supposed to be his do ents and well, because I think the signature looks like his it must be his.Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures."
And again, this means very little if true. But the bias exhibited by CBS News in this report (why won't they offer to have other experts authenticate the original do ents? where was the interview of Killian's son? Killian's wife? Mr. Martin?) clearly shows that it is little more than a mouthpiece of the DNC and the Kerry campaign.
Wrong they got them from the pentagon.CBS claims they got these do ents out of the blue and of course they are sitting on the "originals"
If they have only one original how are they supposed to distribute it? Some Bush supporter would gladly destroy the do ents. Besides its only a matter of time before they distribute them. They probably needed to reverify them in the last 24 hours.
Keep trying.
So what do the "critics" have to say? How dare they question the mighty Dan Rather and his one sided view of the news!
qando.net/archives/004070.htm
A compendium of the Evidence
Posted by Dale Franks
The blogosphere has been all over the CBS do ents, but all the information is parceled out in penny packets all over the place. At the request of a reader, I thought I'd try to consolidate them into a single post. This is not canonical, of course, just the stuff I know about.
Typographical Arguments
The use of superscripted "th" in unit names, e.g. 187th. This was a highly unusual feature, available only on extremely expensive typewriters at the time.
The use of proportional fonts was, similarly, restricted to a small number of high-end typewriters.
The text of the memos appear to use letter kerning, a physical impossibility for any typewriter at the time.
Apostrophes in the do ents use curled serifs. Typewriters used straight hash marks for both quotation marks and apostrophes.
The font appears indistinguishable from the Times New Roman computer font. While the Times Roman and Times fonts were rare, but available, in some typewriters at the time, the letters in Times Roman and Times took up more horizontal space than Times New Roman does. Times New Roman is exclusively a computer font.
Reproductions of the memos in Microsoft Word using 12pt TNR and the default Word page setup are indistinguishable from the memos when superimposed.
The typed squadron letterhead is centered on the page, an extremely difficult operation to perform manually.
Several highly reputable forensic do ent specialists have publicly stated their opinions that the do ents were most likely computer generated, and hence, are forgeries.
The numeral 4 has no "foot" serif and a closed top. This is indicative of the Times New Roman Font, used exclusively by computers.
Stylistic Arguments
The memos do not use the proper USAF letterhead, in required use since 1948. Instead they are typed. In general, typed letterhead is restricted to computer-generated orders, which were usually printed by teletype, chain printer or daisy-wheel printer, the latter looking like a typed letter. Manually typed correspondence is supposed to use official USAF letterhead. However, even special orders, which used a typed letterhead, were required to use ALL CAPS in the letterhead.
The typed Letterhead gives the address as "Houston, Texas". The standard formulation for addresses at USAF installations should require the address to read "Ellington AFB, Texas".
Killian's signature block should read:
RICHARD B. KILLIAN, Lt Col, TexANG
Commander
This is the required USAF formulation for a signature block.
Lt Col Killian's signature should be aligned to the left side of the page. Indented signature blocks are not a USAF standard.
The rank abbreviations are applied inconsistently and incorrectly, for example the use of periods in USAF rank abbreviations is incorrect. The modern formulation for rank abbreviations for the lieutenant grades in the USAF is 2Lt and 1Lt. In 1973, it may well have been 2nd Lt and 1st Lt, but that certainly wasn't correct in 1984, when I entered active duty, so I find the rank abbreviation questionable, and, in any event, they would not have included periods. Lt Col Killian's abbreviations are pretty much universally incorrect in the memos.
The unit name abbreviations use periods. This is incorrect. USAF unit abbreviations use only capital letters with no periods. For example, 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron would be abbreviated as 111th FIS, not 111th F.I.S.
The Formulation used in the memos, i.e., "MEMORANDOM FOR 1st Lt. Bush..." is incorrect. A memo would be written on plain (non-letterhead) paper, with the top line reading "MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD".
An order from a superior, directing a junior to perform a specific task would not be in the memorandum format as presented. Instead, it would use the USAF standard internal memo format, as follows:
FROM: Lt Col Killian, Richard B.
SUBJECT: Annual Physical Examination (Flight)
TO: 1Lt Bush, George W.
Do ents that are led as MEMORANDUM are used only for file purposes, and not for communications.
The memos use the formulation "...in accordance with (IAW)..." The abbreviation IAW is a universal abbreviation in the USAF, hence it is not spelled out, rather it is used for no other reason than to eliminate the word "in accordance with" from official communications. There are several such universal abbreviation, such as NLT for "no later than".
The le of one of the memos is CYA, a popular euphemism for covering one's...ahem...posterior. It is doubtful that any serving officer would use such a colloquialism in any do ent that might come under official scrutiny.
Personal Arguments
The records purport to be from Lt Col Killian's "personal files", yet, they were not obtained from his family, but through some unknown 3rd party. It is an odd kind of "personal file" when the family of a deceased person is unaware of the file's existence and it is not in their possession.
Both Lt Col Killian's wife and son, as well as the EAFB personnel officer do not find the memos credible.
Keeping such derogatory personal memos , while at the same time, writing glowing OERs for Mr. Bush would be unwise for any officer. At best, it would raise serious questions about why his private judgments differed so radically from his official ones, should they ever come to light. At worst, they would raise questions about whether Lt Col Killian falsified official do ents. As Lt Col Killian's son, himself a retired USAF officer, has said, nothing good can come of keeping such files.
The reasons above cons ute a very reasonable basis for serious questions about the legitimacy of the memos distributed by CBS. In light oif them, it seems to me that CBS has a positive duty to disclose as much information about the provenance and authenticity of the memos as possible. So far, their response has been, "We think they're true, so do not question us!" That is an understandable reaction, and, indeed, it's much the same as that of the German magazine Stern, when it claimed to have found Adolph Hitler's diaries in the 1980s.
It is not a helpful response, however, and it indicates that CBS is, at this point, far more interested in performing CYA operations than it is in getting to the bottom of these questions.
Wrong. They got them from his "personal file." Funny the family doesn't recall such a thing.Wrong they got them from the pentagon.
Oh get real there are ways to get a second and third opinon without risking damage to the originals. After all this is so important!If they have only one original how are they supposed to distribute it? Some Bush supporter would gladly destroy the do ents.
THEY DIDN'T. Who provided the second opinions?Besides its only a matter of time before they distribute them. They probably needed to reverify them in the last 24 hours.
If anyone is trying to argue against reality 'tis you. I mean if you really believe CBS' one sided bull reporting you need some help.Keep trying.
So much for Hodges...
abcnews.go.com/sections/p...d_Now.html
HODGES SAID HE WAS MISLED BY CBS: Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the do ents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the do ents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."
Hodges also said he did not see the do ents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the do ents or the contents. His personal belief is that the do ents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud".
But...but...but...
You are misinformed they got it from the Lt Cols files in millitary possesion, not some personal files he kept at home. They were in a file of records. Exactly where you would expect to find such a thing.Wrong. They got them from his "personal file." Funny the family doesn't recall such a thing.
Still going on about the "th" thing? Really?
And you're still ignoring the fact that there is a major general who was an eyewitness to these docs.
Keep wishing. This thing is so over and you got your hard over nothing.
L8rs.
Right. I thought you said the last 5 times AWOL came up?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions