Daily Kos

Tang Typewriter V: What CBS Knows

Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 01:45:00 PM PDT

Update [2004-9-22 14:32:26 by Hunter]:: Next post in this series is here.

Our last entry on this subject was so long and complicated that the central points of it were hard to follow.  In addition, many are arguing that it doesn't matter what happened in 1972; that we already knew Bush didn't serve during the gap in question; that his family pulled strings to keep him out of Vietnam.  Those people are right, to a degree.  But that's not what this story is about; it never was.

The story of these memos isn't what happened in 1972.  It's what happened in 2000, as George W. Bush was rising to power.  It's about crimes, and coverups, and payoffs.

It's about the memos we haven't seen.

Dan Rather and CBS are sticking to their story; they would not do so unless they felt their sources were, indeed, unimpeachable.  Furthermore, they would not do it merely to tack on a small piece of evidence to what has already been proven -- that Bush did not complete his service to the Guard, or at least not without considerable fudging of the rules by higher-ups.

The documentation gaps in Bush's record have been admirably proven, most completely by Paul Lukasiak. [Ed - Also note the compehensive report of retired colonel Gerald Lechliter, who asserts that Bush's records as released by the White House also contain evidence of fraudulent pay records and apparent failure of his superiors to take "required regulatory actions when Bushed [sic] missed required training and failed to take his flight physical."]

USA Today and others confirmed that meetings took place, after a call from Bush's chief of staff, to "decide what to release."


 Burkett says that the state Guard commander, Maj. Gen. Daniel James III, discussed "cleansing" Bush's military files of embarrassing or incriminating documents in the summer of 1997. At the time, Burkett was a lieutenant colonel and a chief adviser to James. He says he was just outside James' open office door when his boss discussed the records on a speakerphone with Joe Allbaugh, who was then Gov. Bush's chief of staff.

  In Burkett's account, Allbaugh told James that Bush's press secretary, Karen Hughes, was preparing a biography and needed information on Bush's military service.

 In an interview, Burkett said he recalled Allbaugh's words: "We certainly don't want anything that is embarrassing in there." Burkett said he immediately told two other officers about the conversation and noted it in a daily journal he kept. The two officers, George Conn and Dennis Adams, confirmed to USA TODAY in 2002 that Burkett told them of the conversation within days.

 Soon afterward, there was a series of meetings of top commanders at Texas Guard headquarters at Camp Mabry. Bush's records were carried between the base archives and the headquarters building, according to Burkett and the second Guard official, who was there.

The meetings were confirmed in a 2002 interview by USA TODAY with William Leon, who was the state Guard's freedom-of-information officer in the 1990s. He was involved in discussions about what to release. Leon declined to comment on the substance of the meetings except to say, "We were making sure we released it properly and made sure we did it in a timely manner."

 ...

Allbaugh, James and the White House denied Burkett's story. As president, Bush has since elevated James to be director of the Air National Guard for the entire country.

Question:  What are the odds that the Major General of the Texas Air National Guard responsible for "releasing" Bush's records just happened to be the person in the country most qualified to be promoted to run the Air National Guard of the entire nation once George W. Bush came into office?

Is that not precisely what we have learned to expect, from this political family?  Disloyalty is punished with ferocity; loyalty or services rendered is lavishly rewarded.  We have at this count lost count of the "protesters" bussed to Florida in 2000 who have been rewarded with posts in the Bush administration or other branches of the government.


The gaps in Bush records are not difficult to explain, when confronted with multiple sources confirming the actual meetings to decide, in 1997, what those "gaps" were going to be.

As a result of the release of these new memos, then, we are faced with even more powerful questions.  Kossack debcoop said it best in her comments to the last thread.

She typed documents with this information but just not these docs, she says. She says that the pressure on Killian to whitewash Bush was put on by Staudt but it was 1972.  And the whitewash had to do with the flight physical. SO WHERE ARE THE ORIGINALS SHE TYPED?

...

 Seletions from;
 DRUDGE REPORT  TUE SEP 14, 2004 17:48:35 ET

...

"I did not type these particular memos. I typed memos like these," Knox told the DRUDGE REPORT from her home in Houston.

 "I typed memos that had this information in them, but I did not type these memos. ...
 But Marion Carr Knox stands by the accusations contained in the allegedly fraudulent documents* that Bush skirted a medical and flight exam without suffering institutional repercussions.

 "The information in these memos is correct -- like Killian's dealing with the problems." ...

 "It was General Staudt, not then Lt. Colonel Hodges [who succeeded Staudt], that was putting on the pressure to whitewash Bush. For instance he didnt take his flight examination or his physical. And the pilots had to take them by their birthdays........

 Knox speculated as to how she thought the forgeries were created saying, "My guess is that someone in the outfit got hold of the real ones and discussed it with a former Army person."

So we have now, through Knox and several other sources, verification that documents relating to the time in question were created at the time, by Killian.

And they are now missing.  All of them. Not just Killian's personal 'CYA' notes, which would presumably not be in Bush's own files, but any documentation about the period in question.

Think about that.  Knox and others confirmed what was in the records.  And it isn't there now. Nothing from that period is in those files now. Not Killian's personal notes, certainly, but nothing else either, official or otherwise.

That's what CBS is getting at, and why they are so confident in this story.  And USA Today, and the Boston Globe, from the looks of things.  That's why this story isn't about to die, why CBS is sticking to its guns, and why CBS, in their national broadcasts, has very pointedly and publicly been directly asking the White House to answer a certain set of questions.

This isn't about 1972.  This is about a federal crime in 1997, as George W. Bush prepared to run for president.  This is about how George W. Bush became president, four years ago, and what his closest associates did to get him there.

Where are the documents for that period, Mr. President?

Mr. James?

Update [2004-9-15 20:49:53 by Hunter]: CBS Interviewed Knox on 60 Minutes tonight. Short version: Dan Rather is mounting a direct counterattack. Knox again says that she did not type those memos, but did type memos "like" the ones reported. Goes into detail about Bush's behavior at the time. The overall picture is very damaging to Bush, as she confirms that he indeed defied (multiple?) orders to take a physical, and "didn't feel he needed to follow the rules" (paraphrase?). Transcript will be posted when available.

Some in Congress talking about investigations of CBS. Might want to check with the White House on that one, guys. Do they really want people like Knox, etc, publicly testifying in the next few weeks as to what George Bush was doing at the time in question, and why CBS believes/believed the memos to be absolutely credible?

Whether they do or don't, one thing is clear. Dan Rather isn't backing down. He has compared this story, in passing, to Watergate. He feels his reputation has been assaulted, and he is on the warpath.

Update [2004-9-15 23:42:14 by Hunter]: Washington Post is reporting the memos were faxed from a Kinko's in Abilene, TX, 21 miles from Burkett's house.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 115 comments

    •  What memos did the president destroy... (none / 1)

      And when did he destroy them?

      (apologies to the late Sen. Howard Baker)

      I live in my own little world...but it's okay. They know me here.

      by John Campanelli on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:41:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  good for Dan (4.00 / 2)

        Rather remembers Watergate and, despite his years as anchorman, still knows how to be an investigative reporter.

        I wonder if it will ever occur to the stupid talking heads on CNN etc. that you won't have a chance at a Pulitzer if you just broadcast the official government line. But I guess they are more worried about their big salaries than being real journalists.

      •  Isn't Baker... (none / 0)

        US ambassador to Japan?

        Maybe you meant former instead of late?

        "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

        by RonV on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 08:01:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Rather recanting? (none / 0)

      This just posted about 25 minutes ago through Yahoo:

      http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=washpost/a24633_2004sep15

      Is Rather open to recanting?  Did he work out some kind of deal which would permit him to save face/reputation (the "I'd like to break the story first" part)?

      •  Just Kurtz the shill attacking Rather (none / 0)

        I didn't get any sense of Rather backing down.   I just got the impression of Kurtz doing a he said and everyone else on the planet said.  It's funny because do you see him discussing anything in the article about Bush's service?  You get Rather bringing up the questions.  You get the secretary discussing that the content was real and W's performance was dismal.  And then we get Kurtz quoting everyone he can find that will say Rather is past it.  And allegations that it's all a sham, by linking it to NBC's bit where they put model rocket engines on a trucks gas tank to make certain it would blow up.

        Pretty standard disgusting inuendo hit piece from Kurtz nothing else.  If you really want to buy his stuff, I hear that he and some walrus have a great riff on "shoes and ships and sealing wax".

    •  Great Job (none / 0)

      I appreciate your work on this.
  •  New Conventional Wisdom (none / 0)

    Documents are fake, content is real.  A bunch of Drudgeish sources claim CBS will admit as much at 5:00 EDT.  We'll see.
    •  This is like the Christmas-Cambodia stuff (none / 0)

      This is the same as the Christmas in Cambodia stuff, although this is more damaging towards Bush than that was towards Kerry.

      John O'Neill and the others who said Kerry was never in Cambodia were exposed as a bunch of liars.  But they were right on this one point.  Kerry wasn't in Cambodia on Christmas, so this had more traction than the other charges.

      These memos are forgeries or fakes or transcriptions, but they are right about what they say. Bush did skip a physical, he did cause problems for his superiors with his poor attendance. If Knox came out and said no such memos were ever written, CBS would look like shit. But she saved their asses by showing that the memos are indeed quite credible in their content.

      CBS has to admit they made an error, that the documents appear to be faithful copies of the original memos (unless Killain himself made these copies in the early 1980s). But they can also point out that the memos content is accurate and that the Bush administration has still not answered these charges. Any viewer watching can see that Bush is not telling the full truth. Knox is a very strong witness.

      Old Man McCain.com - the best McCain attack blog on the web!

      by existenz on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:54:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wonder (none / 1)

        If you reread the part of Hunter's post concerning the purging of the records.  Is this more about 1997 and the felony of tampering with official records than about whether or even why bush failed to take the flight physical?  Nobody has ever refuted that he didn't take the physical so why dig up papers that prove de didn't?  Why not dig up papers that weren't in the record that should have been in the record but where destroyed by bush family cronies who were subsequently awarded with positions they didn't merit?  This would put it way beyond the content of the memos, although proving the content is accurate then opens the angle of what happened to the originals.  Let me know if I'm reading into it too much.
  •  New TANG Document? (none / 1)

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 01:51:43 PM PDT

  •  it may not help Kerry (none / 1)

    because the longer the memo-gate stays in the news, other news and Iraq news will not.

    It is important for Kerry to get his messages out. Kerry just starting to pound on the clowns so he needs air time right now.

    Unless we have concrete/solid evidences a crime was commited and I am sure Bush's cronies destroyed Killians memos, we need to get off this thing.

    •  this really isn't that big a story (none / 0)

      Outside of the blogosphere, this isn't that big a story.  I doubt a lot of people, especially younger people not likely to watch TV news or read the paper, have even heard of it.

      The LA Times even reported this morning with a headline and lead paragraph emphasizing that Knox, the secretary, confirmed the substance of the CBS story!

      That's right...they emphasized the story before one of the items or details, and then a bit later on covered all of that too.

      The LA Times really surprised me this morning.

      But this story will fade on its own, though I don't think it hurts Kerry, for as long as this story is up there, Swift Boat smear is fading while recent memories of Bush's service, and how it compares to Kerry's, becomes primary.

      That's called priming, and I'm convinced that if Kerry segues from this appropriately, it can definitely work in his favor.  

      free the information

      by freelixir on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 03:16:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  this has hurt Bush (4.00 / 3)

        I read polls saying that voter's impression of Bush's national guard service has gone down because of this. People don't really pay attention to the details, either of this or the Swift Boat crap. They just hear that there is some controversy about Bush or Kerry's service, and either they drown it out of they think there must be something there.

        This story has had two positive effects for us.

        1. It has blown the Swift Boat liars right out of the news cycle.
        2. It has made Bush's National Guard service a big issue again. The CBS memos may be discredited but bigger issues remain, as the LA Times story shows.
        3. Bush can't talk about his great leadership on 9/11 when he is busy defending himself from this. Look at how his speech yesterday was covered. Instead of talking about how Bush trashed Kerry's decision-making, the press talked about how Bush "sidestepped" questions about his own Guard service. He looks like he is evading.

        This story will die on its own unless we get more revelations. I hope that some news organizations, particularly Dan Rather, get a TV interview with Knox. Sounds to me like she is the one person who knows something and is willing to talk. We'll see if she is "turned" by Bush's henchmen the way Hodges was.

        The whole purpose of this was payback for the Swift Liars, and a way to "soften up" Bush for the real attacks on his terrible record as President. We've softened him, now Kerry can go in for the kill during his speech tomorrow.

        Old Man McCain.com - the best McCain attack blog on the web!

        by existenz on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:27:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  But she also said .... (none / 0)

    Hunter, your posts are always great, but in this case I think you missed one point.  Knox says somewhere (talking to Drudge?) that the originals really were put in a "personal" file of Killian's that never would have been transfered to Bush's official military file.  They would have been properly destroyed on Killian's retirement or death.   Therefore even a full disclosure of Bush's file would not reveal the originals.  That may be one reason that someone who had seen or heard of the originals might decide to re-create them.      
    •  Ah, but: (none / 0)

      ... then who was it that knew what to type, that would have Knox verifying that she typed personal memos with that content?  How many people would even know that Killian had CYA memos with those contents typed up?

      Someone who saw the original documents?  Burkett?  Someone else?

      •  Wacky theory #23 (none / 0)

        CBS has had the original memos all along. They produced the reproductions themselves to try to taint the documents and give the WH an opening to deny all of it -- both the memos and the underlying events (best case, Bush says he was never directly ordered to take a physical). Then Dan Rather whips out the originals and proves Bush is lying.

        But this is so wacky that even I don't believe it. :p

        Creative destruction is our middle name. --Michael Ledeen

        by Utah for Dean on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 03:04:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  the memos are near identical (none / 0)

        I'm wondering if at some point somebody scribbled the memos from the copies onto notes, or if the original handwritten memos are somehow around.

        These memos have too many personal touches to seem to be wholly made up from a long memory.  I'd put more credence that somebody scribbled notes, and then reproduced the memos, or Killian kept his handwritten memos, or copies, and the CBS memos were reproduced from these.

        free the information

        by freelixir on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 03:18:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's so strange (none / 0)

          Did somebody reconstruct these from memory, or did they have the originals and decide they would look more authentic if they recreated them? If I was Dan Rather I'd be calling my source (Burkett, or whoever) to get to the bottom of this. If Rather thinks these are copies or transcriptions of the real memos (which I think they are) then he should come out and say it.

          Clearly, the memos were similar enough to fool Hodges when they were read to him over the phone. And Knox says they are accurate except for a few typo errors. I wish that whoever made these reconstructed memos would just release the original ones, if they have them.

          Old Man McCain.com - the best McCain attack blog on the web!

          by existenz on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:31:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  What about Knox herself? (none / 0)

        She hates Bush, typed the originals that have since been destroyed, and could have most easily recreated them of anyone. That was a long time ago, who would have an advantage in that regard? The person who created the memo, or someone who had read it?

        Perhaps she wanted to remain in the shadows but now that the memos may really tank, she is stepping forward to change the subject.

      •  Who Knew (none / 0)

        My vote: Killian himself. As his secretary has said, his original CYA file had probably been tossed after he retired. When he retired, Shrub was even more of a nobody than he is now; I'm sure Killian didn't give his letter a second thought at the time. Later, however, he may well have wanted that letter back, once the Georges Bush became even more prominent. And if there's one person around who would have known what was in those memos, it was Killian himself.


        "I play a street-wise pimp" — Al Gore

        by Ray Radlein on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 01:27:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  ...but you're right, (none / 0)

      I should edit to clarify that.  Pending.
      •  Edited to be clearer on that point. (none / 0)

        Hopefully, anyway.  Thanks for pointing that out.
        •  distinguish the memos (none / 1)

          The order to Bush would be in his file.  At least a few of the memos with subject CYA would not be in his file.  Others would be more in the middle and likely to be saved as part of historical correspondence, not in Bush's file or in Killian's file.

          My question would be:  are these documents saved into perpetuity?  Or are they destroyed after a certain amount of time?  If they are not destroyed, is there a common archive with which we could see other memos from the period (from Killian)?

          free the information

          by freelixir on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 03:21:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  the direct order to Bush would be (none / 1)

      Of the memos, I'm sure most were never filed at the base.  But the direct order to take the physical and drug test would be.

      If the content of that memo is real, then it should be in Bush's file.

      The others may or may not be, depending on whether they were CYA, for Killian's use only.

      Indeed, any suggestions of influence by Staudt or anyone else would likely not go in the official file.

      free the information

      by freelixir on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 03:07:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I mean filed under Bush at the base (4.00 / 3)

        Wherever Killian stored CYA memos, I assure you that if he was serious about CYA, then he kept his own copies too, because according to Killian's son, Knox was not Killian's personal secretary, or typist, but assigned to the group commander, who was Staudt and then Hodges.

        If I was CYA'ing, I'd keep my own copies.

        free the information

        by freelixir on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 03:11:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Livin' in (Central) America (none / 0)

    When I read this stuff, I feel like I'm living in a banana republic.

    "Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols

    by Kascade Kat on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 01:56:18 PM PDT

  •  Please (none / 0)

    will someone recap what CBS has to say at 5 EST?  Thanks.
    •  I'm with you (none / 0)

      Help, from the land of the TV-less! What happened, if anything?
      •  Nothing (none / 0)

        CBSnews.com has nothing. But they do have this...

        Top Dem Rips Kerry Campaign

        Who the hell is Tony Coelho and when did he become a "Top Dem?"

        Republicans don't like me. I don't like Republicans. We're even.

        by Len on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 02:32:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You can tell how 'top' he is (none / 0)

          by the fact they don't say "Tony Coelho Rips Kerry Campaign."

          What the fuck is wrong with these people? Even if he's absofuckinglutely right, which he may well be, how the fuck does he think it's cool to talk trash IN PUBLIC? This can't be stupidity, can it? What's the agenda? That so pisses me off.

          •  Dear Tony Coelho (none / 0)

            Fuck you.
            •  All Dems need to shut the fuck up (4.00 / 4)

              Now is not the time to be going public and criticizing Kerry.  He gave a great speech today that got great coverage in the NY Times.  When these idiot Dems open their big mouths they are pushing positive coverage off the front page. Go ahead and complain to Kerry privately all you want, but don't go talking to the goddam press.

              Memo to Publicity-Starved Worrywart Dems:  SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!

              If you want to rant:  RANT ABOUT BUSH AND THE 1000 SOLDIERS HE SENT TO THEIR DEATHS!!!!

              Old Man McCain.com - the best McCain attack blog on the web!

              by existenz on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:35:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agree (none / 0)

                Let Kerry run his own damn campaign. This guy Coelho is an idiot.

                "'What I'm looking for is a Karl Rove and I don't know where our Karl Rove is.' Coelho says."

                Coelho should read this: Karl Rove is not a part of the solution. He is a part of the problem. If you want Karl Rove, you want treachery and cynical voter manipulation. While Democrats may need to fight fire with fire, admiring Karl Rove is fucking sick.

                Q: How stupid can 51% of our country be? A: Pretty damned stupid.

                by wunderwood on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 09:13:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Besides (none / 0)

                  Anyone who knows anything knows that Chris Lehane is the Dems equivalent of Rove.

                  Kerry fired him last year and for good reason.

                  •  Rove without the brains (none / 0)

                    Lehane has Rove's ethics (or lack thereof) but not his smarts.  Rove's dirty tricks can be devastating, and he's careful not to leave fingerprints that can be traced back to the campaign he's working for.  Lehane's efforts are not as effective and often are traceable back to their source.  He's useless; Kerry did well to get rid of him.  It's no coincidence that Kerry's primary campaign didn't take off until after Lehane was gone.  And gee, Lehane did such a great job for Clark...NOT!

                    "We are the ones we have been waiting for" --Barack Obama reminding us we have to hold him accountable.

                    by Jim in Chicago on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 08:39:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Lehane (none / 0)

                      Which is why we really don't need our own Rove.

                      There are some others working for the Democrats who have Rove's brains without his lack of ethics. But most of them have a fairly low profile such as Whouley.

                      Besides I don't think Rove is all that smart, I think most of his reputation is due to his ruthlessness and willingness to win at any cost rather than any particular brilliance.

        •  Tony Know How to Loose (none / 0)

          Apparently he knows all about poorly run campaigns because Gore's had to be one of the worst I've ever seen. And then one of his complaints is that the campaign won't say `Goddammit, come together.'

          So, yeah, why don't they come out and tell you to shut the heck up.

        •  Who the Hell Tony Coelho Is (4.00 / 5)

          In the 1980s, Coelho was a Democratic Congressman from California's Central Valley.  He got the brilliant idea of matching the GOP in corporate fundraising by targetting Wall Street, primarily.  This sharply shifted the balance of money coming into the Democratic Congressional campaigns, helping to move the party to the right, softening them up as a target for the Gingrich takeover.  It also inevitably lead to scandal, Coelho tactfully resigned and was never prosecuted.

          In short, he's one of the leading lights of the sleazy "Moral Center"-DLC-Lieberman crowd.

      •  I tuned in at 5:00 (none / 0)

        Watched for about 10 minutes. Was just my local news. Couldn't stay tuned in. Had to wander back into the office here to wait on a teleconference.
        Maybe they got the time wrong. 6:00 or 6:30 seems more likely to me. What do I know, though? I'm just a desk chair.

        "What fresh hell is this?" - Dorothy Parker

        by MyDeskChair on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 02:35:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Red Meat (none / 0)

          I have to add the segment is @ 7 minutes long and this sweet little old woman slices and dices the Chump-in-Chief.  It is going to be fun to watch the Rethug smear machine try to go after Lil' Miss Knox.  

          If they do they are going to reveal themselves as the dirtbags they really are.  And lose a lot of votes to boot.  Go for it Karl.  

           

    •  Score another one for Drudge n/t (none / 0)

  •  CBS Story today at 6:30 was (none / 0)

    that they have the interview ready with Killian's secretary tonight on 60 Minutes.  And they ran down the fact that Congressional Republicans are calling for an investigation or whatever.  And they had a statement from their news director that CBS intends to "Redouble their efforts" into looking into the memos controversy.

    Rather ended the show with that they have some new information that they are running with tonight on 60 Minutes.

    Internet, n., A series of tubes invented by Al Gore; not a truck. "I mailed an Internet to my friend."

    by Viktor on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:00:57 PM PDT

  •  Roy Blunt Attacks! (none / 0)

    I hope you don't find this post innapropriate, but it is relevant to how long this TANG story might stay alive. In my latest diary entry, I include a letter written by Rep. Roy Blunt to CBS in which he accuses CBS of deceiving the public. I've also included contact information so we can fight back.

    Thank you for all of your excellent work, Hunter!

    "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

    by catnip on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:02:06 PM PDT

  •  Rather's latest (CBS Evening News) (none / 0)

    Reported on the Congressional response, announced that Killian's secretary will be interviewed on 60 Minutes tonight. Had the President of CBS News on, saying that they continue to stand by the story, but will redouble their efforts to answer the criticisms.
    They're not giving a millimeter on this.  I hope they know what they are doing.
  •  In a nutshell (none / 0)

    Not much:
    Rather covered the call for a congressional investigation. Very short clip of an interview w/ Knox who said nothing other then what she's already said. One thing: In light of the controvery, CBS will work to "resolve unresolved issues" surrounding the memos.
    Really nothing we don't already know.

    "What fresh hell is this?" - Dorothy Parker

    by MyDeskChair on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:02:54 PM PDT

  •  Congressional investigation = good thing (none / 0)

    Hell, let's have televised hearings.  Get some of these folks subpoenaed and under oath so that they can explain where dubya was when he was supposed to be in the national guard!  Dems should push for this before the elections....

    "Same shit, Different Nixon." - Driftglass

    by roxtar on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:22:19 PM PDT

    •  They don't really want a congressional probe (none / 0)

      GOP congressmen DO NOT want to hold an investigation. That keeps the focus on Bush's crappy service, as you point out.

      They just want to bring it up in an effort to discredit the memos, and therefore hopefully all questions about Bush in the Guard. A GOP congressman is already saying, "I don't think we need an investigation, people realize they're fake." or something to that effect.

      •  It IS funny, though (none / 0)

        Funny how Congressional Republicans can muster enough outrage over a small-time presidential campaign issue to demand an investigation, but can't be bothered to do the same when someone in the administration committed a felony by outing a CIA agent for political purposes...

        For that matter, where have the Congressional Republicans been during so many of the scandals that have mushroomed over the last three years?  If one were cynical, one might suspect that they are picking and choosing when to exercise their constitutional oversight function based not on the good of the country, but on petty political grounds...

  •  Pardon my mixing of metaphors . . (none / 1)

    Pardon my mixing of metaphors, but did the Right Wingers just set themselves up for a collossal Braer Rabbit Sucker Punch?

    Seems like "they are fake" is just too delicious a seque into "but they are [substantively] real" and the fact that the real ones aren't here is evidence of a cover up.

    In re: Vietnam Serivce (Round 2):

    Kerry 1
    Bush 0

    John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

    by MRL on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:37:53 PM PDT

  •  Good hunting. Work it, Baby. (none / 0)

    James Webb is a bigot. And an uber hawk. Stephanie Herseth is a bigot. Harold Ford, Jr. is a bigot. And so are those who support them.

    by NorCalJim on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:45:06 PM PDT

  •  Update: (4.00 / 4)

    This article from the New York Observer, interviewing Dan Rather, is pretty interesting.

    Rather's closing quote: "We took heat during the McCarthy time, during Vietnam, during civil rights, during Watergate. We haven't always been right, but our record is damn good."

    Mentioning the "W" word now, are we?

    Sounds like Rather really, really has a bee in his bonnet over this story.

  •  What do you think? (none / 0)

    Pretty sharp for 86 eh?  and credible too.  Fan-Cheneying-tastic.
    •  60 Minutes (4.00 / 5)

      I thought it was great - because CBS was not shying away from the whole "documents are not authentic" issue, Rather let her say that more than once, but then she moved in for the kill, saying they may be reproductions of the originals which have disappeared.  

      Sound bite?  "He seemed to feel he was above playing by the rules."  Great stuff - and she was perfectly credible and together - let's see the Bushits come out and bash her for being senile - there goes the senior vote.

      •  Rather's been playing this game longer than them (none / 1)

        I think Rather knows how to handle himself.  He knows the score, and he knows the media.  He's doing a nice job on refocusing the issue where it belongs: the gist of the story.
        •  I agree with everything you said, but (none / 0)

          I got the sense that he was doing more than merely refocusing on the content. I posted above about his repeating Ms. Knox's statement that other pilots snickered at Lt. Bush. Seems calculated to incite a rash response, if you ask me. Hope this primes him for the debates, if he doesn't blow those off, too.

          WARNING: When not being directly observed, this post may cease to exist or exist only in a vague and undetermined state.

          by Democarp on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 08:34:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We are being saved by (4.00 / 12)

      "greatest generation" folk. She is 86, Dan is 72 (maybe this is why stuck it out), and Moyers is how old? I am not quite sure, but he has made it clear he is only staying till the election. Even Cronkite has been active. Our parents and grandparents remember Democracy, and they are fighting for it. They remember McCarthy and Nixion and are harder to fool.

      Thank god, because as a boomer, I gotta say we have fucked it up. Our parents endured great hardships and thus did everything they could to spare us from that experience. Apparently we grew so spoiled that we still need them to bail us out. Thank god there are a few of them left.

      •  Cronkite (4.00 / 6)

        What if someone (Soros?) bought air time on the networks close to the election so that Cronkite could have a few minutes to explain to the American people why this administration is so dangerous to our democracy and really to the whole world?  He is still trusted by tens of millions and could lay out the case, replete with parallels to Vietnam, McCarthy, and Watergate.  He could go on to say just how reluctant he is to making a "partisan" speech, but that the radical agenda of Bush and Cheney leaves him no choice as a patriot but to speak his mind....

        It seems to me that, if properly publicized (a perfect use for the blogosphere), such an address could tip the balance in the election.

        "We are the ones we have been waiting for" --Barack Obama reminding us we have to hold him accountable.

        by Jim in Chicago on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 08:07:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is the best idea yet!! (none / 0)

          Put this in a diary!
          Could you imagine the impact that the most trusted voice in news would have with a two minute heartfelt ad for Kerry, especially on the elderly and independents.  He could single-handedly hand this one to Kerry.  Do you remember Nixon's statement regarding Cronkite's reporting on the vietnam war; If we lost Cronkite, we have lost america.
          •  I did as you requested (none / 0)

            Unfortunately, the diary has fallen out of the top 50 and with the search function down, I can't access it right now. :-(

            "We are the ones we have been waiting for" --Barack Obama reminding us we have to hold him accountable.

            by Jim in Chicago on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 01:27:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Great Idea but (none / 0)

          I wouldn't want to taint it with Soros money.  I wouldn't want that to be the focus.
  •  cute article in Editor and Publisher (4.00 / 3)

    (September 15, 2004) -- This has got to be one of my all-time favorite headlines, posted Wednesday over a New York Times article on the paper's Web site: "Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says."

    You can't make this stuff up (or come to think of it, maybe you can).

    link Needless to stay, this story will be around awhile, with tonights strong presentation by rather trying to get the press to focus on Bush's behaviorr, not the memos. at this point in  time the "fake but accurate' seems to be CW. it's a win-win, because at best it's accurate but accurate, and at worst, it's accurate. let them look for where the documents come from if they wish. The story is growing beyond the memos and provides a perfect backdrop for the Kerry charge of dishonesty.

    Why some in the press (we know better) would think this race is going Bush's way is beyond me.

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by DemFromCT on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:31:13 PM PDT

  •  Watched the CBS report (4.00 / 2)

    and at the end of it Mr. Rather was rather pointed(paraphrasing)

    "Although these particular documents may be forgeries, the information in them is known to be true. Also, although many people are claiming these documents are forgeries, no one has ever attacked the central premise, that Mr. Bush got preferential treatment to get in the guard and once there did not finish his service."

    •  Dan is truly THE MAN (4.00 / 3)

      of the hour. Dan Rather has stuck to his guns, and CBS has stuck by Dan Rather in doggedly repeating at every opportunity "It's the content, stupid." And the summary of the content speaks to assumed privilage, lack of integrity, favoritism, and arrogance possessed by a young person, who grew physically into an adult, but NEVER into a man. Never grew past those demostrated frat boy behaviors. Every psychologist and psychiatrist will tell you that the point at which a person begins drinking and drugging is the point where their mental, emotional, and spiritual development stops. This is a person who has never had to answer or pay for all the mis-deeds of his youth, or adult life. This is a man who can advocate his chick-hawk stance on continuing the war in Viet Nam while blowing off his deferment through his privileged position. This is a person who back-doored his way into the presidency. This is a person who can commit our family members to a war fought in the wrong country, with the wrong enemy, and tell you we're winning the war on terror, without ever looking that war directly in the face- by attending one single funeral or visiting one single wounded soldier in the hospital. Like the crippled, stunted person he is, he can put on a flight suit and announce "Mission Accomplished" without ever, ever risking a single solitary hair on his privileged head! EVER!
      That, I believe, is the holy point Mr. Rather has been trying to open our eyes to. And, I am giving him my undivided laser intense attention.

      Whew, I feel better....

      "Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen." Mort Sahl

      by maggiemae on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 10:13:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I liked when he (4.00 / 2)

      repeated Ms. Knox's statement that the other pilots "snickered" at Lt. Bush. This guys got Texas sized huevos.

      WARNING: When not being directly observed, this post may cease to exist or exist only in a vague and undetermined state.

      by Democarp on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 11:35:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks! (none / 0)

    I was thrilled to see your link references to Gerald Lechliter and Paul Lukasiak. It's clear to me that both of those guys did a hell of a lot of free work to bring this to light. I wonder what is keeping paid "professional journalists" from doing this??

    Q: How stupid can 51% of our country be? A: Pretty damned stupid.

    by wunderwood on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 11:12:47 PM PDT

    •  word re lechliter (none / 0)

      i had not seen this, so thanks to hunter for citing it. the report is DAMNING to say the least. the retired army colonel concludes:

      The record clearly and convincingly proves he did not fulfill the obligation he incurred when he enlisted in the Air National Guard and completed his pilot training, despite his honorable discharge. He clearly shirked the duty he undertook in 1968 upon enlistment and in 1969 upon completion of his flight training at Moody AF Base. Less than two years after Bush won his solo wings, he walked away from his duty to serve as a fighter pilot while troops were still dying in Vietnam. Moreover, he received fraudulent payments for INACDUTRA.

      unfortunately, this isn't getting much press. a google news search yields 13 hits on lechliter.

      •  I can't figure this out (none / 0)

        Lechliter CLEARLY has this nailed. The press CLEARLY is yapping and chasing their tails after the forged memo story and irresponsibly ignoring the real story. The Editor and Publisher website took the media to task for this several days ago in an editorial, but apparently the media wasn't paying attention.

        Q: How stupid can 51% of our country be? A: Pretty damned stupid.

        by wunderwood on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 07:33:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  My working theory (none / 0)

    Can't remember the link I saw recently but...
    Nixon sent investigators to see if Dems in Texas were abusing political influence by getting favorite sons into TANG. Probe stopped when they discovered Republicans were involved as well.

    My guess is that during the probe the brass in TANG got together to cover their collective asses. Memoes were created by someone (not individual secretaries) and then signed by each of the officers.

    This explains why Knox didn't see these memoes as well as the discrepancies such as the Lt vs. Lt. and positioning of items on the memoes. The signatures are all real.

    If you were cranking out a lot of memoes, you'd probably want to use a typewriter than had a lot of advanced features.

  •  Yet another theory! (4.00 / 2)

    What interests me is how the whole "the docs are fake" attack started. It started before the first 60 minutes broadcast was over. From that, and the piece on Salon about the agency that apparently coordinated it, I wonder if the following is the case:

    Someone in the Bush camp has the originals. The Burkett versions were produced later (for whatever reason, with whichever equipment).

    That's why they started the attack so soon. The Bush camp knew CBS didn't have the originals, because they themselves had them. That's also why the content of the memos wasn't attacked, because they knew it to be true. The originals showed it.

    How did they get the originals? Possibly through a cleanup in 1997, the one that Burkett mentions. Who knows..

    Presidential politics is like jumping into raw sewage with your mouth open -- Batfish

    by Frank on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 12:32:43 AM PDT

    •  That's the logical next question (none / 0)

      If CBS determines that the memos it was given are re-creations of the original ones, which is what Marian Carr Knox (thank God for her) has more than implied, then the next logical question would be... "What ever happened to the originals?" Hmmm...

    •  "Draw fire" theory? (none / 0)

      I may be naive, but there is no way the Bush administration is going to concoct a plan to put into the news cycle a discussion about his guard "service."

      The quick response of the right does not prove anything.  If they had advance planned the response, they sure did a piss poor job of that.  I mean of course, the immediate response from the right is going to be "their fakes!"  But everything they initially said has been proven false. [Remember, proportional spacing, "th" keys, New Times Roman, etc etc]

      Let the right have the conspiracy theories.  Let's save ours until the right has actually come up with something remotely resembling evidence to support its charges.

  •  Why it Might Hurt Bush with Voters (none / 0)

    The Annenberg Public Policy Center did a poll that ended September 4 ... before the 60 minutes episode aired.  The question was "Some people say that when George W. Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard in the seventies, often did not show up for duty.  
  •  Documents might still be fake (none / 0)

    I still think the docs could be forgeries.

    Why?  Because, if they are fake, the most likely explanation is that Burkett faked them because he was pissed that Bush did a "cleansing" on the originals.

    The good news is that the story has nowhere to go but bad for Bush.  They've gotten about as much mileage out of tarring CBS as they can.  Most people now assume the documents are forgeries.  Continuing to push on the story can only result in either new, real documents coming to light or a validation of the "forged" documents.  There is simply nothing to lose at this point.

    That the talking heads on Fox are giving the Democrats free advice to drop this story tells me all I need to know.

    •  You never answered your own question (none / 0)

      You said "I still think the docs could be forgeries."

      You then said "Why?"  But you didn't answer your own question.  You offered up a rationalization in the event of forgery, but you did not say why you thought the documents could be forged.

      What evidence are you relying on when you concede the memo could be forged?  Other than the bleating denials on the right?  Is there anything, anything at all?

      •  Evidence the documents might be forgeries (none / 0)

        It is largely circumstantial:

        1. The secretary said they are not real, although they are substantively accurate of what the real memos said.

        2. The documents don't look like any other docs I've seen in Bush's files.  Hardly conclusive, but another data point.

        3. They didn't come directly from government files.  Questions as to where the documents have been necessarily adds to the possibility that they could be fake.

        4. As I said, I truly believe that the speed with which the WH spun the forgery angle actually suggests that they do think they are forgeries.  Again, hardly conclusive, but suggestive.

        5. To my knowledge, CBS has failed support the documents with easily provided evidence.  For instance, whether the memos were made a month ago or 30 years ago, it should be easy to confirm that they were TYPED rather than printed.  Has CBS even confirmed that much?  What about paper analysis?  This might just be because CBS, like most news organizations, is lazy and arrogant and assumes that their word means something. Or it might be because that evidence cannot be provided.
        •  Interesting that when CBS said (none / 0)

          they would keep an open mind as to the status of the memos, headlines blared that CBS was "softening."  

          Your analysis is certainly the product of an open mind, but you know we will never ever be conceded any virtue for that.  Anyway, with respect to each of your points:

          1. It has been proven over and over, for whatever reason, People will lie to support Bush. They will also shade.  The secretary represents the shader, a type of person who wants to tell the truth about Bush, but feels pressured to offer less than an outright condemnation.  We have seen that over and over again as well.

          2.  Some of the memos were called "CYA".  Probably not part of the official file.

          3.  I don't know what to make of your conclusion that documents in a government file are more likely to be true than those that aren't.  When there is a potential cover-up involved, I would conclude exactly the opposite.

          4.  Actually, the White House didn't do any spinning at all.  In fact the only statement the White House made about the memos at all was that Bartlett guy saying the memos were consistent with what had already been disclosed.  It was the right wing blogosphere that pronounced the documents forgeries and all of their supporting arguments regarding typewriter technology have been de-bunked.  

          5.  I never once assumed CBS had original documents.  Where does everyone get this idea?  They have copies of copies no doubt.  It would be nice if they had originals, but that doesn't make a photocopy a forgery.  A smart strategy for CBS would be to sit back and let the idiot forgery wind play on a bit before dropping the other shoe.  That's where my money is.

          Not really disagreeing, but I am counseling patience before we abandon the ship on this issue.  They have been proven so completely wrong about so much, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever in this matter to believe that this issue will be any different and give the opposing side the benefit of the doubt.
  •  Why it Might Hurt Bush with Voters (4.00 / 2)

    The Annenberg Public Policy Center did a poll that ended September 4 ... before the 60 minutes episode aired.  

    The question was "Some people say that when George W. Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard in the seventies, he often did not show up for duty. Bush says he did
    fulfill his obligations and has presented records which he says prove that he did. From
    what you have heard or read, do you think he fulfilled his military obligations, or do you
    think he did not fulfill them?"

    59% of Dems said that he had not met his obligations

    Among independents, 49% said he had met them while 35% said he had not

    Among "persuadable voters", 47% said he had met them while 26% said he had not.

    This issue might become important in "reframing" Bush's image as a straight-talking-you-know-where-I-stand President to the reality of a "son of privilege" who never played by the rules b/c he was above them.  

    In the Midwest battle ground states, the majority of voters play by the rules every day .. they work hard ... and they pay their taxes.  They neither expect nor want a "free ride". They believe in the American ideal.

    In the latest Annenberg Poll conducted from Friday, September 3, the night after the convention, through Sunday, September 12, Bush job approval dropped from 56 percent in August to 44 percent in September, while disapproval increased from 39 to 49 percent among "persuadable voters".  His overall job approval among all voters in September was 52% with 46% disapproval.

    "From September 3 through 6, the first four days of interviewing, 52 percent of respondents said they believed he had fulfilled his obligation to the Texas Air National Guard. But in the six
    days of polling that began September 7, when CBS News reported on documents it said showed his commanding officer believed he had shirked his duties, just 46 percent said they felt Bush had met his obligation. Belief among Republicans dropped from 82 to 75 percent; among independents the decline was from 47 to 40 percent. Only 23 percent of Democrats believed Bush in each period."

    They note that when polling began, Bush's job approval numbers were in the mid-fifties but by the end of polling his approval numbers were declining. They suspect that one reason for the decline may be due to the questions that the CBS story may be raising in voters minds.

    So, it appears that the doubts about Bush's service are having a dramatic impact on those voters who can still be persuaded either way ... for Bush or for Kerry. And now, they're moving away from Bush.  

    There is still time for Kerry to close the sale. The debates may be pivotal.

  •  I have shot down myself (none / 0)

    One of the debated points was whether or not the CYA had "kerning" or "negative side bearing".  So I thought if "f" and "r" clearly overlap, CYA should be likely a Word document (if you look at the monitor of your computer, the head of "f" so protrudes to the right and clearly overlaps with "r"), which Killain could not have signed.

    Assuming such overlap was rather unlikely with a typewriter, I created a close-looking Word version myself and printed it. (In fact it looked so close to CYA on the monitor, I was about to fall into the trap.)

    However, what I found was there is (virtually) no overlap between the head of "f" and "r" on a printed Word document. That overlap disappears. So, I have sort of shot down myself. I can't prove it was a Word document.

    If you rely on the burden of proof, this should be the end of the story in the absence of further evidence.  If the documents was not produced by Word, there are multiple chances that somehow the document was produced using a then available typewriter in the 1970s when Killian was still active.  If so it is possible that whoever (a third party, or Killian himself?) typed them had a chance to have Killian authorize/sign them.  Then it's not a forgery, or even a fake. Maybe it's too close to call, in which case it's the content, stupid.

    •  Whatever (none / 0)

      Well suppose the "f" and the "r" or whatever did overlap, what is being proved?

      That you can take today's techonology and create something that looks like something that was created in 1972.  

      Just because something "can" be forged does not mean it "was" forged.

      All that's been proved is that right wingers at LGF can create forgeries if they really want to.  I thought we all understood that already.

  •  No proof of forgery (none / 0)

    I am shocked at the number of people here conceding the documents are forged.  To recap:

    First they said proportional spacing didn't exist in 1972.  And they were proved wrong.

    Then they said the "th" subscript didn't exist then, and they were wrong about that too.

    Then they said New Roman whatever didn't exist in 1972, and someone proved it was created in 1931.

    Then they mumbled something about "kerning" but no one can understand what they are trying to say and they just dropped it.

    Then someone who said he was sure they were genuine said now he wasn't too sure.  At least that's what the headlines said.  But few people bothered to read the actual articles as to what was actually being said.  And that seems to be the whole case for forgery.  That and "some people say they have doubts . . ."

    I assumed from the beginning that CBS has photocopies of photocopies of the originals.  That only makes the CBS documents less than the best evidence, but it doesn't mean they are forged.

    If people here are calling the CBS documents "forged" based upon the media discussion of them, I can only conclude they are trolls or Vichy Democrats.

    •  Killian's secretary (none / 0)

      You leave out that Killian's secretary [i] says she typed very similar memos for him but [ii] the CBS memos are forgeries (or "recreations" if you prefer).   The type doesn't match her typewriter, but even more importantly some of the jargon is form the Army, not the National Guard.   Her memory seems great and everything she says is consistent with all the evidence.  

      All the stuff about fonts and so forth is beside the point, as we know the truth now.  Although, as Hunter points out, we don't know how the "recreations" came to be and how they got to CBS.  

      •  they are only "forged" (none / 1)

        If Killian didn't retype them himself, or ask someone else to do it.   If the signature on them is real, and they were generated or authorized by their original creator, then they cannot be called forged, they are simply second copies.

        We just don't know.  All we know is that the unit secretary did not type those particular docs.   We know the info is true.  Stop saying FORGED!  legitimate copies are not called forgeries.

    •  A recreation doesn't mean it's a forgery (none / 0)

      CNN has been reporting all day that Dan Rather has admitted that "the documents may be forgeries."  Although they never show a clip of him saying this ... they just keep reporting it as such.

      I don't understand why Dan Rather would admit that at this time. We know that Killian's secretary didn't type them. We also know that the content is accurate. Hmmm ... well, perhaps Killian had someone make a second set of them. And just perhaps he had a close friend or someone he trusted to hold a second set of the documents in case something happened to the originals or something happened to him.  

      If the signatures on the documents are authenic then Dan Rather would be making a huge mistake in letting the "right" beat him into submission over the documents.  They're bluffing.  They can't prove that they are forgeries now can they?If I were him, unless I was absolutely convinced that they had been forged, I would admit nothing of the kind. In fact, I'd have some tough questions for my source. If the source admits though that the documents have been forged then Dan Rather has to come clean about it ... in a 10 second mea culpa ... and then address the content.

      It's very frustrating that the media wants only to focus on the process and not the content. What happened to the independent media that is supposed to be a check on the government and those in power?  All we see on the media anymore are partisan hacks posing as reporters or worse ... journalists.  There is no analysis on any issue. It's just a "he said .. he said" mantra. No wonder so few people watch the media.  And perhaps this is a good reason why so many people are tuning into blogs to discuss the issues of the day.

      To recap, someone else may have typed the memos at Killian's request. Recreations? Maybe. Forgeries? No one can prove it. Unless the source admits to forging them or knowing that they were forged.  

      Stand firm, Mr. Rather!

  •  For the archive: (none / 0)

    AP reports Strong thinks there should be an investigation into Bush's records.  Apparently nobody who did serve with Bush in Texas thinks he fulfilled his service.
  •  For the archive: (none / 0)

    More proportionally spaced letters, this time from Vietnam in 1969, via DU
  •  Court orders Bush Guard Records Released (none / 0)

    please go to yahoo and support this article

    If we all go to yahoo and vote a 5 for this article, maybe it will help keep the issue alive. Bush needs to come clean on why it's ok for him to blow off his service in the guard but then extend the duty for people fighting in Iraq.

    Q: How stupid can 51% of our country be? A: Pretty damned stupid.

    by wunderwood on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 10:51:36 PM PDT

  •  Where do things as of today? (none / 0)

    HUNTER - first, great work on the CBS / TANG story, and thanx for keeping everyone up to date.  I've been watching Scarborough & Fox, and now that the "forgery brigade" has found a slit of daylight in prying doubt into the authenticity of the documents, they have deftly shifted to focusing efforts on attacking CBS & Rather - no mention of how each of the individual points raised since last week has been skewered.  You have taken notice of my comment regarding Burkett, and I gotta say, I don't think he's involved in this - it would take little to no effort to imagine that BushCo are holding originals from Killian's CYA files, have produced their own bogus copies, and have contacted CBS themselves from a location close to Burkett in order to implicate him as CBS' source; they then release key info to their bloggers and media sources in order to swarm all attention onto critical points that they themselves have inserted.  That's ONE of my theories on this - another is that Rather & CBS are holding the Ace of Spades up their sleeves, and are simply letting the first firestorm break before upping the ante; they may have been caught unawares by the technical problems encountered with the typescript, but I haven't seen anything yet that proves that they were produced on anything but a typewriter - and what about the signatures that Marcel Matrley and James Pierce validated?  They coudln't have been lifted in a text-edit and placed on phony documents, they would be spotted immediately.  Any ideas as to what other possible "impeachable sources" CBS might have access to?  This Via guy, who had a desk next to Killian at the 111th, made a quick appearance and hasn't been heard from.
  •  PDF Files (none / 0)

    Hunter, I admire all the work you have done.  I have a question though . . .

     When a typewritten document is scanned directly into a PDF file, I believe Acrobat will "simulate" the original appearance by substituting/converting the original fonts to the "closest" appearing fonts it has available to it within it's font directory.

     It's plausible (to me at least) that if I had important originals, I would move them to a very safe location (safe deposit box etc) after "digitizing" them in PDF and making several back-ups.  If someone requested a copy, I would print it from my back-ups thinking it was an exact original and email or fax it to them.  

    Perhaps a "conversion" to PDF explains the apparent simularity to a Microsoft Word document in these copies.

    Thank you again for your diary.

    •  Two different things (none / 0)

      I believe Acrobat will "simulate" the original appearance by substituting/converting the original fonts to the "closest" appearing fonts it has available to it within its font directory.

      I work with Acrobat, and this feature comes into play only when you're generating a PDF file directly from an electronic file (e.g. MS Word). If your Word doc is done in some whacked-out font, Acrobat will substitute something else like Courier or TNR. But if you're making a PDF from a scanned document, no font substitution occurs. The PDF is simply a pixel-by-pixel reproduction of the scan.

      Creative destruction is our middle name. --Michael Ledeen

      by Utah for Dean on Sat Sep 18, 2004 at 04:20:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  For the archives: (none / 0)

    NYTimes: Burkett admits he gave the memos to CBS.  Some confusion over where Burkett got the documents.

    Salon; a review of what is known about Bush's Guard service.

    Orcinus, saying roughly what I'm probably going to in my next diary, but more politely.

    ftm diary reminding us of the Lloyd memo.  Have some written on that, may try to work it in somewhere.

    dwalker diary mentions bluelemur story on other possible forged documents in Bush file -- ones relating to Bush's "honorable" discharge.  Gotta write some about that too -- torn documents, etc.

    Lots of good stuff in all of those.

Permalink | 115 comments