09-10-2004, 05:52 PM #1Associate Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
Documents are forged? Rather says no.
This blog is tracking the progress of the document forgery investigation.
Dan Rather today said on CNN:
A half hour ago, Dan Rather went on CNN and said that he knows the Jerry Killian documents to be authentic, and knows that they are not forgeries. Therefore, he said, there will be no retraction, no correction, and -- apparently -- no investigation. The text of the interview is not yet available on CNN's site, but we'll link to it when it becomes available.
In a statement, CBS News said it stands by its story:
This 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.
In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content. Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned.
So Dan Rather "knows [them] to be authentic..." so we're just supposed to take his biased word for it? What are they afraid of? That an independent document analyst will prove they're forgaries?
Actually, the important question is where did these documents come from? The family said they didn't come from them. Killian's son said his dad did have a home office or secret files. So where did they come from?
Last edited by chances; 09-10-2004 at 06:03 PM.
09-10-2004, 07:39 PM #2Originally Posted by chances
Sure, why not? You took the biased word of the Swift Boat Veterans, and they turned out to be full of crap.
09-10-2004, 07:51 PM #3Associate Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
I never took their word for anything. You can search here and see. I have always maintained that the variations in accounts can easily be explained as the "fog of war" and that they all experienced the same thing differently. (By the way, how were they full of crap?)
Besides, I don't believe what they are doing is right in questioning Kerry's service. I have said many times that it is not what he did while in the service that pisses me off, it's what he did when he got out. He served his country, and I commend him for that.
I'm trying to reserve judgement on this until the documents have been authenticated or shown to be fakes. But my same stance with Kerry would apply to Bush as well. He served his country, and attacking that service is wrong.
Last edited by chances; 09-10-2004 at 08:00 PM.
09-10-2004, 08:21 PM #4
Here's what CBS has to say about the documents . . . pretty much, you're gonna beleive about the documents what you want to beleive. As far as I'm concerned, it's all ancient history. What really matters is what Kerry or Bush are gonna do in the future, if elected. Bush already got 1000 Americans killed in an unnecessary war, and demonstrated how to alienate the rest of the world, making them less likely to help the US catch terrorists. In short, the US is less safe with Bush. Kerry, on the other hand, is more likely to work together with foreign nations, look for the "grey areas" in international issues, use war as a last resort.
Sure, you may not like Kerry's tendency to analyze things over and over and look at things from different points of view, but if he manages to avoid getting 1000 19 and 21 year olds killed in a war while preserving US security, I'd say that's worth a vote.
Anyway, fyi . . .
CBS Defends Report on Bush Guard Memos
11 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!
By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - CBS News mounted an aggressive defense Friday of its report about President Bush (news - web sites)'s service in the Air National Guard, with anchor Dan Rather saying broadcast memos questioned by forensic experts came from "what we consider to be solid sources."
On Friday's "CBS Evening News," Rather said that "no definitive evidence" has emerged to prove the documents are forgeries. "If any definitive evidence comes up, we will report it," Rather said.
The show also showed excerpts of interviews with Marcel Matley, a San Francisco document expert, who said he believed the memos were genuine.
CBS can state "with absolute certainty" that the disputed memos could have been produced on typewriters available in the early 1970s when the memos are purported to have been written, the network said. Rather said the typeface and style of the memos were available on typewriters since well before the 1970s.
Some forensic experts were quoted by news organizations, including The Associated Press, saying the memos appeared to have been computer-generated with characteristics that weren't available three decades ago.
But CBS News said in a statement: "The documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but sources familiar with their content." Matley was the only expert cited, and he focused on signatures on the memos.
Matley and Rather acknowledged the memos were difficult to definitively authenticate because CBS has only photocopies, not the originals. Matley did not return a telephone message left at his office immediately after Friday's report.
At question are memos that carry the signature of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who was the commander of Bush's Texas Air National Guard fighter squadron. They say Killian was under pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's record, and Bush refused a direct order to take a required medical examination and discussed how he could skip drills.
"60 Minutes" relied on the documents as part of a Wednesday segment — reported by Rather — on Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968 to 1973.
Former colleagues of Killian disagreed Friday on the authenticity of the documents.
One, who appeared in the TV newsmagazine segment, said Friday he did not see anything in the memos that made him think they were forgeries. Robert Strong noted he's not a forensic expert and isn't vouching for the documents.
"I didn't see anything that was inconsistent with how we did business," Strong said in an interview. "It looked like the sort of thing that Jerry Killian would have done or said. He was a very professional guy."
Both Wednesday and Friday, Strong was the only associate of Killian quoted by CBS as supporting the memo's contents.
Retired Col. Maurice Udell, the unit's instructor pilot who helped train Bush, said Friday he thought the documents were fake.
"I completely am disgusted with this (report) I saw on '60 Minutes,'" Udell said. "That's not true. I was there. I knew Jerry Killian. I went to Vietnam with Jerry Killian in 1968."
Killian's son also questioned some of the documents, saying his father would never write a memo like the "sugar coat" one.
Several of the document examiners said one clue that the documents may be forgeries was the presence of superscripts — in this case, a raised, smaller "th" in two references to Guard units.
Rather said typewriters were available in the early 1970s which were capable of printing superscripts. CBS pointed to other Texas Air National Guard documents released by the White House that include an example of a raised "th" superscript.
That superscript, however, is in a different typeface than the one used for the CBS memos. Document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines of Paradise Valley, Ariz., who examined the documents for the AP, said she was "virtually certain" they were generated by computer.
Lines said that meant she could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer.
CBS has not revealed its source or sources for the documents or the names of experts besides Matley it said examined the memos before Wednesday's report.
Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday the White House, which distributed the memos after obtaining them from CBS News, was not trying to verify their authenticity. "We don't know if the documents are fabricated or authentic," McClellan told reporters traveling with the president to West Virginia.
McClellan suggested the memos surfaced as part of "an orchestrated effort by Democrats and the Kerry campaign to tear down the president."
09-12-2004, 02:32 AM #5
Bush is a hack and has been that way ever since he was a smackhead little rich boy.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)