Dan Rather falls for a Hoax

[GWB]

Guard-Memo Hoax (http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/28331.htm)

An Early "October Surprise" blows up in the face of the Kerry campaign. Are the Democrats so desperate that they have to hoax Dan Rather?

[b]GUARD-MEMO 'HOAX'

By DEBORAH ORIN and IAN BISHOP

September 10, 2004 --


A storm erupted last night over whether CBS anchor Dan Rather fell for a hoax or had authentic documents when he challenged President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.

The wife and son of the late officer who purportedly wrote the memos questioning Bush's performance challenged their authenticity — as did another officer who served with him, and several document experts.

"The wording in these documents is very suspect to me," said Marjorie Connell, widow of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

In an interview with ABC radio, she said her late husband didn't type and was a big fan of the young Bush, whom he regarded as "an excellent aviator."

Killian's son Gary said one of the memos signed by his dad looks legitimate but questioned the legitimacy of another unsigned memo titled "CYA" that speaks of pressure to "sugarcoat" Bush's performance in August 1973.

"It just wouldn't happen. The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things . . . No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that," said Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his dad and retired as a captain in 1991.

Rather claimed Wednesday on "60 Minutes II" that CBS was told the memos suggesting Bush ignored orders to take a physical came from Jerry Killian's personal files but Gary Killian said his dad didn't regularly bring work home.


The personnel chief in Killian's unit in the 1970s, Rufus Martin, said he thinks Rather fell for a hoax — "They look like forgeries to me. I don't think Killian would do that and I knew him for 17 years."

CBS stood by its story but declined to specify who supplied the documents or name the experts who vetted their authenticity except to say they were "thoroughly investigated by independent experts."

The authenticity questions erupted on the Internet, starting with Powerlineblog.com, and several experts said the memos are dubious because they look like contemporary, computer documents:

* The type spacing is proportional — a wide letter like a "w" gets more space than an "i." That's typical of documents created with the Microsoft Word computer word-processing program but most 1970s typewriters gave the same space to each letter, the experts said.

* References to military units like the 187th have the "th" in a raised superscript. This is automatic on Microsoft Word documents.

Several experts questioned whether a typical 1970s typewriter would have superscripts. An IBM spokeswoman said the superscript may have been available on Selectrics in the early 1970s, but couldn't pinpoint a date.

* The apostrophe in words like "he's" look curly but most typewriters had blunt apostrophes with straight edges.

* The typeface looks identical to 11-point Times New Roman, a standard Microsoft Word typeface.

* Each line in the memos looks smooth, unlike hunt-and-peck typing where some letters are struck harder than others.

"I would have a lot of questions about it before I would want to accept it," said Emily Will, an expert in Raleigh, N.C.

Computer-document expert William Flynn told The Weekly Standard: "These sure look like forgeries." With Post Wire Services

[adios]

Same old formula politicians try to manipulate the media, the media trys to manipulate the public. Rather's credibility and the credibility of CBS is in the toilet. Who did the forgery? Was it CBS? Was it someone directly linked to the Kerry campaign? I can't imagine Rather trying to protect a source supplying him with forged documents. Too much fun, unbelievable.

[Cyrus]

If this turns out to be a hoax, do you pro-Bush fellows truly believe that it was manufactured in the Kerry camp?

This would take some believing, believe me.

[adios]

Soon Karl Rove will be accused of handing the Kerry campaign these phoney documents knowing that the Kerry campaign would hand them over to CBS. Then the Kerry campaign will go on the war path screaming about Republican dirty tricks. Hilarious.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
If this turns out to be a hoax, do you pro-Bush fellows truly believe that it was manufactured in the Kerry camp?

This would take some believing, believe me.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK genius, if not the Kerry camp then from where? The United Nations, can't be them they are our friends, how about France, Germany or the USSR? Can't be then they are our Allies, right? I know, I bet you think it came from the Bush camp right? We conservatives just aren't smart enough to fool old Uncle Remus, errrr I mean Cyrus.

[Knockwurst]

This hasn't been proven to be a hoax by a longshot, as the article I've attached points out. In any case, there are more documents that show W. didn't fulfill his Guard duty, and got special treatment in that he didn't fulfill his training duties in Alabama and wasn't reprimanded, and was let out early before fulfilling his Guard obligations so that he could continue snorting coke, smoking dope and drinking brews at Harvard Business School without those pesky physicals and training schedules always interrupting him.

MILITARY SERVICE
Commander's Son Questions Memos on Bush's Service
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and JIM RUTENBERG

ASHINGTON, Sept. 9 - A day after memos emerged suggesting that George W. Bush received favorable treatment when he was in the National Guard during the Vietnam War, the son of Mr. Bush's squadron commander said he doubted the authenticity of some of the memos his father was said to have written.

The White House, meanwhile, for the second day in a row dismissed renewed questions about Mr.Bush's service as "recycled" and said they were part of a "coordinated attack" by Senator John Kerry, Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent in the presidential campaign, and his associates.

The new fracas over Mr. Bush's service began after CBS News and its program "60 Minutes'' reported on four memos they said were from the personal file of Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, who died 20 years ago. The memos said that Mr. Bush had disobeyed a direct order to go for a physical in 1972 and that Colonel Killian had felt pressure to "sugarcoat'' Mr. Bush's record.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, the officer's son, Gary Killian, said he doubted that his father had written some of the memos. "I am upset because I think it is a mixture of truth and fiction here,'' Mr. Killian said.

CBS said in a statement that it stood by its story and the memos' authenticity.

"As is standard practice at CBS News, the documents in the '60 Minutes' report were thoroughly examined and their authenticity vouched for by independent experts,'' the statement said.

Still, throughout the afternoon and evening, questions arose about the authenticity of the memos as various forensics experts told news organizations, including The New York Times, that the fonts of the documents resembled those of modern-day word processors, specifically Microsoft Word.

Farrell C. Shiver, a forensic document examiner based in Georgia who said he was a Republican, said the superscript "th's" throughout the memos were "something you would expect to find being done with a computer" and were "not consistent with something that you would expect to find from someone typing a document; they used typewriters in that particular time."

Mr. Shiver also said he was suspicious of the spacing in the memos and the curves in their apostrophes.

But he said that while the font seemed unusual for the period, "that does not prove that the documents are not genuine."

Philip Bouffard, a forensic document specialist from Ohio who created a commonly used database of at least 3,000 old type fonts, said he had suspicions as well. "I found nothing like this in any of my typewriter specimens," said Dr. Bouffard, a Democrat. He also said the fonts were "certainly consistent with what I see in Times Roman," the commonly used Microsoft Word font.

However, Dr. Bouffard said, a colleague had called his attention to similarities between the font in the memos and that of the IBM Selectric Composer of the early 1970's.

But he said it would be unusual for Mr. Bush's commanding officer to have had the IBM machine because of its large size.

Dr. Bouffard said he would see if the fonts match more closely on Friday. "The problem I'm going to run into if this matches and Times Roman matches, to the extent of what we are able to see on these poor miserable copies that are passing around,'' he said, "then I don't think anybody's going to be able to say for sure.''

A senior executive at CBS said said, "We are convinced our source who got the documents had access to them and we trust the source.'' He added, "Can we produce the typewriter they came from in 1972 or 1973? Obviously not.''

The executive said the documents had been "vetted as thoroughly as possible.''

"We did have a number of experts,'' he said, adding that the producers also showed the documents to numerous people who worked with Colonel Killian and who said the memos were consistent with what he thought and representative of the sorts of documents he produced back then.

"It would be unbelievable for a forger to have written documents that could so closely reflect what the people closest to Killian said,'' he said, "that this is his tone of voice, what he thought back then, this is the situation back then. It would be a little odd to think that these things could have just surfaced.''

CBS News executives also produced a document released earlier by the White House about Mr. Bush's service that was clearly from a typewriter and had a superscript "th'' in it. CBS said it proved that some typewriters did indeed have superscript keys. But the characters were hard to make out after so much reproducing of the document, a problem, the CBS News official acknowledged, with the documents in the initial "60 Minutes'' program; those documents were not originals and have been copied repeatedly.

CBS News declined to say how it obtained the memos.

Mr. Killian, who served in the Guard with his father, said one memo looked legitimate. But he said he doubted his father would have written the one referring to sugarcoating Mr. Bush's performance record.

"It just wouldn't happen," he told The A.P. "The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things.''

The White House itself did not contest the memos' authenticity and handed them out to reporters. It continued on Thursday to handle questions based on the memos, particularly about the accusation that Mr. Bush failed to take a physical "as ordered." The physical exam was required for Mr. Bush to remain a pilot.

Asked about a passage in one memo saying Mr. Bush had failed to take the ordered physical, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, deflected the question and told reporters on Air Force One that such attacks were expected because Mr. Kerry was "falling behind in the polls" and because Mr. Bush had had "a very successful convention."

Asked again about the order, Mr. McClellan said that Mr. Bush was "seeking to transfer to a unit in Alabama because he was going there to work in a civilian capacity," suggesting that he did not need to maintain his status as a pilot at that time and therefore did not need a physical.

Asked if the president did or did not defy the order, Mr. McClellan said the Democrats were engaging in "recycled attacks."

Joe Lockhart, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, said, "Rather than deal with real issues with real candor, Mr. McClellan is resorting to hurling nonsensical, inaccurate and baseless charges at the Kerry campaign."

At the same time, Democrats stepped up their criticism of the president. Senator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat and a Navy flier in the Vietnam War era, called the president a liar for claiming to have fulfilled his Guard duty.

"This is about George Bush not doing his duty in the National Guard and then lying to the American people about it," Mr. Harkin told reporters at a news conference at the Democratic National Committee.

While the two parties were absorbed with the actions of Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry more than three decades ago, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry steered clear of the issue on the campaign trail.

Neither candidate was available to reporters. Both are to address the National Guard Association of the United States at its convention next week in Las Vegas.

Meanwhile, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has ties to the Republicans and has attacked Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam, said Thursday that it would spend $680,000 to put up a nationwide commercial that criticizes Mr. Kerry for tossing his war decorations.

The spot, which already ran for three days in Florida during the Republican National Convention this month, is to run for seven days on several cable channels.

It opens with film of a rally where Mr. Kerry and other veterans who had turned against the war tossed their decorations, and a voiceover declares: "Symbols. They represent the best things about America." It then shows Mr. Kerry telling an interviewer that same year, "I gave back I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine."

The voiceover then asks, "How can a man who renounced his country's symbols now be trusted?"

This is the third commercial by the boat group. The Kerry campaign said the Swift boat group was desperate to keep alive accusations that had already been discredited.

"This group has less credibility than a trashy tabloid magazine," said Chad Clanton, a spokesman for the campaign.

[Utah]

This hasn't been proven to be a hoax by a longshot

They dont have to be. The documents dont meet the high standard to include them the way CBS did.

Should a news outlet show every document because it cant be proven false?

[Knockwurst]

No, CBS said that they showed them to experts, whose opinion was that they were authentic. The authenticity was corroborated in part by the commanding officer's colleagues, who said they accurately reflect the c.o.'s opinions of GWB at the time. My understanding is that they are degraded copies, so we may never get to the bottom of it. But if they are proven to be fakes, CBS and whoever passed them on to CBS should suffer the consequences.

In any case, it's time we debated the issues, like Iraq, the economy, Social Security, taxes, healthcare. I think you and I and most every Democrat and Republican and Independant can agree, these are the issues that really matter -- not whether Kerry was in Cambodia or whether GWB snorted a line or two thirty years ago.

[adios]

From the ABCNews site:

Experts Question Veracity

Questions are also being raised about the memos by document experts, who say they appear to have been written on a computer, not a typewriter.

More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they had doubts about the memos' authenticity.

"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available … indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"

Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:

The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.

I knew there would be ABB supporters with comments like the ones made by the poster. What I've seen so far from Democratic spokespeople is that they're backing way away from this. FWIW I saw a subdued, almost contrite stance from the bombastic Bob Beckel this morning. The die hard ABB faction are the bag holders.

False Documentation? (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html)

False Documentation?
Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush’s Guard Service



Sept. 10, 2004 — Questions are being raised about the authenticity of newly discovered documents relating to George W. Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War.




Marjorie Connell — widow of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the reported author of memos suggesting that Bush did not meet the standards for the Texas Air National Guard — questioned whether the documents were real.

"The wording in these documents is very suspect to me," she told ABC News Radio in an exclusive phone interview from her Texas home. She added that she "just can't believe these are his words."

First reported by CBS' 60 Minutes, the memos allegedly were found in Killian's personal files. But his family members say they doubt he ever made such documents, let alone kept them.

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

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

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

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

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

Experts Question Veracity

Questions are also being raised about the memos by document experts, who say they appear to have been written on a computer, not a typewriter.


The memos are dated 1972 and 1973, when computers with word-processing software were not available.

More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they had doubts about the memos' authenticity.

"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available … indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"

Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:

The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.

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

The last statement is a leading candidate for understatement of the year.

[jokerswild]

Every lie the Republicans put out is "gospel truth." Records from the military have obviously been tampered concerning Bush's service in Bush's favor. Mainly this means records are missing that shouldn't be. Still the Bush imposter cries foul. CBS stands by the latest story. Perhaps it's a hoax, but the whole Swift Veterans for Karl Rove's money was a hoax, and Bush didn't condemn it.

Why doesn't Bush just explain why he missed his medical exam in 1972? He can't because it involves illegal narcotics.

[jokerswild]

Every lie the Republicans put out is "gospel truth." Records from the military have obviously been tampered concerning Bush's service in Bush's fovr. Mainly this means records are missing that shouldn't be. Still the Bush imposter cries foul. CBS stands by the latest story. Perhaps it's a hoax, but the whole Swift Veterans for Karl Rove's money was a hoax, and Bush didn't condemn it.

Why doesn't Bush just explain why he missed his medical exam in 1972? He can't because it involves illegal narcotics.

[jokerswild]

Every lie the Republicans put out is "gospel truth." Records from the military have obviously been tampered concerning Bush's service in Bush's fovr. Mainly this means records are missing that shouldn't be. Still the Bush imposter cries foul. CBS stands by the latest story. Perhaps it's a hoax, but the whole Swift Veterans for Karl Rove's money was a hoax, and Bush didn't condemn it.

Why doesn't Bush just explain why he missed his medical exam in 1972? He can't because it involves illegal narcotics.

[Utah]

In any case, it's time we debated the issues, like Iraq, the economy, Social Security, taxes, healthcare.

I agree. But let me add one - unbiased information. To me, the story is not Bush, its CBS. I think the problem with news itself is one of the biggest issues.

[Boris]

Then why doesn't Bush say so? Bush is not denying that he refused to take a required physical or that he was grounded. The silence is deafening.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Then why doesn't Bush say so?

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon Boris that's silly. The onus is on CBS not on Bush.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush is not denying that he refused to take a required physical or that he was grounded. The silence is deafening.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's even sillier. He ordered the Pentagon to release all of his records ages ago. A few popped up recently that weren't released but it's clear that it was some sort of bureaucratic screw up. He's not running on his record 35 years ago, Kerry's doing that.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, it's time we debated the issues, like Iraq, the economy, Social Security, taxes, healthcare.


[/ QUOTE ]

The DNC chairman is screaming about Bush's National Guard service, go tell him. Go tell the Kerry campaign.

[adios]

....

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Every lie the Republicans put out is "gospel truth." Records from the military have obviously been tampered concerning Bush's service in Bush's fovr. Mainly this means records are missing that shouldn't be. Still the Bush imposter cries foul.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which records are missing?

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it's a hoax, but the whole Swift Veterans for Karl Rove's money was a hoax, and Bush didn't condemn it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was lame answer to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Have you noticed that the book Unfit for Command, is a runaway best seller? The Swifties have received a lot of money from the book and from internet contributions.

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't Bush just explain why he missed his medical exam in 1972? He can't because it involves illegal narcotics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should he? Kerry's the idiot not Bush.

[Nepa]

Here are the copies of the memos. I'm not an expert but they don't appear to be made by a computer.

BushGuardDocs.PDF (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/Politics/BushGuardDocs.PDF)

[GWB]

CBS Statement on 60 Minutes Report (http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_254143933.html)

CBS continues to prop up the fabrication:

[b]THE FOLLOWING IS A STATEMENT ISSUED BY CBS NEWS:

For the record, CBS News stands by the thoroughness and accuracy of the 60 MINUTES report this Wednesday on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. 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. We have complete confidence in our reporting and will continue to pursue the story.

[GWB]

Terry McAuliffe goes Ballistic (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&ncid=696&e=1&u=/afp/20040910/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_bush_military)

[Boris]

It appears that CBS is standing by its story. Bush needs to respond. The longer he is silent the more I'm inclined to believe the story.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Then why doesn't Bush say so? Bush is not denying that he refused to take a required physical or that he was grounded. The silence is deafening.

[/ QUOTE ]

That has noting to do with the forged documents, probably half the NG pilots never kept their physicals up to date. Not taking the physical revoked the flight status, it is not two different questions. Additionally the released documents were not even in the Presidents official military record. This same commander gave nothing but glowing reports on Bush's performance in the oficial files. Explain that!

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are the copies of the memos. I'm not an expert but they don't appear to be made by a computer.

BushGuardDocs.PDF (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/Politics/BushGuardDocs.PDF)

[/ QUOTE ]

A word processor document without much doubt. Certainly not an early 1970's typewriter.

[whiskeytown]

in other words, they stand by their statement that you are a goddamn liar.

good for them.

RB

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
It appears that CBS is standing by its story. Bush needs to respond. The longer he is silent the more I'm inclined to believe the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually no response will help the President after the documents are admitted to be a hoax perpetrated by the network itself.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
Soon Karl Rove will be accused of handing the Kerry campaign these phoney documents knowing that the Kerry campaign would hand them over to CBS. Then the Kerry campaign will go on the war path screaming about Republican dirty tricks. Hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this was true based on what I know of Karl Rove. I read about him in Al Frakens book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," although was familiar with his reputation before that. Obviously Fraken libreal but he seemed to be stating facts about Rove. Hopefully someone can supply the specific stuff Rove did, I don't have the book with me.

[Boris]

Its certainly much easier to prove a document is false than to prove it is legitimate.

[Utah]

Maybe. But there must be standards - otherwise, you cannot trust the news. It seems CBS clearly violated that standard.

[Boris]

How can you say CBS violated a standard? So far there isn't even compelling evidence that the document is false. The only evidence is that the font in the document shares some characteristics with commonly used Word fonts. CBS released a statement today standing by their story. George Bush won't even come out and say the allegations in the document are false.

Would you be surprised if the memo was genuine? Would you be surprised if George Bush did in fact refuse to take a physical? Be honest with yourself Utah. Is George Bush the kind of person where you could say "there is no way that man would do such a thing! He would never try to shirk his responsibilities to his country." I don't think so.

[adios]

Analysis (http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000838.php) Well here's what one expert states:

• Right off the bat, Dr. Bouffard noted what others in the blogosphere have been talking about – something called “proportional spacing,” which means that each letter does not take up the same amount of width on the page. On old typewriters that do not have proportional spacing, the letter “i” would be as wide as the letter “m.” Except for professional typesetting, proportional spacing was only available on a very few models (an IBM model, "Executive" and perhaps one or two other models Mini-Update: Dr. Bouffard e-mails to correct me that it was seven or eight possible models, not one or two - Ed) that were not widely available in 1972-73; the vast majority of typewriters did not have proportional spacing. Because of this, Dr. Bouffard’s computer program immediately eliminated “over 90%” of the possible fonts from typewriters that could create such a document, narrowing it down to perhaps 15 fonts used by a very few models.

• Next, Dr. Bouffard began entering individual characters in an attempt to match them to the remaining fonts that were available on proportional spacing typewriters of that era, focusing on numbers. Thus far, one character stood out, the number “4.” In the document provided by CBS News, the number 4 does not "have a foot" and has a “closed top,” which is indicative of Times New Roman, a font exclusive to more modern computer word processing programs. Other characters matched the old proportional spacing fonts (available on only a small few typewriters of the era), but this number did not (please note that this is only an initial analysis with numerical characters).

Dr. Bouffard ran this number and could not find a match in his entire database of over 4,000 typewriter fonts that have been maintained and collected into his computer database since 1988. Otherwise, the font is very indicative of Times New Roman, the font that is only available on computer word processing programs.


The final word?

Once again, let’s not forget the qualifications: it's a bad copy of a copy and we have no original document for review, but, based on the initial analysis of the documents by an industry expert with over 30 years of experience in typesetting and forensic document examination, the documents “could just well be a fabrication.”

In light of this information, I think that it would be highly appropriate for CBS News and the Boston Globe to attempt to obtain a copy of the original document for more thorough vetting, and run a correction/addendum to the story.

I still have two other forensic document examiners that are examining the pdf file, and I will update if/when they get back to me. I also plan to ask Dr. Bouffard more detail about the nature of the "th" on the end of dates, though in our first conversation he indicated that some typewriters had the capability to do something in that format.

UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard called me again, and after further analysis, he says that he's pretty certain that it's a fake.

Here's why

* He looked through old papers he's written, and noted that he's come up against the inconsistency of the "4" several previous times with forgeries that attempt to duplicate old proportional spaced documents with a computer word processing program.

* Regarding the small "th" after the date, Dr. Bouffard told me that it was possible to order specialty keys that would duplicate the automatic miniaturization completed by word processors after a numerical date, but it was certainly not standard, and wouldn't make a lot of sense in a military setting. "That by itself, while suspicious, is not impossible, but in conjunction with the (font irregularity of the) number four, it is really significant," he said.

* Dr. Bouffard said that signature analysis isn't that relevant because the signature could have easily been copied and pasted onto one of the photocopied forgeries from another document.

* He said that he didn't know who CBS contacted to verify the document's authenticity, but that there is really only one other man that may be more qualified to determine authentic typefaces than himself. I think that the burden of proof may be on CBS to reveal this information.

I asked him to put a percentage on the chances that this was a fake, and he said that was "hard to put a number on it." I then suggested "90%?" Again he said it's "hard to put an exact number, but I'd say it's at least that high, sure. I pretty much agree that that font is Times New Roman."

I hesitate to render verdicts, but based on an initial visual analysis by one of the country's foremost forensic document analysts that specializes in old typefaces, it looks like CBS was duped.

UPDATE: Apologies for the hasty error on Dr. Bouffard's first name - it's Philip.

BTW thanks for posting the link to the docs.

[GWB]

Dan Rather must have been talking all day - he sounds like he has laryngitis.

He gave a very weak defense of the documents. Saying for example that the typeface was available since 1931, but not noting how rare and unlikely it would be present in some Guard Unit office.

[Utah]

Respectfully, you miss the point. Whether the information contained in the memo is true or not is 100% irrelevant to the question at hand - Are the documents fake?

There is a lot of evidence that they are.
1) The type face most likely didnt exist on any typewriter during that time, and if it did, it would have been extremely unlikely that someone at this level would have had one
2) Many many experts believe it is fake
3) His wife and son believe it is fake
4) His collegue and friend for 20 years believe it is fake

Easy to clear up. Why doesnt CBS present its experts and the method they used to determine the credibility of the documents? Why dont they simply allow a Q&A with these experts? Why doesnt CBS produce a typewrite model capable of this?

There is so much doubt to these documents that they never should have been shown.

[Senor Choppy]

http://dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

[adios]

I expect this story to have legs. I've read a lot of stuff today on the veracity of the docs and I've noted a few interesting things. One analysis was that not only the horizontal spacing suspect but the vertical spacing was not possible with a type writer. I also read that there is a $10,000 reward for anyone who can reproduce the documents with a typewriter. I'll try and find the link and post it.

Here's something that is being published in the main stream media:

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

Man named in Bush memo left Guard before document was written (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/special_packages/election2004/9633814.htm)

I think this is the memo titled CYA.

I saw an interview with Killian's son tonight on Hannity and Colmes. He came across as very credible. Both Colmes and Hannity tried to lure Killian's son into making a political statement but he refused. He also stated that he prefers to say that CBS failed to do their homework. He claims that CBS interviewed him prior to doing the story and he told CBS what he's saying now, that Killian's father had a high regard for Bush and that he didn't believe the documents were authentic. Supposedly there's a glowing report of Bush written signed by Killian's father in the files released from the Pentagon.

FWIW and I know it won't convince anyone but what the hell, this article, discussing Bush's National Guard service, is very consistent with personal accounts I've read from others about reserve duty and duty in the National Guard.

Bush and the National Guard: Case Closed (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp)

I also saw an interview with someone who served in the Texas Air National Guard during the time that Bush did. He claims that there was no waiting list for pilot candidates and in fact that there was a lack of pilot candidates due to the nature of the qualifications needed to get into pilot training. This has a ring of truth to me, from what I remember about being eligible for OCS in the military. I'll try and verify that.

I've never been that concerned about Bush's National Guard Service since Bush has a record as president. It doesn't matter. The ABB faction hates him precisely because of his record as president, others believe Bush's record is fine. Some are on the fence and I believe that National Guard duty, either good or bad, is insignificant when evaluating his record as president. I think this is probably the way most independents view that as well. Anyone have doubts about how Bush would react to a Breslan? I don't but I have plenty as to how Kerry would react. Which is why Kerry's Vietnam record is an issue, he doen't have a record and he's promoted his service in Nam as a key qualification for being commander and chief. He doesn't have an exit plan for Iraq and he doesn't have a plan for waging a "war on terror." I think the Democrats have run a terrible campaign but they seem to be commited to it nonetheless. We'll see what the polls say next week.

It's 9/11/04, the anniversary of that terrible day three years ago. A day that saddens and angers me still.

[adios]

Great a link to a liberal blog. Hardly an objective viewpoint. I'll post a link to conservative blog that specifically refutes the blog link you supplied:

Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/)

[adios]

If someone gets caught with their pants down like Rather and CBS did, you try and stonewall. The story has legs though and the circumstances and info will be vetted thoroughly. CBS and Rather strike me as media dinosaur's. Neither really fully grasps the power and significance of the internet as a medium for diseminating information.

[adios]

.....

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I expect this story to have legs.... he (Killian's son) prefers to say that CBS failed to do their homework.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the story of whether the documents were forged (and I'm extremely suspicious that they were) is going to stick around until there is something resembling a resolution.

Killian seems right in his comments about CBS News. I don't care how left leaning Dan Rather may be. Rather is not knowingly going to present evidence which he thinks might be falsified in this way. There's also a highly regarded 60 Minutes jourlanist/editor (woman who's name I can't remember) that's involved with this story and here reputation in the industry is exceptional.

I think CBS got duped and the rest of the media is now out looking for how it happened. The plainly obvious suspicion is that a Kerry supporter (but not the Kerry campaign itself) somehow manged to do this. There was something interesting which happened quickly in the aftermath of the story being reported. Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe were very fast out of the gate with very specific attacks on Bush's national guard record. Seeing McAuliffe on TV in this role wasn't a surprise. But, I wondered why I was seeing so much of Harkin. "Paranoid" suspicion: McAuliffe and Harkin were prepared in advanced for this and therefore knew something in advance.

In political scandals, the cover-up is often portrayed as worse than the act itself.

In this story, a dirty trick (if true) is going to be much, much, much more damaging to the Democrats than the truth of Bush's National Guard record could possibly be to the President.

[adios]

Actually it's $10,500 now.

$10,000 Part Two (http://defeatjohnjohn.com/2004/09/10000-part-two-ibm-selectric.htm)

Interesting.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
In this story, a dirty trick (if true) is going to be much, much, much more damaging to the Democrats than the truth of Bush's National Guard record could possibly be to the President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I agree. I also think that since this story is going to be debated for awhile whatever Kerry's message is will take a back seat to this story. I don't think that's going to help Kerry but we'll see.

[Senor Choppy]

I forgot liberals aren't allowed to refute anything that conservative conspiracy theorists say.

[Utah]

I read your link and it made some interesting points. However, it really offers nothing other than that a typewriter might have been available at that time that might have been able to create the document. That is saying a lot, but it is not enough.

I would think this would be simple to clear up. I assume that he wrote many memos. cant these be compared to other documents?

[Mano]

From the article:

The White House said Friday it did not know if the memos were fabricated, but slammed what it called an orchestrated smear campaign by Democrats.

If in fact the allegations are untrue, wouldn't the white house know for a fact that the memos were fabricated?

[jokerswild]

The real story of desertion by Bush was put out by none other than the Pentagon. He didn't show up in Alabama.He didn't show in Boston. He deserted. He's the only deserter ever appointed President.

[GWB]

This is how I am handling it on the campaign trail:

[b]Mr. Bush tried to steer clear of the flap. But at a question-and-answer session with voters in Portsmouth, Ohio, he called on a man who initially appeared to be laying the foundation for a query about the president's military service.
"You might not remember this, but in 1964, when you were a freshman at Yale, my roommates and I came over and knocked your door," the man began as Mr. Bush looked on with trepidation.
"We persuaded you to join the Young Republican Club," the man added.
"Oh, yeah," the president said with obvious relief. "As long as I never attended any meetings."
The audience laughed knowingly at this reference to accusations by Democrats that Mr. Bush did not show up for a physical and other commitments while serving in the Air National Guard.
"There's no telling, given politics, where you were about to take that story," he added with a chuckle.
source (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040910-104820-8576r.htm)

[GWB]

My original title for this thread was is error.

Based on his actions of the past 24 hours, it is clear that Dan Rather was not duped. Instead he has been an active participant in the effort to dupe the American people with a phony story.

Dan Rather pulls a Hoax on America.

[El Barto]

A previous Election Forgery: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13011-2004Sep10.html)

Political Shenanigans Have a Precedent
Saturday, September 11, 2004; Page A20


If the documents impugning President Bush's service in the Air National Guard turn out to be a forgery [front page, Sept. 10], it won't be the first time such mischief has figured in a presidential election. In fact, the current episode is eerily reminiscent of one that probably determined the outcome of the election of 1880.

That year Republican Rep. James A. Garfield was locked in a close race with a Democratic ticket led by Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock. The economy was in distress, and a contentious issue was whether the importation of low-paid labor from China was contributing to joblessness on the part of native-born Americans. Call it in-sourcing.

Two weeks before the election, an obscure New York City journal, Truth, published a letter purportedly from Garfield to one H.L. Morey, a New England industrialist. In the letter -- marked "Personal and Confidential" -- Garfield expressed the view that the importation of Chinese labor was appropriate, because "companys [sic] have the right to buy labor where they can get it cheapest."

The Morey letter caused an immediate sensation. No one knew where it had come from; the editor of Truth claimed to have found it on his desk. At Democratic headquarters, members of the National Committee examined the letter and pronounced it genuine. Garfield just as quickly denounced it as a forgery.

Handwriting experts were summoned and in a matter of days had concluded that the letter was a clumsy forgery. Two misspellings -- "companys" and "employes [sic]" -- tended to confirm their findings, as did the fact that the envelope bore a stamp rather than Garfield's hand frank. Finally, the Republicans were able to satisfy the country that no person named H.L. Morey had recently lived in Lynn, Mass.

By Election Day it was accepted that the Morey letter was a forgery. Even Democrats were embarrassed; a pro-Hancock paper, the New York Sun, editorialized that "if a party requires such infamous aids . . . [it] deserves to perish."

And perish it did. On Nov. 2, 1880, Garfield was elected president by a popular plurality of only 10,000 votes. Most people thought the Morey letter had made the difference.

JOHN M. TAYLOR

McLean

The writer is a historian whose books include a 1970 biography, "Garfield of Ohio."

[Senor Choppy]

Here's a quote from the daily kos: "This is most easily proven by looking at known-good documents in the Bush records, which indeed have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout."

I don't think the MS Word theories here fly. The document could've been produced back then by a typewriter marketed to government agencies (again, according to the daily kos), saying it's unlikely to have been used doesn't change the fact that it's possible and that kills the right's theories of it obviously being a forgery based on it looking like an MS Word doc.

I think if it is a forgery, the only way of proving it will be by showing factual inconsistencies, like when Staudt actually left the National Guard.

[Knockwurst]

Respectfully, I believe you miss the point. My original point was that all the facts aren't in and whether the documents are forgeries or not is irrelevant as to the original issue of whether W. served out his obligations in the Guard, if there are other documents indicating that he did not serve out his obligations, which there are. In any case, I think you and I both agree this whole brouhaha is irrelevant as to who should be the next President of the United States.

IMHO, this debate over whether these documents are forgeries ranks only slightly higher in value regarding who should be the next POTUS than the debate over whether Mattias Anderson is screaming "DAAAH" or "JAAA" that is raging in the WPT, etc. forum right now. We're debating political minutae here before even all the facts are in, despite some people's insistence that it is an established fact that the documents are forgeries. My original point was let's wait and see what the conclusions of the experts are before jumping up and claiming these documents are forgeries. Maybe while we're waiting we could even debate the important issues of Iraq, terrorism, the economy, taxes, etc.

[Utah]

I agree with almost everything you say here. What Bush did in the military is really irrelevant. Lets concede he probably did as little as possible in the Guard. If people want to base their judgement on that - so be it.

I also think that the forgery issue really doesnt have any true relevance on the race.

However, I think the forgery story is still a HUGE story for CBS.

The documents might very well be authentic. However, I still dont believe should have been shown by CBS as there is simply too much doubt about them. I believe the standard in news is that if their is some doubt to the credibility of the news then it shouldnt be reported. There is plenty of doubt here and CBS has not come close to defending the veracity of the documents - which should be very easy for them to do if the documents were vetted correctly in the first place.

btw - I think Mattias Anderson looks like a major ass on TV. While he might just be expressing his moments at the time - there is such a thing as class. To scream like that after you have busted a guy is poor form.

[Utah]

The daily Kos raised some good points. However, its not a complete defense by any means.

If I understand correctly, they have official douments with the superscript - but none with superscript, proportional spacing, and the Times font. That to me would lead evidence towards the docs. being fake.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you and I both agree this whole brouhaha is irrelevant as to who should be the next President of the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently leading Democrats like Harkin and McAuliffe don't think so among others.

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, this debate over whether these documents are forgeries ranks only slightly higher in value regarding who should be the next POTUS than the debate over whether Mattias Anderson is screaming "DAAAH" or "JAAA" that is raging in the WPT, etc. forum right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong on three levels. The that if forged documents can be traced directly to the Kerry campaign, it will have a huge impact on the election. Ditto if they originated from the Bush campaign.

The second level has to do with Utah's points about CBS being the story. It's a huge indictment of the media and a their supposed "unbiased" reporting.

The third level which is less important is that in a game of "political chess" you thwart the other guys moves more or less with your own moves. If the Democrats want to get into the dirt and roll around in it, the Republicans will get right on there down with them and vice versa.


[ QUOTE ]
We're debating political minutae here before even all the facts are in, despite some people's insistence that it is an established fact that the documents are forgeries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the information so far I don't think there's much doubt that they're forgeries. I'll assemble the pros and cons later in another post.


[ QUOTE ]
My original point was let's wait and see what the conclusions of the experts are before jumping up and claiming these documents are forgeries.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read a lot of experts being quoted saying that they are but again I'll compile a summary later. I'll compile the points that support the CBS position and the points that don't

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe while we're waiting we could even debate the important issues of Iraq, terrorism, the economy, taxes, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again tell it to the likes of Harkin and McAuliffe. Tell me a leading Republican that has blasted Kerry on his Vietnam service?

Let's have a separate debate in a separate thread about Kerry's ideas regarding the war in Iraq and the exit plan for Iraq. Quite honestly I don't have a clue as to what Kerry's proposals for Iraq entail. Maybe you could do that for other topics as well. I haven't read one post on this forum extolling the virtues of Kerry's ideas for the economy, health care, the war on terror, etc. I've tried to bring the subject up but there have basically been no takers. My perspective is that it's exclusively "anybody but Bush." My take is that's basically the Kerry campaign strategy as well ie he, Kerry, can win the election by just being the "anti Bush" so to speak. We'll see if it wins Kerry the election, right now it doesn't appear that way.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you and I both agree this whole brouhaha is irrelevant as to who should be the next President of the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently leading Democrats like Harkin and McAuliffe don't think so among others.

__________________________________________________ _____
While Harkin and McAuliffe are elbow deep in the mud, I think you're selling Rove et al. short in thinking they're not right there with them.

________________________________________

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, this debate over whether these documents are forgeries ranks only slightly higher in value regarding who should be the next POTUS than the debate over whether Mattias Anderson is screaming "DAAAH" or "JAAA" that is raging in the WPT, etc. forum right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong on three levels. The that if forged documents can be traced directly to the Kerry campaign, it will have a huge impact on the election. Ditto if they originated from the Bush campaign.

The second level has to do with Utah's points about CBS being the story. It's a huge indictment of the media and a their supposed "unbiased" reporting.

The third level which is less important is that in a game of "political chess" you thwart the other guys moves more or less with your own moves. If the Democrats want to get into the dirt and roll around in it, the Republicans will get right on there down with them and vice versa.

__________________________________________________ ______
As to level one, I thought this was obvious enough where I didn't have to add that caveat. As to level two, the bias or non bias of CBS has little to do with who should be the next POTUS. As for level three, again I think you're selling the GOP short in thinking they aren't already rolling in the mud with the Dems.

__________________________________________

[ QUOTE ]
We're debating political minutae here before even all the facts are in, despite some people's insistence that it is an established fact that the documents are forgeries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the information so far I don't think there's much doubt that they're forgeries. I'll assemble the pros and cons later in another post.

__________________________________________________ ___
We can take this up in your forthcoming post, but I hardly think the evidence is conclusive one way or the other at this point.

________________________________________
[ QUOTE ]
My original point was let's wait and see what the conclusions of the experts are before jumping up and claiming these documents are forgeries.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read a lot of experts being quoted saying that they are but again I'll compile a summary later. I'll compile the points that support the CBS position and the points that don't

_______________________
Looking forward to it.

_______________________
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe while we're waiting we could even debate the important issues of Iraq, terrorism, the economy, taxes, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again tell it to the likes of Harkin and McAuliffe. Tell me a leading Republican that has blasted Kerry on his Vietnam service?

Let's have a separate debate in a separate thread about Kerry's ideas regarding the war in Iraq and the exit plan for Iraq. Quite honestly I don't have a clue as to what Kerry's proposals for Iraq entail. Maybe you could do that for other topics as well. I haven't read one post on this forum extolling the virtues of Kerry's ideas for the economy, health care, the war on terror, etc. I've tried to bring the subject up but there have basically been no takers. My perspective is that it's exclusively "anybody but Bush." My take is that's basically the Kerry campaign strategy as well ie he, Kerry, can win the election by just being the "anti Bush" so to speak. We'll see if it wins Kerry the election, right now it doesn't appear that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

________________________________________________
As for leading GOP, who are blasting Kerry for his service,
I hope you aren't so naive to believe that Rove and co. have nothing to do with the SBVT campaign. And many GOP leaders as well as Rove have been on record as saying that Kerry's anti-war activities should be considered. My point is that both candidates have records that are less than thirty years old to consider.

I'm also part of the ABB crowd, who thinks that Kerry is an okay prospect for POTUS, but Bush's performance has been dismal. So, I'd like to take your challenge of debating who would be a better President for the next four years.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
While Harkin and McAuliffe are elbow deep in the mud, I think you're selling Rove et al. short in thinking they're not right there with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You complain about the publicity that an irrelevant issue receives. A prominent Democratic Senator, Harkin and the head of the DNC , McAuliffe promote the irrelevant issue you cite. The Bush campaign has come out and praised Kerry's service. Again show one instance where they haven't. It should be obvious where the problem lies.

[ QUOTE ]
As to level one, I thought this was obvious enough where I didn't have to add that caveat.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go again. You complain about the petty nature of the debate about the forgeries. I clearly show how it is not petty in that if the forgeries are shown to originate with the Kerry campaingn it will decide the election most likely. So what was obvious in what you wrote when you stated that debate basically has no value. Does it have value or doesn't it.

[ QUOTE ]
As to level two, the bias or non bias of CBS has little to do with who should be the next POTUS.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't really care much if a news organization that purports itself to be unbiased actually demonstrate a clear bias. I see the truth has little relevance to you.

[ QUOTE ]
As for level three, again I think you're selling the GOP short in thinking they aren't already rolling in the mud with the Dems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say they weren't? The Repulicans will counter dirty politics by the Democrats.

[ QUOTE ]
We can take this up in your forthcoming post, but I hardly think the evidence is conclusive one way or the other at this point

[/ QUOTE ]

Somehow I don't think anything would convince you. What would convince you?

[ QUOTE ]
As for leading GOP, who are blasting Kerry for his service,

[/ QUOTE ]

Again that's wrong. Name me one prominent GOP member or one member of the Bush campaign who's blasted Kerry for his service. You can't.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you aren't so naive to believe that Rove and co. have nothing to do with the SBVT campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's you proof? Tell me one thing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have stated that is wrong. They basically made a mockery of Kerry's statements regarding Cambodia, they basically made the Kerry campaign acknowledge that he didn't deserve his first Purple Heart. They pointed out that nobody gets a V medal for winning a Silver Star, they pointed out the cititation from Lehman regarding his Silver Star that Lehman states that he never wrote, and because of all this the Navy is investigating the authenticity of his medals now. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth also pointed out that Kerry has not released all of his military records and that there are over 100 pages in his file that are not released. I guess when a group points out legitimate problems with someones record it rises to the level of a smear.

[ QUOTE ]
And many GOP leaders as well as Rove have been on record as saying that Kerry's anti-war activities should be considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember Rove stating anything about Kerry's anti war activities. Anyway it's a totally different subject than Kerry's military service or Bush's military service for that matter. It's definitely fair game for criticism. I posted a link to a Meet the Press interview where Kerry stated that he actually commited war crimes. His anit war activities will get a lot more scrutiny this week so stay tuned /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that both candidates have records that are less than thirty years old to consider.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right so let's get into Kerry's record in the Senate /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also part of the ABB crowd,

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah I would have never guessed if you wouldn't have stated such.

[ QUOTE ]
who thinks that Kerry is an okay prospect for POTUS, but Bush's performance has been dismal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but you still can't tell me how Kerry is going to fight a war on terror, how Kerry is going to effect the economy to create new jobs, Kerry's exit plan for Iraq, how Kerry's going to balance the budget when the Washington Post and National Taxpayers Union stated his proposals including tax increases will INCREASE the budget deficit by $200 billion a year, why Kerry's proposals for health care are better than Bush's, how Kerry will fix the looming crises in Social Security spending, how Kerry will curb the growth of Medicare/Medicaid costs to name a few. You've made several posts stating that you believe the issues should be debated well I just listed a few, feel free to introduce you own if you feel any are more relevant. Somehow I don't think you will though.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this was true based on what I know of Karl Rove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually after I posted this I thought it about it some. Rove knows that Rather is a huge sucker for any anti Bush story he can break. Rove also knows that Rather will stonewall and assert the documents are authentic in the face of all evidence that they're not. Rove also knows that the focus on "Vietnam issues" has hurt Kerry. The only problem is that it's extremely risky since Bush does have a lead in the polls. It would be stroke of evil genious and I emphasize the word evil. But that made me think of someone else and that someone is spelled:

C L I N T O N

I know I've got too much time on my hands but I'll still let others elaborate.

[Cyrus]

..What is there to elaborate? No one can top that.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[GWB]

Here's a well thought out view of the whole case:

CBS falls for Kerry campaign's fake memo (http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn12.html)

[adios]

.......

[Duke]

Sexual Harassment: This has some pretty broad definitions, so I don't think it proper to classify all manner of it as evil. Maybe crass, but definitely not evil.

Sexual Predator: I don't think that this is necessarily evil either. A lot of people really go out of their way to have sex with other people at all costs, and that would be a predator, and in general this wouldn't be evil either. The word predator could be taken in ways that would make this individual a rapist, and I'll discuss that under rape.

Rape: Yes, this is evil. Full-blown rape isn't really possible to explain away as some benign human act.

~D

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Is Sexual Harassment, being a Sexual Predator, and Rape Evil?

[/ QUOTE ]

At least Clinton wasn't a war criminal in the style of Ghengis Khan, as a certain Massachusetts Senator has labeled many of his contemporaries.

(see, we Presidents sometimes stand up for each other, even when from a different party /images/graemlins/wink.gif)

[Utah]

I dont believe there is such a thing as evil. But if there was, Clinton would be the poster child.

I liked he when he came to office. However, he did so much to damage this country it is unbelievable.

btw - I think it is truly hilarious that the democrats are bashing Bush on his guard duty when they would elect Clinton in a second, even if he was a draft dodger (which irked me a little but I never really cared).

The scary thing - I bet the country would reelect Clinton and it would be a landslide.

[Cyrus]

"I dont believe there is such a thing as evil. But if there was, Clinton would be the poster child. He did so much to damage this country it is unbelievable."

What damage was that? The economy run like gangbusters. The country got tremendous respect, credibility and support abroad (eg compare attacking Yugoslavia with attacking Iraq!, the President got moving the proper (i.e. smart) policy against terrorism, he reached out among minorities, etc. If anything, his falures IMHO were that he delievered far, far less than he could (eg no electoral reform, no universal health care) because he cowered before the conservative onslaught instead of taking it on full tilt.

Adios thinks that it is a proof of evil when a man is sexualy harassing a woman! I think this is a wild exaggeration. If that's evil, what do you call the killing of children then?? I mean, Bill Clinton = a Chechen terrorist? We make a drive-by killing as "evil" as the Holocaust? Bush as a fascist?

All these claims are totally absurd, and somewhat insulting to those who have tasted true evil, e.g. Jewish survivors of their holocaust or fathers of the Russian murdered children.

"I think it is truly hilarious that the Democrats are bashing Bush on his [National] Guard duty when they would elect Clinton in a second, even if he was a draft dodger."

Please, please, pretty please try to understand: This is not about the Vietnam war! This is about integrity. (I know, I know. Looking for integrity among pols is like looking for virginity among whores. But this is the game.)

Clinton never was pro-Vietnam War and never run as someone "tough on America's enemies", someone who supported the "militaristic solutions" of all those Cold War era demagogues. If he had, his record of military (non-)servicw would instantly label him a hypocrite.

Bush has always in his life presented himself as a gung-ho anti-communist, fanatically pro-Vietnam War, pro-military, "tough on America's enemies", etc etc. His record of (non-)service makes him a blatant hypocrite.

That's all there is to it. Clear (finally) ?

[Cyrus]

Thanks for clearing up the smog somewhat.

(Although I'm not sure the muck in M's mind can be cleared up with anything less than a hundred thousand dead Americans in Iraq!...)

You brought up Rape and I agree that a rapist could probably be characterised as "evil" - to show the measure of wrongness in his act and to show how much we oppose it (that's why we use the term "evil"). However, Bill Clinton was not a rapist! Adios must be confusing that tall, white-haired President with a tall, black-haired Lakers guard.

They might look similar in the dark but not that much. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
But that made me think of someone else and that someone is spelled:

C L I N T O N

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about?

[Utah]

the President got moving the proper (i.e. smart) policy against terrorism

WTF - Again, I direct your attention to the attacks in washington and New York. And again, if you havent heard of them I suggest you do some research.

While you are at it, you might want to check out how terrorism absolutely flourished during the Clinton years.

For bonus material, check out the USS Cole, African embassy bombings, and Somalia. I bet you can find them all on Google.

Please, please, pretty please try to understand: This is not about the Vietnam war! This is about integrity. (I know, I know. Looking for integrity among pols is like looking for virginity among whores. But this is the game.)

Clinton never was pro-Vietnam War and never run as someone "tough on America's enemies", someone who supported the "militaristic solutions" of all those Cold War era demagogues. If he had, his record of military (non-)servicw would instantly label him a hypocrite.

Bush has always in his life presented himself as a gung-ho anti-communist, fanatically pro-Vietnam War, pro-military, "tough on America's enemies", etc etc. His record of (non-)service makes him a blatant hypocrite.

Okay, so dodging the draft is okay as long as you did it with integrity? Okay, for the sake of argument Ill agree to that.

Then, it doesnt matter if you fought or not as long as you did so with integrity? I think that flows from your agrument. Then, I am sure you would agree that attacking Kerry on these grounds even though he fought is clearly fair game?

[Mano]

If you label Clinton a draft dodger, you have no choice but put the same label on Cheney. You can't have it both ways.

[adios]

From the thread on who'll be the Democratic party nominee in 2003:

Hillary has enormous popularity in the Democratic Party's base.

Dick Morris; a former Clinton political consultant, TV commentator and prolific author; claims that Hillary defenitely has her sights set on the 2008 nomination. Furthermore he opined that the recent appointments of like Bergala to the Kerry campaign are move to lessen Kerry's chances of winning. The Clinton's according to Morris, don't want Kerry to win in 2008 for many reasons. Morris isn't the only one thinking this way. Therefore if Morris and the others are right, having these phoney documents blow up in Kerry's face is exactly what they want. Is Clinton a highly adept politician that is capable of planting phoney documents?

[Utah]

I dont know anything about Cheney's record. However, if he did the same thing I would agree that he is a draft dodger.

[Cyrus]

"Again, I direct your attention to the attacks in Washington and New York. Terrorism absolutely flourished during the Clinton years ... USS Cole, African embassy bombings, and Somalia."

These things did happen indeed on Clinton' watch. But it's what you do about them and how you prepare against such things happening again -- this is the acid test.

Clinton had a terrorist attack on US soil and made sure the guys who did that went to jail. They are in jail as we speak! You can visit them and being them a new copy of the Koran if you like!

Clinton increased many-fold the efficiency of the intelligence services, worked with all other western governments, had numerous clandestine operations going on (all this, subsequently, a matter of record - google away /images/graemlins/cool.gif), and had the executive order for the physical elimination (the euphemism too much for ya?) of Osama bin Laden et al.

Clinton asked Congress for a big increase of the budget of the American intelligence and law enforcement agencies and he also asked Congress for version of the PATRIOT act (without the dictatorial travesties) -- talk about prescience! Clinton had all those efforts rebuffed by the Republican-controlled Congress. The GOP representatives and senators were explicit in their criticism against Clinton, that he was "trying to create a dictatorship" (you should read again what Ashcroft was saying at the time /images/graemlins/cool.gif), that he was "diverting attention from the Lewinsky affair" (!), that he was "focusing on the wrong direction" (because the real threat came from elsewhere, according to the GOP, namely those "renegade nations", eg Iraq...). You should have seen the intense lobbying of the Bushes whenever the name of Saudi Arabia came up!

Yes, Clinton was the smart guy in all this. Pity the next administration abandoned all his plans and work and focused on ..Saddam.

"Okay, so dodging the draft is okay as long as you did it with integrity? Then, it doesn’t matter if you fought or not as long as you did so with integrity? Then, I am sure you would agree that attacking Kerry on these grounds even though he fought is clearly fair game?"

Even as crudely as you put it, yes, it is fair to attack Kerry on the grounds that he opposed the Vietnam War, yes. We could have a replay of the 60s and the 70s. (I'd love that!) And, yes, it would be fair to attack a draft dodger on the grounds that draft dodging is wrong. No, you could not attack a draft dodger for being a hypocrite – unless he runs on a pro-war platform.

But it is not fair to attack John Kerry on the grounds that he did not serve his country when his country called him to serve, because John Kerry did serve. John McCain is rightly disgusted with the GOP smear tactics on that issue. What is blatantly unfair (more like hypocrisy) is George W Bush running away from Vietnam and running on a pro-Vietnam War platform.

--Cyrus

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, Clinton was the smart guy in all this. Pity the next administration abandoned all his plans and work and focused on ..Saddam

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets simplify shall we. Clinton had 8 years in office during which he enacted his terrorism plan. The results show that it simply didnt work. If it had 9/11 would not have happened and Al Qaeda would not have flourished. To accept Clinton as having done a good job here is to say that these things were unstoppable. You need to take a results oreinted look here. It doesnt matter how much he engaged countries, how many terrorists he locked up, or how much spending increased. The attack happened and that is prima facia evidence that his approach didnt work.

To say Clinton had a plan that the next administration should follow is retarded. He had 8 years in office to enact a plan. Hell, we shouldnt allow Bush to say he has an economic plan for the next 4 years when he has already been in office to enact that plan. Why would we let Clinton get away with the same logic?

But it's what you do about them and how you prepare against such things happening again -- this is the acid test.

Yes. We have Bush's answer whether we like it or not. Whats Kerry's answer?

Even as crudely as you put it, yes, it is fair to attack Kerry on the grounds that he opposed the Vietnam War

Well put. You found a way to attack me as you agreed with me. LOL

But it is not fair to attack John Kerry on the grounds that he did not serve his country when his country called him to serve, because John Kerry did serve.

I dont think anyone is saying he didnt serve are they? They are saying he lied about his service. I wouldnt have a big issue with anything he did if he hadnt screamed "Look at my war record!!". That made it fair game. If he hadnt done that I would have had a problem with the attacks on it.

Also, if someone serves in war does that give them a free pass on lying? Can their claim to medals never be challenged?

[nicky g]

I guess if we can blame the terrorist incidents that happened under Bush II on Clinton, we can blame those that happened under Clinton on Reagan and Bush I? I mean they had twelve years to do something about it! And unlike Clinton, they were actually aiding some of the people involved and alleged to be involved.

[MMMMMM]

I think in a way it really all started under Carter when he allowed the Iranians to hold hundreds of US citizens hostage for over a year. This abject display of weakness emboldened the terrorist mindset for future attacks. Clinton's failed helicopter mission etc. further reinforced the notion that we were a paper tiger.

[nicky g]

I think we should blame native americans for not being tough enough on terrorising settlers in the seventeenth century.

[elwoodblues]

Suddenly, one's Vietnam era record is becoming more and more important...

[Utah]

Its not a question of Bashing really. Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 (pre 9/11) were all neglegent when it came to terrorism.

However, the bigger issue is that the approach Clinton used simply did not work in fighting terrorism.

[nicky g]

"However, the bigger issue is that the approach Clinton used simply did not work in fighting terrorism."

OK. I was mostly kidding around. But I think that should read the approach everyone prior to 9/11 (and post 9/11 IMO, but that's another matter) used, rather than just Clinton, and including Bush II.

[elwoodblues]

Why are you holding Clinton to a higher standard than Bush? You first suggest than Bush, Clinton, and Bush were all negligent, but then say "the bigger issue is that the approacho Clinton used simply did not work..."

Nobody knows what Clinton would have done in a post-9/11 world. Everybody knows what he and both his predecessor and successor did in a pre-9/11 world and they all did pretty much the same thing.

[nicky g]

"Everybody knows what he and both his predecessor and successor did in a pre-9/11 world and they all did pretty much the same thing. "

According to people like CLarke, Clinton was much more focused on terrorism than Bush was prior to 9/11.

[Utah]

I am not holding Clinton to a higher standard. Bush 1 was no better and Bush 2 was just as bad prior to 9/11.

I am simply saying that Clintons PLAN did not work. If it had, 9/11 would not have happened. This doesnt mean that Bush 1 or Bush 2 had a better pre 9/11 plan. However, people (e.g. Cyrus) or still defending the Clinton plan and I am pointing out that that plan didnt work.