Authenticity of Bush Guard memos questioned
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 06:30
VIEWED: 9503
PAGE 3 of 8
This looks like a document that was updated throughout Bush's time in the ANG. I just figured that different typewriters were used depending on who was doing the updating. I'll look for a link from a more reliable source for the same document.
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I noticed CNN has dropped the proportional font part of the argument. Probably due to the fact that IBM typewriters have had that feature since 1941. Here's an advertisement from 1954 touting that particular feature (I strung out the link so the picture wouldn't load):
http:// www.etypewriters.com/ 1954-b-2.JPG
The second part of the argument is that the presence of the superscript means this was done on a word processor instead of a typewriter. Here's a link to one of the earlier documents released by the Bush administration from the President's files. Note that there is a superscript on the second typed line (once again, stringing out the link):
http://users.cis.net/ coldfeet/ doc10.gif
So if the presence of a superscript in a typed document from the early 1970s means that document is forged, then Bush's file has other forgeries.
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
Excellent research! I can see that the document released by the White House is a different font than the CBS docs, but reduced size superscript in the '70s is now verified. Wish I could find a site that captures typewriter samples to do more comparison. Seems there should be one out there.
Quote:
And this gets to the more interesting part of this episode: who would forge documents and for what reason? There are two reasons to forge these documents: to have them taken seriously or to have them discovered as forgeries.
This is why I'd be interested in finding out who provided them to CBS.
Quote:
For instance, the White House has said at least once before that they've released all documents related to Bush's service. But just last week, after a lengthy FOIA lawsuit from the AP, some additional records were released. That's pretty serious to me, the White House just straight up lied until they were compelled legally.
Just off the top of my head, two reasons the White House didn't release them; they were in Kilian's personal files, not military records anyone had access to, or they are in fact forgeries. Might be more.
You know, I spent a year in Vietnam back in '71-72. Maybe I should do a FOIA request for my records and see if I was really there.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually I was referring to this article in regards to recently released documents, not the CBS ones (this was dated September 7th):
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040907/D84V4DK80.html
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush was ranked in the middle of his Air National Guard class and flew more than 336 hours in a fighter jet before letting his pilot status lapse and missing a key readiness drill, according to his flight records belatedly uncovered Tuesday under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Pentagon and Bush's campaign have claimed for months that all records detailing his fighter pilot career have been made public, but defense officials said they found two dozen new records detailing his training and flight logs after The Associated Press filed a lawsuit and crafted new requests under the public records law.
The four pdfs released by CBS have a lot more things that could lead one to think they were forgeries. I think it's safe to say that they COULD have been produced at that time on a typewriter. But were they? Killian's signature is different on the two signed documents. I'm not a handwriting expert so I can't say anything about this. Where's the letterhead? Was this standard procedure to not use letterhead for memos? Where were these documents? If Killian's son didn't know about them and Killian has been dead for quite some time where were they? (partial thanks to Kevin Drum over at Political Animal for these and other questions).
So I completely agree with you that CBS needs to shine some light on the history of these documents and how they determined they were genuine.
*editted to add: I found the links in a comments thread on this topic on another board. All I did was do some digging around the sites themselves to verify that the pictures had been around long enough to be unrelated to the current debate. On a side note, since it sounds like you might have access to typewriters used during the time period in question, you might be interested in this guy's offer: http://defeatjohnjohn.com/2004/09/10000-question.htm
I have no idea if this is a legit offer. But $10k is nothing to sneeze at.
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn
The only problem with that theory, is that all the other lines where the same text (111th) comes up DO NOT have the superscript. I'm thinking the image has been doctored, to further someones argument. PS thanks for the link.
This document was originally posted on the web in 2002. It was a scan of a document that was part of a bundle received through an FOIA request that happened back in 2000:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/bush/090300_Heldt/090300_heldt.html
If it was doctored, it was doctored back then since the image hasn't changed since then:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ doc10.gif
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What you'll find is that the memos will be authenticated as much as any multiply-copied document can be, and the story will sink out of sight with no apologies and no retractions... along with "Nuclear Weapons Found in Iraq!" and "John Kerry shoots self to get a medal!" and other right-wing idiocies.
It's too bad the people who keep spewing this crap don't ever get embarassed about being so wrong so often.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bush is taking lessons from Hitler ... and Bill Gates. Bill Gates of FUD - fear, uncertainty, and doubt. FUD works.
To get Bush's message, you'd have to take the u-soft FUD pitch and add greed and hate.
Bush's campaign panders to those unclean things. It's not fact-based.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's too bad the people who keep spewing this crap don't ever get embarassed about being so wrong so often.
Yep. How embarrassing for the Post.
Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers
By Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A08
The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.
"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.
Matley's comments came amid growing evidence challenging the authenticity of the documents aired Wednesday on CBS's "60 Minutes." The program was part of an investigation asserting that Bush benefited from political favoritism in getting out of commitments to the Texas Air National Guard. On last night's "CBS Evening News," anchor Dan Rather said again that the network "believes the documents are authentic."
A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated documents on Bush's National Guard service reveals dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from conflicting military terminology to different word-processing techniques.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html
And according to their media column, the Post isn't the only one who'll be embarrassed. Click on some of the links to other outlets in the column titled "Tick, Tick, Tick" here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What he said wsa that because the memos had been copied so many times it would have been difficult to authenticate the document. However, he DID say that he looked at the initials and signatures and found that they were consistent with known exemplars of Killian's signature.
As far as the specific criticisms (superscripted "th", porportional font) many have been disproven. For example, if the document was produced by Microsoft Word, why wouldn't the "th" show up the same in all parts of the memos? Ultimately, it rests on the credibility of the source. I'll wait to see how this shakes out.
Funny, tho- the right wingers will move heaven and earth to put Dan Rather under the gun, but when it comes to treason (revealing an undercover CIA officer's name)... HEY, NO PROBLEM! Robert Novak gets a free ride!
Well, I never expected rationality (as in proportionality) from the right wing, so I'm not disappointed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Funny, tho- the right wingers will move heaven and earth to put Dan Rather under the gun, but when it comes to treason (revealing an undercover CIA officer's name)... HEY, NO PROBLEM! Robert Novak gets a free ride!
Well, I never expected rationality (as in proportionality) from the right wing, so I'm not disappointed.
Did you even notice the article I cited was from the Washington Post? You consider The Washington Post right-wing? Katherine Graham must be spinning in her grave. Oh. That's right. I forgot. Anyone who doesn't agree 100% with your prejudices is right-wing.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME