Authenticity of Bush Guard memos questioned
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 06:30
VIEWED: 9503
PAGE 4 of 8
After reading the following article I'm convinced that these documents are forgeries. This article was recently posted to the on-line version of the Dallas Morning News. Unlike the Washington Post (who appear to have not done any original research of import, instead culling together a bunch of work already done by people on-line) the Dallas Morning News appears to have actually engaged in journalism - finding Killian's secretary and getting her take on the documents in question. I'm reprinting the article in its entirety because otherwise you have to register to see the page:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/0915
04dnpolnatguard.1185eb4ae.html
Quote:
From the Dallas Morning News
Former secretary says she didn't type memos
10:51 PM CDT on Tuesday, September 14, 2004
By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News
HOUSTON – The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.
Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1957 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.
“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”
Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”
“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said.
But, she said, telltale signs of forgery abounded in the four memos, which contained the supposed writings of her ex-boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.
She said the typeface on the documents did not match either of the two typewriters that she used during her time at the Guard. She identified those machines as a mechanical Olympia, which was replaced by an IBM Selectric in the early 1970s.
She spoke fondly of the Olympia machine, which she said had a key with the “th” superscript character that was the focus of much debate in the CBS memos. Experts have said that the Selectric, and mechanical typewriters such as the Olympia, could not produce proportional spacing, found in the disputed documents.
CBS officials have defended their report. They have declined to say who provided 60 Minutes with the documents, other than that it was an “unimpeachable source” – or exactly where they came from, other than Lt. Col. Killian’s “personal file.”
The memos, if real, would show that as a pilot, Mr. Bush defied a direct order to obtain a flight physical, enjoyed the benefit of pressure from high officials to “sugar coat” his record, and was grounded for failing to meet military performance standards.
Mrs. Knox said she did all of Lt. Col. Killian’s typing, including memos for a personal “cover his back” file he kept in a locked drawer of his desk.
She said she did not recall typing the memos reported by CBS News, though she said they accurately reflect the viewpoints of Lt. Col. Killian and documents that would have been in the personal file. Also, she could not say whether the CBS documents corresponded memo for memo with that file.
“The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones,” she said.
She said that the culture of the time was that men didn’t type office-related documents, and she expressed doubt that Lt. Col. Killian would have typed the memos. She said she would typically type his memos from his handwritten notes, which she would then destroy.
Mrs. Knox, who left the Guard before Lt. Col. Killian died, said she was not sure of the disposition of his personal files when he died while still serving at Ellington. But, she said, it would have been logical that a master sergeant who wNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To make this more explicit-
When Valerie Plame was "outed", where was the hue and cry about the danger that this poses to active field officers? The precedent that this sets when the Adminsitration outs an officer (who is protecting our security) for political reasons? The complicity of the press in doing something that is CLEARLY beyond the law? The right wing has to ask themselves where were they before?
They were busy blaming the husband of the victim. Instead of focusing on the treasonous act that was committed by the Admnistration, they did their best to divert attention to something that was entirely unrelated- Joe Wilson's credibility.
I happened to have heard an interview with an anonymous CIA officers shortly afterwards, and his voice was literally shaking. This was NOT- repeat NOT- inconsequential to people who put their lives on the line protecting OUR SECURITY.
What about the focus in Iraq at the beginning of the Administration, to the exclusion of terrorism? The lies (or very very serious mistakes in judgement) about WMD? Hiding the true costs of the drug plan from Congress ahead of the vote? Giving more money to the wealthy? Why is the right wing still waiting for "proof" that Bush is a terrible President?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I completely agree with you Signym. One of the most jaw dropping parts of this whole story is Robert Novak calling for CBS to release their sources (Jon Stewart came late to this theme last night but had a pretty good section on it). I personally happen to believe that Novak should not be required to reveal his source. Sure he was a slime to out a CIA agent. But journalistic sources should be protected. But it's also the height of hypocrisy for him to now call out CBS about their sources.
editted to add: There are some people out there, including members of my own family, who believe in this administration with an almost faith-based zeal.
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Boy, I didn't hear about THAT one. Have they no shame? Oh wait, I think I already answered that one about being unembarassable! 
I was going to add to my post that if someone calls for CBS to reveal their sources, I was just going to pop back with "Make Novak reveal his." I wish there was a :sheesh: emoticon!
Just out of curiosity, what does your family see in Bush? 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To make this more explicit-
When Valerie Plame was "outed", where was the hue and cry about the danger that this poses to active field officers? The precedent that this sets when the Adminsitration outs an officer (who is protecting our security) for political reasons? The complicity of the press in doing something that is CLEARLY beyond the law? The right wing has to ask themselves where were they before?
I wondered about this as well. Where was the media that's checking every comma of 30 year old records and letting us know that Cheney uses mustard instead of (Heinz) catsup on his burgers when this much more serious violation occurred? I suspect the media is more interested in the current "forgery/not forgery" issue because they don't have to go after a reporter that won't reveal sources of true information, but instead one who just got fooled. The fact that it's part of the campaign media frenzy might have something to do with it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I completely agree with you Signym. One of the most jaw dropping parts of this whole story is Robert Novak calling for CBS to release their sources (Jon Stewart came late to this theme last night but had a pretty good section on it). I personally happen to believe that Novak should not be required to reveal his source. Sure he was a slime to out a CIA agent. But journalistic sources should be protected. ...
Wait...
This is an act of TREASON. Novak should be taken out and shot. The White House should be taken down for it.
But no... Americans don't care if thier country is run by liars, fascists, and murderers. On the flip side, the Washington Post and CNN doesn't care that they employ a traitor who endangered the life of a CIA agent and effectively ending that agents career while jeopordizing the security of the USA.
The issue is NOT journalistic sources. No one is sueing Novak or even threatening his job. Framing this as such is just a strawman arguement and, frankly, bullshit.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quick note to self: make sure that, if I'm going to post right before I go to bed, I put more detail in the posts.
There's multiple issues going on here. One of them is the issue of secrecy in government. Another is the issue of the responsibility of those who have access to classified material. A third issue is journalistic integrity. And there are probably more that should be unpacked.
Democracy fails when those in power are allowed to operate in complete secrecy. People like "Deep Throat" need to feel that they can leak information to journalists and their identities will remain unknown. If a journalist is compelled to give up their sources then the leaks dry up. This is separate from the nature of the information being leaked.
It is the responsibility of the person who is engaging in the leak to decide whether or not the information being leaked compromises the security of this country. If you are going to leak information then you should go through a cost/benefit analysis to determine if the good of the country is best served by this information becoming public (good of the country as a whole, NOT good of the administration). I tend to think that one of the stupidest phrases a person can use when talking to a journalist is "off the record." You should always assume that every single little thing you tell a journalist is fair game. The administration official who leaked this information was NOT motivated because they felt that this was a secret that was harmful to the people of this country. They WERE motivated by a desire to hurt a public critic of the administration. In fact, the actions of this administration official HURT the security of this country. Those actions ARE treasonous.
Journalists should always remember who it is they work for: the people. Journalistic integrity requires that you question the motives of those providing you with leaked information. Robert Novak was NOT working for the best interests of the people when he published this leaked information. He WAS facilitating the attack on Joe Wilson and, in so doing, participating in a treasonous action. But Novak did not have access to this classified information.
Now, there's a huge problem with Robert Novak. The guy is a sleaze. He's clearly an attack dog for this particular administration. He was not chosen at random for this particular leak. Of the four journalists originally contacted with the information about Plame's status as a CIA agent he was the only one to run with it. He had to know that the only reason this information was being leaked was to hurt Joe Wilson. He had to know that the administration was willing to burn an asset to take vengeance on someone who was publicly critical of the party line. He has been party to other attacks by this administration against those who come forward and are publicly critical against the party line. To sum it up, he's an example of someone who probably shouldn't be a journalist. He has shown that he has forgotten that he works for the people of this country, not for the administration. He has shown that he does not have journalistic integrity.
And I still think he has the right to protect his source. Even the most vile, evil, unlovable, nasty cretin has rights. Miranda (of the Miranda rights) was a huge sleaze. The problem here is that it's very hard to stick up for someone who is clearly violating the spirit of everything, but we still need to follow the letter of the law. We have to separate out the character of the person from their rights.
Should Robert Novak still be a journalist? In my opinion, no. But until the day he is not, he should be protected from having to reveal his source. It's okay to call for him to reveal his sources until we're blue in the face. But he has the right to say no.
This episode is a particularly nasty, but still representative, example of how this administration punishes those who are, in their perception, against them. This administration is notoriously close mouthed. Journalists who write anything remo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^ Wow. I mean wow. That's got to be the most eloquent post I've read here.
I'd shave my beard for you. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM
Just out of curiosity, what does your family see in Bush?
There are a couple who are single issue voters - members of the pro-life movement - who base their support solely on where a candidate stands on the topic of abortion. There are a few others who think of politics in terms of sports teams. The attacks on Bill Clinton really resonated with them and that's when they first started identifying with the Republican party. They get all of their information from Rush Limbaugh and Fox news. They are finally starting to realize that this administration hasn't done a good job running the country. But they'll probably still vote for Bush because they always root for their team to win, even if the team is having a losing season.
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks Ghoulman! There must have been something in the coffee this morning .
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME