THESE PAGES MAKE USE OF JAVASCRIPT.
FUNCTIONALITY WILL BE LOST IF JAVASCRIPT IS SWITCHED OFF.
 

Website : This Page

Journal


 

Dan Rather

Rather and crew are bound and determined not to admit fault in this.
 
Yesterday, in reply to the notion that the documents used to slam President Bush's history in the Texas Air National Guard in the early 1970s, just as Vietnam was winding down and quickly being 'Vietnamized', were themselves third-rate forgeries, Rather was quick to say, perhaps much as Nixon once spoke of 'stonewalling':
Source: powerlineblog (seen FR)
Headline: Rather Puts Neck on Chopping Block
Date: Posted on 09/10/2004 10:23:26 AM PDT by watsonfellow
LINK
 
A half hour ago, Dan Rather went on CNN and said that he knows the Jerry Killian documents to be authentic, and knows that they are not forgeries. Therefore, he said, there will be no retraction, no correction, and -- apparently -- no investigation. The text of the interview is not yet available on CNN's site, but we'll link to it when it becomes available.
In the same vein, one could read the following in my slightly case-corrected version of that found on the Drudge Report:
Source: Drudge Report
Date: Fri Sep 10 2004 19:03:11 ET
LINK
 
The biggest challenges to the authenticity of the documents featured in the 60 MINUTES segment on President Bush's Texas National Guard service are answered in a report to be broadcast on the CBS EVENING NEWS tonight (6:30-7:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
 
. . .
 
A transcript is attached:
 
BUSH DOCUMENTS
 
EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER
 
9-10-04
 
Rather Lead In: There were attacks today on the CBS News "60 Minutes" report this week raising new questions about President Bush's Vietnam-era time in the Texas Air National Guard. The questions raised by our report include:
 
. . .
 
Today, on the internet and elsewhere, some people -- including many who are partisan political operatives -- concentrated not on the key questions the overall story raised but on the documents that were part of the support of the story.
 
They alleged the documents are FAKE.
 
Rather: Many of those raising questions about the CBS documents have focused on something called superscript... a key that automatically types a raised "th". Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 70s. but some models did. ... In fact, other Bush military records already officially released by the Whitehouse itself show the same superscript.
 
. . .
 
Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman.... which they claim was not available in the 1970s.
 
But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style. ... says it has been availabe since 1931.
 
Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS news.
 
He says he believes they are real ... but is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents. ... because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. ... and the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded. ... and are far removed from the documents CBS started with which were also photocopies.
 
Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley did this interview with us prior to the 60 minutes broadcast.
 
He looked at the documents and the signatures of Colonel Jerry Killian. ... comparing known documents with the Colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.
 
Matley: "We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not. I have no problem identifying them.
 
I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes. This is the same person."
 
Rather: Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence ... We talked to him again today by satellite.
 
Matley: "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his ... then we can conclude they are his signatures."
 
Rather: "Are you surprised that questions come about these. We're not, but I was wondering if you're surprised."
 
Matley: "I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other and I knew that potentially it was far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me. And I knew that. But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out to seek the truth and take what comes from it."
 
Rather: Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Col. Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. ... and paper work ... like these documents ... was his specialty. He is standing by his judgement that the documents are real.
 
Rather: "When you read through these documents, is there any doubt in your mind that these are genuine?"
 
Strong: "Well, they are compatible with the way business was done at that time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, what were the situation or what were the people involved."
 
Rather: Strong says the highly charged political atmosphere of the guard at the time ... was perfectly represented in the new documents.
 
Strong: "It verged on outright corruption in terms of the favors that were done, the power that was traded. and it was unconscionable. From a moral and ethical standpoint. It was unconscionable."
 
Rather: It is the information in the new documents that is most compelling for people familiar with President Bush's record in the National Guard. Author Jim Moore has written two books on the subject.
 
Rather: "You've studied President Bush's records for 10 years. ... Are these documents consistent with the record as you know it?"
 
Moore: "They are absolutely consistent with the records as I know it."
 
Rather: "Put it in context and perspective for us ... the story and what we call the counterattack on the story. Where are we right now?
 
Moore "I think what has happened is some incriminating documents have come out. The Whitehouse, you should remember, has not discredited the documents. They're relying on the blogosphere and other people to do that. because the Whitehouse probably knows these documents are in fact real."
 
Rather tag: the "60 minutes" report was based not solely on the recovered documents .. but on a preponderance of evidence .. including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources .. and interviews with former officials of the Texas National Guard. If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it.
 
So far, there is none.
In other words - so there. And the "relying on the blogosphere" crack probably deserves its own article, maybe tomorrow. All fear the blogosphere, something like that.
 
So, who are these guys, Matley, Strong and Moore? Matley, apparently, is a handwriting expert. He somehow signed off on one signature, for what reasons no one can guess after seeing the comparison. He didn't verify the document itself. Moore is an anti-Bush author. They mentioned his two books. But he is a zealous partisan who might say whatever he thought was required to defeat the Bush Campaign.
 

 

Robert Strong

Strong may not necessarily be another Bush-bashing Democrat whose apparently vague replies were enough to qualify by CBS own 'journalistic standards' as some sort of positive verification. Rather - no pun intended - he may simply have been asked one set of questions, and those were represented by CBS as having been something else, similar to the case of Matley who checked one signature and was reported to have signed off on all six memos.
Source: Powerline Blog
Date/Time: Posted by The Big Trunk [Scott Johnson] at 08:46 AM, 11 SEP
 
Yesterday we tried to track down Dan Rather's source Robert Strong. Several readers have written to note that we pointed to the wrong Strong. At Just One Minute Tom Maguire notes (together with much else) that the New York Times located the right Robert Strong:
The Times delivers another smack to CBS from their "expert", Robert W. Strong. Having established that the Selectric typewriter may be able to produce these documents, we get this:
 
Robert W. Strong, 62, was a staff sergeant in the adjutant general's office of the Texas Air National Guard at Camp Mabry at Austin in 1968, when Mr. Bush enlisted. Mr. Strong said in an interview Friday he was quite sure that he and others used Selectrics in the adjutant general's office. He added that he was not sure the typewriters and devices were also in the 147th Combat Support Squadron at the Ellington base in Houston, home of the 111th squadron.
 
"I'm skeptical that Killian was working on that," Mr. Strong said.
 
Mr. Strong was a crucial source for CBS News, insisting that the sentiment expressed in the memos were consistent with "the man that I remember Jerry Killian being."

 

 

Bobby Hodges

The name Bobby Hodges appears on various of the verified Bush documents. Apparently CBS called him on the story, and then proclaimed that he had verified the authenticity of the memos. But hold on a minute:
Source: Powerline Blog (presumeably from ABC online's, The Note)
Date/Time: Posted by The Big Trunk at 07:37 AM, 11 SEP
 
The Times story also reports that one of CBS's principal sources for 60 Minutes -- retired Major General Bobby Hodges -- now believes that the memos are fake.
 
Thanks to the many readers who directed us to this preview of the Hodges story that ABC provided yesterday:
 
HODGES SAID HE WAS MISLED BY CBS: Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."
 
Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud."

 

 

The AP

The Associated Press, known as the Always Partisan (AP), decided to leap to the defense of CBS:
Source: AP [as seen FR]
Headline: U.S. Servicemen React to Bush Guard Memos (spreading the lie) [on FR]
Author: "Associated Press writers Russ Bynum in Savannah, Ga., David Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., and Michael Gormley in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report"
Date: Posted on 09/11/2004 11:12:23 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife [on FR]
LINK
 
Frank Jones says he's angry about newly revealed memos that indicate President Bush got preferential treatment in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam war, but he's not surprised by favoritism in the Guard.
 
Jones, a Republican from Troy, N.Y., served in Vietnam in 1970 and 1971 before doing 16 years in the Guard himself. As the presidential election nears, Jones says controversy over both candidates' military records and the mounting death toll in Iraq are important issues.
 
. . .
 
Allegations of suspect conduct during the Vietnam war also have been leveled at John Kerry, who won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star in Vietnam.
 
A group sponsoring television ads challenging his wartime record contends Kerry's own gunfire caused the wound that brought his first Purple Heart. Navy records and other veterans do not support the charge.
 
Ahmad Majied of Albany says the latest allegations about Bush's military record are more troubling to him than allegations about service honors leveled at Democratic challenger Kerry.
 
Majied, a Democrat from Albany who served 30 years in the Navy, including five years as a SEAL in Vietnam, said the memos support his belief that Bush was a "playboy" during his service years.
 
"He had enough money to get what he wanted," Majied said. "I think his main concern was not to go to Southeast Asia. I bet he never dreamed it would come back to haunt him."
 
. . .

 

 

Ahmad Majied

So - Ahmad Majied? Navy SEAL? First, a reminder about them, and about that:
Source: The Free Republic
Thread: U.S. Servicemen React to Bush Guard Memos (spreading the lie)
Date: 82 posted on 09/11/2004 6:37:05 PM PDT by astounded
LINK
 
I know the SEALs take particular umbrage at people who weren't SEALs claiming to have been.
There was this suspicion, to begin with:
Source: The Free Republic
Thread: U.S. Servicemen React to Bush Guard Memos (spreading the lie)
Date: 82 posted on 09/11/2004 6:37:05 PM PDT by astounded
LINK
 
I may be off base, but I am not aware of any 5-tour SEALs in RVN. I could be wrong, but I've not heard of any. Two and maybe three tours, but 5?
And it was followed by this bit of news:
Source: The Free Republic
Thread: U.S. Servicemen React to Bush Guard Memos (spreading the lie)
Date: 94 posted on 09/12/2004 5:07:26 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
LINK
 
Unless he has undertaken the unlikely action of a full legal name change since his claimed service with the SEAL Teams, I can state conclusively that the man NEVER completed SEAL training, and thus he is not now, nor was he ever a Navy SEAL. While there are other training steps that must be completed on the path to becoming a SEAL, BUD/S training is the first and most vital, and that training course is totally unclassified. Without having first completed BUD/S training, a man cannot go on to become a SEAL. There are definitely secret SEAL missions, but despite anything the man might have said, there are NO secret SEALs.
Turns out, Dan Rather wasn't even a Marine:
Source: The Free Republic
Thread: U.S. Servicemen React to Bush Guard Memos (spreading the lie)
Date: 71 posted on 09/11/2004 2:04:35 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
LINK
 
Rather was discharged as medically unfit from Marine Corps recruit training in May of 1954; he suffered from rheumatic fever as a child which damaged his heart therefore he couldn't physically handle the rigors of boot camp. A fact which makes one wonder how he was medically fit enough to serve in the Army Reserve as a college student during the Korean War. Student deferments did not exist thus college pukes could be drafted. Rather joined the reserve so he wouldn't get drafted, hoping his reserve unit wouldn't get activated and sent to Korea. Rather never became a Marine. Anyone, especially Rather, who claims that he served in the Corps is full of s***. Read all about it in the book "Stolen Valor".

 

 

The Boston Globe

The INDC Journal ran a story concerning a Dr. Bouffard. They'd called around and found him as a likely expert to look over the CBS memos. He thought they were frauds. But The Boston Globe got ahold of him and reported otherwise. And the record needed to be set straight:
Source: INDC Journal
Headline: HOT UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard Speaks About Boston Globe!
Date: September 11, 2004
LINK
 
I just interviewed Dr. Bouffard again, and he's angry that the Globe has misrepresented him. He's been getting hate mail and nasty phone calls since last night's story was posted, and he wants me to correct the record. He did not change his mind, and he and his colleagues are becoming more certain that these documents are forgeries.
 
Instead of providing my analysis of our conversation, I'm largely going to transcribe his unaltered quotes (please note that he's a rather colorful, engaging older gentleman):
 
(I'm dynamically updating as I transcribe quotes, so keep refreshing)
 
"What the Boston Globe did now sort of pisses me off, because now I have people calling me and e-mailing me, and calling me names, saying that I changed my mind. I did not change my mind at all!"
 
"I would appreciate it if you could do whatever it takes to clear this up, through your internet site, or whatever."
 
"All I'd done is say, 'Hey I want to look into it.' Please correct that damn impression!"
 
"What I said to them was, I got new information about possible Selectric fonts and (Air Force) documents that indicated a Selectric machine could have been available, and I needed to do more analysis and consider it."
 
"But the more information we get and the more my colleagues look at this, we're more convinced that there are significant differences between the type of the (IBM) Composer that was available and the questionable document."
 
. . .
 
"More things were looked into; more things about IBM options. Even if you bought special (superscripting) keys, it's not right. There are all kinds of things that say that this is not a typewriter."
 
"Any form of kerning may be critical (he hasn't rendered a definitive verdict if there is a form of kerning yet). If there is any type of kerning, it obviously isn't a typewriter or it's definitely a typeset document."
 
. . .
 
I provide his words, you decide ... but I have come to the definitive conclusion that the Boston Globe misrepresented their main source's testimony to stunningly misleading effect.