I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Okay, this is gettin' stupid.
does the Texas Air National Guard have anybody in Iraq. And does the office of the presidency override his commitment to being sent to Iraq?
Okay, this has BEEN stupid.
Let's stop talking about the actual memos and talk about the content.
So far the record supports the underlying charges. Basically, chimpy is a lying PUSSY who got grounded.
When they can prove to me he didn't get grounded then I'll be happy to discuss forgeries.
forward this to everyone you know. I didn't make it, but it's fun. Besides, it has a kick ass A-team soundtrack.
You mean reproductions of originals that had bogus dates, bogus addresses, bogus military titles, bogus military terminology, mentioned actors who were retired, etc?
ha ha ha ha ha
The Hitler diaries were fakes (in fact, bad fakes). Hitler's still Hitler.
The Dallas Morning news is a registration required but try kos@dailykos.com password dailykos
So bush owes us service. can he do it right now?
What color is the sky in your world, hat, and from orafice did you pull all that nonsense out of?
And while I'm asking you questions, you gutless yellow toad, tell us all just who you're voting for and why. Prove to the world you actually got something to stand on other than (supposed) political one-upsmanship.
You can use small words if you like.
So, the TANG`s secretary confirms that bush DID NOT fulfill his duties. and that bush was pushed to the front of the line. excellent.
OT, but Fox News claims that tonight, Bill O'Reilly will "blast right-wing radio."
Yeah, I just bet he will...
blast it loud on the old wurlitzer, you mean.
More stuff that comes out the more it confirms what we know, that Bushie got strings pulled to get into the Guard, that he didn’t fulfil his obligations, he didn’t take his physical, he got out of flying, he never flew for several years like he said, he didn’t even do the drills he was required for the so-called 22 months and what minimal time he put in he is not even being candid about that, plus he never showed up where he shoulda, never signed up when he shoulda, apparently pulled strings to get his Eval sugared up and now says he should have the right to send people for Guard duty in Iraq in a situation made catastrophic by his bumbling and bamboozling.
......
We can go on and on and the secretary confirms there was a CYA file, she confirms that the contents in the memo are resonant and consistent to her recollection and that there was a lot of talk about the situation at the time, and not just they look like reconstructions or copies but the contents are completely consistent and more we find out, the more it looks that lack of candor, ducking and diving, taking advantage of his position, dude is Unfit for Command.
.....
We have a genuine American war hero, who served America nobly and heroically, who served in the line of fire, who never stopped defending our country, who is still fighting for our country and we think this is our Commander in Chief, John Kerry, the next President of the United States of America, rock on 
.
......
Change is on the way, a new day is on the way, we will rock them rock on .
......
Oh fer chrissake! She's 86 friggin years old and trying to remember whether she typed specific memos over 30 years ago???
Sorry. This story doesn't pass the test.
This is hardly evidence they are forgeries.
Jefe--- that was pretty cool.
My question: when is the mainstream media finally going to "get" this story, and when will it get some play?
Or has the fake documents chagre tainted everything?
Everyone's seen the Russ Baker thing in the new Nation, right? Depends on no memos, but lots and lots of people's recollections.
http://tinyurl.com/4wpl2
Well worth the trip, trust me.
i bet you've all seen the dui arrest record for GWB that's been floating around today. my question is: wasn't he arrested for DUI in Maine?
Wasn't that the arrest that people talked about in the 2000 campaign? If so, then this would make it arrest #2.
Let's see if I can dig up anything on this.
Also very poignant that the National Guard families demonstrated against Bushie at the event, he was prepared to duck out of his responsibilities but he feels he should have the right to send our National Guards to the catastrophic trauma in Iraq where over 1000 have already died, over 7000 wounded (many say over 12 000) and in the past 5 months alone, reportedly 4000 have been wounded in action.
.....
There are also a certain couple of documents (that date back over 200 years ago) that also show Bush didn't live up to his obligations. Too bad nobody gives a shit about them anymore.
How else could a sitting vice president threaten the country with unimaginable terror if he isn't re-selected, yet hardly anyone bats an eye?
Why Are We Back In Iraq?
Just to pour you all a big Reality Martini here:
I was a secretarial-type person 30 years ago. I was involved in a very nasty office battle with my boss, which included a number of memos that concerned me personally, and which ended with my boss being fired in a giant brouhaha.
You could put one of those memos in front of me today and I could not tell you whether they were the original memos or not. You could put a fake memo from those days in front of me, and I couldn't tell you whether it was fake or real.
And I'm not close to 86 years old.
This has been a Reality Check. Over and Out.
This election is going to be a referendum on Iraq, not TANG. The sooner everybody realizes that, the sooner we start moving in the polls again.
Ok, it seems that the DUI in the 2000 campaign was a 1975 citation in MAINE.
This makes it the second DUI for GWB, and while I was doing research, I found out that Cheney has two DUI of his own (everyone probably already knows this but I didn't).
When I first saw the copy of the DUI, I just assumed that it was the one from 2000 that everyone knew about.
This is a fact that should be emphasized, I believe.
He's looking worse and worse.
ha ha Right wing nut radio pundit Glenn Beck, who promoted all those pro-war rallies prior to the Iraqi War, has been dropped locally from the AM radio line-up.
The worm is turning....
Falstaff have you seen the IBD poll
Bushie’s bounce fades
The poll also has good news for Kerry. Among independents, Kerry leads Bush by 10 points, 48%-38%. His lead is 12 points — 51%-39% — in battleground states.
Kerry also dominates among urban dwellers (60% vs. 31%), while Bush leads in the suburbs (54% vs. 40%) and rural areas (57% vs. 36%).
Among likely voters who are still feeling the sting of lost jobs or impending job losses, Kerry has a 2-to-1 edge (61% vs. 32%). Investors back Bush 50%-40%, but noninvestors favor Kerry by 15 points.
.....
New Orleans, folks stay safe .
.....
Thing is, as Mrs. Knox says, the Killian memos are honest attempts to reconstruct documents that once existed. They're not quite word-for-word transcripts of what her boss wrote, but they capture his thinking at the time. She says that the content is A-OK.
One little quibble with Mrs. Knox's testimony: It may not have been ANG terminology then, but
">"billet" certainly is being used by AF and ANG personnel today (not just Army, as Mrs. Knox thought):
Hayden, who oversees the Air Force’s cuts, said personnel experts believe they can achieve their planned reduction of more than 20,000 troops with policies already in place, which include loosened rules for airmen seeking to leave active duty for a reserve billet or to leave military service altogether.
Nothing like "reproducing" a signature of a long dead official ... no big whoop right, I mean, he would've signed it if he were alive!! The GIST is what counts.
Mishi,
Bush has only one dui...it is from Maine...your confusion might stem from the fact that the document posted on dailykos and the smoking gun site is addressed to his Texas residence.
The fakes / no fakes story at least brought back the focus on Bush a bit, even if it's not hurting him that much for now, from the couple weeks of swiftboats mania that was monopolizing the media (between 2 hurricanes and the Laci Petterson trial...)
And now "they" (the beast controling your gov.) managed to make Dan Rather real mad, and he gets good when he gets real mad, his honor is at stake late in his career, i'm sure he'll did deeper to find more shit to put the focus back on Bush, not on his journalism. We just hope CBS will back him up all the way and not cave in like they did before...
The content of the documents seems to be more and more confirmed, you've got a lot of people everywhere searching for more proofs of his shitty past, and when the bucket's full hopefully some republican voters and independans will wake up, when the noise of the rumours infects everybody! Let's play their game for once!
On this note, bonne nuit. I stayed way to long last night!
" honest attempts to reconstruct documents that once existed."
whats so 'honest' about forgery?? Man are you guys some pathologically dishonest mofos or what?
if Rather got punk'd by fake memos, then he should suffer like Judith Miller. But, the memos added almost no new information anyway.
New Orleans can't handle a direct hit from Hurricane Ivan. Jeez, we're going to get a huge influx of millions of people from South Louisiana to here.
nothing can serve as definitive proof they are forgeries. they look like forgeries. prove definitively they are real.
How did Judith Miller suffer?
"if Rather got punk'd by fake memos, then he should suffer like Judith Miller."
ha ha. indeed
I wanna see us pin "The Yellow Rose of Texas" on our simpering Chimp-in-Chief.
Use the bastard's Nat'l Guard shirk to illustrate a pattern of cowardice:
Afraid to move from his little chair the morning of 9/11, afraid to fire his totally incompetent National Security Advisor, afraid to appoint an investigation into 9/11, afraid to testify before the commission without Chaney to hold his hand.
Afraid to stand up to Rumsfeld and fire his ass for botching Iraq and Afganistan and the torture at Git-mo and Abu Ghraib.
Afraid to stand up to Halliburton when they deprive our troops of decent meals and screw the taxpayers out of millions of dollars.
Afraid to face off with Kerry in an unscripted debate...
Paint him yellow with the same vengence that Rove painted the flip flop on Kerry.
So much cowardice to work with, so little time. :0)
How did Judith Miller suffer?
Good question.
Maybe Tom Friedman doesn't talk to her anymore?
Well, we know that David Kelly doesn't speak to Judith Miller anymore.
Maybe Tom Friedman doesn't talk to her anymore?
Lisa
ha ha good one
This makes it the second DUI for GWB, and while I was doing research, I found out that Cheney has two DUI of his own (everyone probably already knows this but I didn't).
Thing is, I know some great people who've gotten DUIs...people who, now that they're clean and sober, I'd trust with my life. The DUIs aren't the problem.
If we can't win on Bush's record since he became president, there's no point trying to win on DUIs. The fact that Bush was a drunk is the least of his problems...it's also one of the few humanizing facts in his bio, and the fact that he's acknowledged his drinking makes attacking it problematic...even when law-breaking and record-scrubbing are involved.
If he's drunk NOW, however, that's fair game. Personally, I think he's either hitting the bottle, or heavily sedated. But either way, his disastrous record in office is the real story...
Fake Documents? You mean like someone scrubbed them?
Pshaw.
How could that be? Who could have produced faked documents that ended up in CBS' hands later down the line?
Could it be...oh I don't know...one of the three who ordered the records scrubbed in the first place?
"unless sooner relieved by competent military authority"
what does this doc supposedly prove?
Now we have the ABC network attacking the CBS network over the documents.
It's over, folks. The entire country is imploding and turning on itself.
I'll say it again; anything that keeps these memos about how much of a loser W. is/was in the news, in the papers, and on everyone's mind can only help Kerry.
The blogosphere moves quickly, but it seems to cause people to expect instant gratification with regards to each new development. I want these memos on the front pages straight through to November. There's no rush; a voter can realize that preznit is a phony hypocrite overnight.
Or rather: It's over, folks. The entire country is imploding and turning on itself in this the 2004 Year Of Our Media.
Bill Burkett is supposedly a source for the CBS news story, btw. Though, that does beg the question that if Burkett knew about the records being scrubbed that he would have at least made it known that it was possible the documents CBS obtained were false. You'd think.
Hopefully Dan Rather and company can save face by following up on Burkett's claims and maybe find the proof is in the pudding. Hughes, Allbaugh, Bartlett provided the recipe.
Too bad somebody chose to make the irrelevant and boring issue of Bush's cowardice a campaign issue in order to counter some transparently stupid cowboy/tough guy rhetoric that didnt need countering. Oh well.
No, the DUI in Maine was in 1975. This DUI is for 1976.
She's 86 friggin years old and trying to remember whether she typed specific memos over 30 years ago???
Bingo.
However, it is worth a few chuckles to watch the brownshirts twist themselves into pretzels over this... "See!?!? She says the memos are fake! She's obviously telling the tru- ohwaitaminnit, she says these memos say what she remembers the *real* memos saying... Error! Error! Norman! Coordinate!"
Sparks, smoke... Kirk wins again!
It's over, folks. The entire country is imploding and turning on itself.
Incognito
Incognito, I love ya...but for you, it's "over" three fucking times a day.
If it's really over, say it once and give up. If it's not, stop saying it.
You're right, these are from Maine too. However, news google GWB DUI Maine and you'll get several hits on the 1975 DUI.
HaloScam seems to have cleaned up its act and is working right again.
Can't wait to see the polls in about two or three weeks!
Lisa, I must have had a double Reality Martini, 'cause sometimes I don't recognize my own handwriting from last week.
Or maybe the problem is I haven't had enough Reality Martinis.
It should be noted that CBS is still standing by its documents as authentic, as of tonight. They're either extremely stubborn, or they know something the rest of us don't.
I can't tell you how much I want to see the Freepers collectively proven idiots. Again.
If it's really over, say it once and give up. If it's not, stop saying it.
Philalethes
Well, the "over" isn't immediate. It's a long grand decline which we're seeing now.
I can't tell you how much I want to see the Freepers collectively proven idiots. Again.
Jonathan
I want to see all their heads collectively squashed in a pile-driver.
Freeping protest warrior Ann Coulter Jr.
I think we will soon see the real docs which were supposed to be trashed.
It seems these docs were reproduced based on originals so someone must have the originals but don't want to release just yet.
The TANG characters are showing up now.
So either she's wrong and the memos are real...
...or she's right, and they have true information in them anyway.
Either way, the evidence indicates that George W. Bush disobeyed a direct order.
I'd like to know, so maybe the media whores can ask: What was George W. Bush's punishment for defying a direct order?
Snoopy, follow the link I posted above.
For convenience's sake, here is is again. Salon interview from Feb of this year with a person claiming documents were thrown away.
The person interviewed for the article is also supposed to be a key source for CBS's story.
two plus owt eq. dirty tricks backfiring
Didn't I read somewhere that Burkett managed to nab something out of a waste basket? Or did he just see that something? Maybe that's it. I suppose it's possible he took it upon himself to "reproduce" what he saw from memory.
But, anyway, yeah, let Rather take his lumps. And watch this story simmer anyway. Details are lost on the public, but the story is out there, and will continue straight through the election.
Hey, thanks, wingers, for your unflagging attention to this story. It is appreciated.
The whole deal with the faked documents is so transparent.
The admin knows there are real documents out there so the create some fakes and have shills hock them to CBS.
This accomplishes a few things:
1. Discredit arch-nemesis Dan Rather.
2. Inoculate Bush against any real documents -- all will now be judged fake a priori.
3. Create a backlash against Democrats.
It is pure political genius, dirty as hell, but pure genius.
About Bush's DUI. The docs show that his license was revoked for almost two years! Is this SOP? Cheney's was only revoked for 30 days? Was there extenuating circumstances that caused such a severe punishment for Bush?
She's.
86.
Years.
Old.
C'mon, people. Do you know anyone who is 86 years old? If so, think about asking that person to remember something like this, in more than vague detail.
So far no one has been able to rebut the validity of these documents with anything more than anecdotes and rumor. Every proveable accusation that has been thrown at CBS has been discredited.
Why oh why does anyone other than trolls say things like "look likes they might be forgeries"? Unless I've missed something, no holes have been poked in CBS' story.
She's.
86.
Years.
Old.
Doesn't matter.
If she's not credible, the authenticity of the memos remains uncontested anyway.
If she's credible, the information in the memos is accurate, and Nero disobeyed a direct order, etc.
Either way, it's bad for the Bush apologists.
Just looked back through my copy of "Fortunate Son," by the late J.H. Hatfield (a book that was blocked from publication in 2000 whose author "committed suicide" in 2002)... all this stuff is old news. Including the bit o' late-breaking news about Sid Adger being the man who pulled the strings to get Dubya into the guard in the first place. I picked up the book online at softskull press' site.
I know plenty of people 86 years old. They are all sharp as shit. They eat younger people for breakfast.
The bottom line is that if the content of the documents wasn't accurate, the White House should've known. The fact that they couldn't tell that the document was a forgery based solely upon its content is essentially proof to me that Bush has something to hide...
This "she's 86 years old" line is bullshit. Read the details of the story. She clearly remembers precisely what kind of typewriter she used. A lot of 86 year olds are sharper than some of the posters I read here...
Of course, if this woman said the documents were definitely genuine, the same people carping about her age would be outraged if some troll suggested that an 86 year-old couldn't remember shit and wasn't to be trusted. This Dallas article isn't a bad thing at all...so what if the documents are cooked ? The lady substantiates their content. Even if the docs are bogus and a clumsy effort to stick it to Bush, they're less bogus than Bush's TANG service...
This necessity to believe that nobody on our side would ever pull "dirty tricks" and we've got to hold the line until the last dog is dead and not engage in an attempt to analyze the sources ofr journalistic pros and cons of a story we all want to turn out to be fully corroborated is, frankly, a sign of weakness. We've got to be in this for the long haul and we've got to be better than they are...remember ? That's why we CAN stand the truth, even when aspects of it are inconvenient or complicated.
Needless to say, after all that, I find this woman convincing, assuming this article is an accurate summation of her experience and of what she has to say.
ADDENDUM: While I'm not going to have a hernia if these documents prove to be forgeries or "reconstructions" hawked to CBS by someone who's clearly anti-Bush, I'm also not ruling out some more complex and Machiavellian conspiracy by Karl Rove and His Faxes of Evil. The speed and coherence with which the Freepers came up with a relatively sophisticated (if "full of holes") assault on the documents' authenticity is more than a bit suspicious.
About Bush's DUI. The docs show that his license was revoked for almost two years! Is this SOP? Cheney's was only revoked for 30 days? Was there extenuating circumstances that caused such a severe punishment for Bush?
Well, there's a whole section in the TANG docs referring to previous arrests that has been redacted... and remember that when Chimpy became governor of TX, he had his license reissued with a new number (#0000002 or something like that) and the old records destroyed...
She overlooks the fact that the Bama air facility used an Army doctor's facility so the parsed terms are accurate.
Killian could verify across branch terminology. She does not mention the Bama facility discrepencies, an honest oversigh most likely. It does not change factual content.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, perhaps SOMEONE demanded AWOL be sent into Army deployement and thus delivered paperwork for doing such as well, which of course would refer to him in Army terms.
Anyways you cut it, Limburger stinks.
WTF? This is getting weirder:
NYT
Mr. Burkett declined to return telephone calls to his home near Abilene, Tex. His lawyer, David Van Os, on Tuesday repeatedly refused to say in a telephone interview whether the officer had played a part in supplying the disputed documents to CBS. Mr. Van Os said "the real story is and should be, where was George Bush?" and that Mr. Burkett "is not the proper object of attention."
Mr. Van Os called Mr. Burkett "a man of impeccable honesty who would not permit himself to be a party to anything fake, fraudulent or phony." He also said, in response to questions, and stressing that he was speaking only hypothetically, "If Bill Burkett were to later discover that something he was a party to were fake or phony, as a man of honor who lives by a code of honor of the military, he would not permit the falsity to continue." But, the lawyer hastened to add, "This is not intended to be any kind of specific statement."
Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush's military service, Mr. Van Os said: "If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done'' - then, he continued, "what difference would it make?"
Inoculate Bush against any real documents -- all will now be judged fake a priori.
Similar to how the cocaine stories were dealt with, by peddling them to Hatfield and then discrediting him.
The 86 year old woman make assertions about what she remembers that aren't good for either side in this debate about the trustworthiness of the documents.
Essentially, she claims, based on memories she says she has, both that the physical embodiment of the documents are fake, but that the content of the documents is quite genuine.
Personally, I simply don't trust EITHER of her claimed memories -- which leaves both sides pretty much where they were.
Lisa makes pretty much exactly the point I would make.
For me, I remember astonishingly few details about things that went on in my life over 20 or 30 years ago. I can remember general and important facts, and particularly poignant details. Yet I could never remember a whole slew of essentially random details the way this woman is in effect claiming. And not only does she remember them vaguely and imprecisely (true for virtually all of my very long term memories); she speaks as though she recalls them with great certainty and exactitude.
I have generally been very struck by how many people in this story, from "experts" to bit players like this woman, claim to know details with high reliability, when a moment's reflection would suggest it's VERY implausible that they might.
It reminds me of what forensic psychologists have discovered through scientific study about eyewitness testimony: that it is, in fact, VERY unreliable in general, and that the confidence with which an eyewitness asserts their testimony is completely uncorrelated with the actual reliability of that testimony.
It's one week today that the press has been feeding off of Bush's TANG records. I am beginning to think these documents were purposely made intriguing. No way would this have gotten the huge coverage it has without the mystery.
Bush has already dropped 15 points in the CNN poll about being " honest and trustworthy"
DUH...WMD ANYBODY?
It took 3 weeks for the Swifties to effect Kerry.
Note to Self: Texas politicians are fucking nuts
Reading the passages quoted above from the NY Times article, it looks like they are trying to make a story out of a lawyer's somewhat awkward denial.
But there's nothing there so far as I can see -- just the sort of words that a lawyer utters when he has to answer a bunch of pestering questions.
Thank you, frankly0.
Yes, it matters that she is 86 years old and claiming to remember typewriter fonts she used 30+ years ago. I'm only 49, and as I stated above, a former secretary. I couldn't remember fonts from 30+ years ago.
It isn't being "ageist." It's being realistic.
I can remember gists of some things I discussed with my boss three decades ago. But that's all.
Might I remember him disliking a certain politically connected asshole of a lieutenant? Sure. But that's about as far as it would go.
So please save the outrage about your "sharp as shit" elderly acquaintances.
This story is a smile; that's it. This woman's memory of her typewriter fonts and boss' work habits won't get you a cup of coffee, unless you add the necessary cash.
THE DNC should not have touched this story. It's a train wreck and they should have gotten out of the way.
So far the public is forgiving because the Republicans " started it"
but this isn't our story.
Sen. Kerry is such a good man, he should tell the DNC to stick it...and while the public is reading Kitty Kelly, let it sink in.
BTW: What is the Bush Iraq plan?
She clearly remembers precisely what kind of typewriter she used.
Does she also remember 35 years later, as she claims, that the word "billet" was never used? I mean, seriously? For me, claims of certainty like this pretty well undermine my confidence in the speaker's accounts more generally.
With regard to the typewriters, there are a few possibilities. In an office with many typewriters (presumably), can she really be sure that she never felt it best to move where she might use another one, perhaps in a more private setting, when engaged in writing a very sensitive memo?
And how about the idea that Killian may have relied on another, perhaps more discreet, person, to type up his most politically sensitive memos?
The origin of these documents MUST be obtained. This needs to be traced backwards to the beginning. Where it starts will tell the whole story regardless of the veracity of the documents.
I trust that this will eventually happen, I just hope it is sooner rather than later.
I've got FOUR DUIs but you will never find them! 1 in ME, 2 in TX and 1 in AL -- I've got an arrest for possession, too but you will never find it either (that's the trigger for me going to Alabama).
Yes, it matters that she is 86 years old and claiming to remember typewriter fonts she used 30+ years ago. I'm only 49, and as I stated above, a former secretary. I couldn't remember fonts from 30+ years ago.
I think this is the right way to think of it. Those of us who have been adults for about 20-30 years know perfectly well, if we're honest with ourselves, how little we can remember in detail from that many years ago.
What destroys, for me, any real confidence in her memories is, paradoxically, the very thing that seems to be convincing to others: namely, all the details she claims to remember. If she claimed far far less, I'd believe her far far more.
And with respect to her age, I can only say that it may not hurt a given 86 year old much, but that advanced an age is most certainly not going to help.
Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty." Hmmm?
If these documents are "true in content" forgeries, they explain two mysteries:
1. How did CBS get these documents? There were some believable allegations when this issue first came around months ago that the incriminating documents were destroyed long ago. I don't have the link on me, but I remember reading it on Kevin Drum's old CalPundit site.
2. Why didn't the White House deny the allegations when these docuemnts come out? They deny almost everything else. I believe they thought for a few days that they got caught and continued their approach of issuing vague denials that give them room to manuever in case of a truth emergency.
Having said that, I hope this is the last we hear of the issue. There's been enough evidence for a while now that Bush did not fulfill his National Guard duties, got in through a family connection, etc. These documents, even if they were real, wouldn't change anyone's mind. God could strike Bush down with a thunderbot and conseratives would call God a wishy-washy liberal because his thunderbolt zig-zags. All this issue is doing at this point is taking away from Kerry's limited time to drive home more potent messages about Bush.
Killian's secretary says her IBM could superscript! Even if they turn out to be faked (probably by Burkett as more and more news outlets are hinting), at least the conservative blogheads and so-called experts were wrong on their so-called key issue!
(also see what Knox says about Dubya missing his physical. All this information is going to get out even if CBS got burned. It's even on Drudge's site)
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssis.../nation/
2796630
Frankly O, you're grasping at straws and bandying self-referential anecdotes about yourself and your lousy memory. This woman's testimony is a hell of a lot more convincing than your "few possiblities". I've met elderly people who's memories are a lot crisper than mine. For my money, this lady passes the smell test. Your business about eyewitness testimony and foensic psychologists doesn't have jack shit to do with recollections of someone who had a daily routine over years and who's job was to create paper trails with precision.
It's obvious she detests Bush and would verify the documents if she could. What's her motivation to cast doubt on the documents, other than asserting the validity of her own recollections ? If she wasn't certain about this - or at least reasonably certain - why would she verify the story but question the specific documents ?
But more to the point, if the woman corroborated the documents with the same degree of plausibility and self-certainty, you'd be eating it up and defending her 86-year-old brain cells against all trolls.
As would Lisa...
Obviously all of us are speculating out of gut reactions at this point. This is all about xeroxes, for christ sake. How can anyone get forensic over xeroxes? CBS was sloppy and did a disservice by putting more stock in xeroxes than they could possibly deserve. Especially in the toxic arena that the right-wing has created for these debates and given their natural advantage of being ruthless, amoral, desperate fucks who don't give a shit about anything other than winning.
Frankly all that matters is what can withstand this kind of scrutiny...not what Atriosians can convince themselves of. CBS asked for this...and frankly, screw CBS because they are mostly just hacks who have turned a once-great news operation into just another commercially-driven clusterfuck. I wouldn't put money - not even coffee money - on the liklihood the documents can be proven to be real. Although I would put money - lots of it - on the general content of the CBS story being accurate. Which is why the White House didn't initially dispute the documents and have sent out poor, gullible Laura to do the heavy lifting on this one.
They know what is being asserted is true - because their fearless leader wasn't willing to go out on a limb to deny the specifics - so Rove didn't want to put Bush on record with refutations any more than they already have - via vague dismissals.
Before this is all over, the central story is far more likely to be proven accurate than not...regardless of whether a couple of memos were cooked. ( Frankly, it would scare the shit out of me if I thought there wasn't anybody on "our side" who was capable of cooking up something like this. Problem is, this shit can backfire... Which is why I'm still hoping/fantasizing that there is some incredibly complicated explanation for this that has Rove's fingerprints on it. )
The Hitler diaries were fakes (in fact, bad fakes). Hitler's still Hitler
And the Howard Hughes autobiography was faked by Clifford Irving... but Hughes was still a billionaire wacko.
One, I've met older people with amazingly detailed stories to tell. Not rambling ones nor fictionalized ones--to get attention, but, very descriptive accounts from their lives.
Like someone wrote above, it was the secretary's routine she remembers. So, of course she recalls the lingo used, the terms that fit the style. The fact that she also knows what the Army's terms would be says alot about what she knows. Is it because she may have had to type letters, memos and documents which had more signifigance than transcribing someone's personal musings? Quite likely, in my opinion. While the woman may not have a Masters in Library Science, like a certain first lady, I think the secretary saw and dealt with a lot of info and knew styles and typical content fairly well. Sure, that is an educated guess but not too far off the mark.
What Lisa said up-thread about all the things you forget from your job...
Were you occaissionally interacting with the son of your local congressman at your job? Could you not tell, in general terms, the moods of your boss by recalling certain days and events?
You remember a lot more than you claim you do. Just as the chances are good that this woman remembers a lot about her job/past. She's also from a different generation where work was not just a livelyhood but a good portion of people's lives.
On the veracity of the CBS docs:
Bartlett didn't deny or dismiss the docs during the CBS interview and we know that he and others in the WH had a chance to go over them=
strike one for the contents being disputable by the Prez.
If the documents are fake, why would the WH, including the Prez., not discount or dispute even parts of it?
Did Bush even really see the 4 page memo?
Given his heavy drinking, could HE remember anything about the things we working people would recall in a snap because it involved paperwork?
If the docs are false, where are the originals?
Who provided the copies and how did they obtain them? Or, did the providers forge them?
If the docs are legit, where are the originals?
Why is there such a disconnect between "experts"? They surely know that they can't say anything without seeing the originals, right? Are wheels being greased to obtain expert opinions or are these people just attention starved and seeking 15 minutes of fame?
Or, are they partisan? Inclined to protect the prez or condemn him?
Why is Novak making hay? Doesn't he realize that his source might be revealed to a future cell-mate in prison?
There's too much politics and elbow throwing going on with this story. When ABC News goes out of its way to diss on a non-FuxSnooze rival you know something is wrong with the picture.
Heh, heh, heh. So the Eschaton position has evolved to the Modified Limited Hangout. Commenters were shouting about the importance of the memos when they were released, then shouting that any moron could see that they were authentic...and now shouting that they don't matter.
Love ya, folks.
And wingnut desperately try to pretend that they do matter, as it's the only case they've got.
And wingnut desperately try to pretend that they do matter, as it's the only case they've got.
84 year old lady doesn't remember typing the memo, but says that the content is consistent with what was actually going on and confirms that Killian kept a CYA file. I think that this is a data point in favor of the memo's authenticity.
Well, Spoilsport, the original debate surrounding the veracity of CBS documents made the assumption that they were contemporary documents from the time. If the documents are not from 1973, but were made at a later date based on the original documents, as Marian Carr Knox contends, then of course it's not going to be as relevant as a document from 1973. Futhermore, the debate surrounding the memos link the veracity of the claims to the veracity of the actual document itself. If the person who casts doubt on the veracity of the document nevertheless backs the veracity of the claims then clearly they are not one and the same thing, and the issue of whether the document is a forgery becomes moot.
Anyone who accepts Marian Carr Knox's claims must also accept:
* That the content of the memos accurately reflected the views Col. Killian.
* That the "fake" documents were based on real memos she herself typed.
* That Blogistan (on both sides of the political divide) has worked itself into a tizzy over an issue that has ultimately proved a red herring.
Duh!
I've been saying that they were probably typed out versions of handwritten notes.
Or, the source couldn't get ahold of the originals, but read them and copies them down by hand.
Transferring them later to typed form.
Even Bobby Hodges admits that the contents of the memos refelect actual conversations he had with Killian.
And since Killina died ten years before George W. Bush became a national political figure, the only way those notes could accrately reflect what he was saying at teh time is if someone with ntimate knowledge of his thoughts wrote them.
Modesty forbids me from mentioning that I said this might be a forged reproduction of a real memo last week. I never pay any attention to the dictates of modesty.
BTW, this website has become extremely slow to download and the little blinking cursor never stops blinking now. I'm typing this in staccato fashion because of it.
Who cares if these are forged? They suport every other piece of witness testimony and evidence that has come to light.
Kerry supporters need to drop the forgery disucssion altogether and focus on the clearly established facts: Shrub is an arrogant, lazy son of a bitch who slithered out of going to Vietnam thanks to privilege and even then couldn't fulfill his military obligations.
okay - this bush military stuff is fun - but unfortunately it's not doing anything! people don't care about bush. We are still busy mumbling about his military record and he is way ahead in the polls. They are out maneuvering us= we are coming from behind. and those dumb swing voters - are just F***F*&(*&(& DUMB!!!!
and now shouting that they don't matter.
Actually, if you had bothered to read anything posted here, you might have noticed many of us pointing out that these memos only further support things that we already knew.
George W. Bush used family connections to skip into the Guard, ahead of more qualified people. He failed to fulfill his duties, and deserted his assignment. He again used family connections to assure that he would not be punished for this.
Your business about eyewitness testimony and foensic psychologists doesn't have jack shit to do with recollections of someone who had a daily routine over years and who's job was to create paper trails with precision.
Look, for the woman to claim with any real certainty that she remembers some of the things she claims would probably require superhuman capabilities. Is she really going to remember, with any reliability, that in TANG, the word "billet" just would not be a natural word to use? Would she remember the exact formats produced by her typewriter, and by the typewriters of others at TANG, 30 years later? Would she really know whether someone else might have typed these memos?
And how would she really remember enough to vouch for the content of these memos, except in the most general possible way? I can imagine her remembering that Bush was presenting a problem because of non-attendance (not least because she's been "reminded" of it again and again over the years since). But would she remember anything that these memos seem to ADD to the already known story, namely that Bush was given a direct order to take a physical, and that Killian actually felt obliged to write a CYA memo in which he complained of pressure to "sugarcoat" Bush's record?
Excuse me if I find this level of detail in a 30 year old recollection just COMPLETELY implausible. If you DO find it convincing, I think you're just being extremely naive or intellectually dishonest.
I'd like to see this Mrs Knox demonstrate how very good her memory is by remembering details from30 years ago that she would NOT have been reminded about over the years, and which could be independently verified.
It's easy to say, as some of these articles do, that she remembers dates and events, but the question is, are these things she has NOT been reminded about over the years, AND which can be independently verified? Otherwise, claims that she has a "sharp memory", rather than an unwarranted confidence in details she DOESN'T actually remember, mean absolutely nothing.
Let's not forget the Bushies used forged documents to justify going into Iraq.
You live by the forge, you die by the forge.
But more to the point, if the woman corroborated the documents with the same degree of plausibility and self-certainty, you'd be eating it up and defending her 86-year-old brain cells against all trolls.
But here's the irony: in fact she DOES back up the content of those memos, which is of course, in the end, the true point of this whole exercise.
But from my point of view, I also find that memory VERY implausible, and for the same reasons. Indeed, I see her assertions of reliable memory on such a distant event one of the more telling reasons NOT to trust her claims of reliable memories regarding the documents.
My 86-year-old father (retired engineer) can remember with astonishing clarity and detail the projects he worked on 30 years ago. It's remembering what he should be doing tomorrow that gives him trouble.
The agism reflected here is incredible. There are plenty of World War II vets who can describe, in detail, the events of a particular day. One of my clients is 83 and he is an active, vigorous man who can describe in great detail the day the USS Independence was torpedoed. I am sure President George H. W. Bush can remember events from his World War II experiences.
What this lady says strikes me as the truth. This was an unusual circumstance--two pilots being suspended from light status (President Bush and James R. Bath) and a by the book commander, Col. Killian.
I'm skeptical about her remembering a document she typed in so much detail so that she could identify one fitting the same description more than thirty years later. Haven't you ever looked at one of your college papers, one that you actually wrote yourself, and been shocked to see what was in it?
The "documents" are beside the point. There is plenty of other documentation to show that he didn't do what he agreed to do. This is just an excuse for our kept media to not deal with the real issues. Bush always loses when the discussion turns to the real issues.
On the other hand, it's mighty interesting how many documents from the Bush family's past seem to disappear or turn up in altered condition. Isn't it?
I'm skeptical about her remembering a document she typed in so much detail so that she could identify one as a close copy fitting the same description more than thirty years later. Haven't you ever looked at one of your college papers, one that you actually wrote yourself, and been shocked to see what was in it?
The "documents" are beside the point. There is plenty of other documentation to show that he didn't do what he agreed to do. This is just an excuse for our kept media to not deal with the real issues. Bush always loses when the discussion turns to the real issues.
On the other hand, it's mighty interesting how many documents from the Bush family's past seem to disappear or turn up in altered condition. Isn't it?
Just as a demonstration.
You know what it sounds like to me? One set of originals (possibly notes, possibly handwritten); two sets of memos prepared from those originals (CBS got one set; Carr prepared another set).
What if Killian himself reconstructed the memos that eventually ended up in CBS's hands -- later, from the same notes that Carr remembers prepping for the office files?
HOW TO EXECUTE A PERFECT SMEAR
By Karl Rove
1. Through a loyal surrogate, release to a liberal media outlet fake documents purporting to confirm some of the things already known about Shrub’s National Guard record.
2. Immediately have the White House release copies of the same fake documents. Of course, these documents should look like they were obtained from the liberal media outlet. This gives the White House the appearance of full candor, while getting the story out.
3. The White House should not dispute the validity of these documents to give Shrub an air of being above the fray.
4. Immediately send loyal surrogates ways to show how the documents are fakes.
5. Have Shrub’s wife suggest that the documents probably are fake and that the person who is trying to smear her husband in this way is a terrible person who should be ashamed.
6. Have Shrub look presidential by not addressing the fake documents and only saying that he is proud to have served his country.
7. Leak to the press an unsubstantiated rumor that the Kerry campaign created the fake documents.
8. During a stump speech have a loyal surrogate ask Shrub about the allegations about the Kerry campaign. Have Shrub respond by saying that if these allegations are true, it certainly would not reflect well on Kerry’s judgment, credibility, and character.
9. In this way, all of the charges made against Shrub (i.e., bad judgment, no credibility, and poor character) will be pinned on Kerry.
One of my clients is 83 and he is an active, vigorous man who can describe in great detail the day the USS Independence was torpedoed.
That of course is the sort of thing one would expect someone to remember, first, because of how vivid it would have been, second because the story would have been retold a thousand times.
How many times do you think this woman has had to recall, and retell the story of having written, say, Killian's memo issuing a direct order to Bush to attend his physical? Or the exact content of his CYA memo?
even if the docs didn't exist, what is the competing narrative? does anyone claim that bush took his physical? does anyone claim that not taking the physical was his decision to make? insobordination, plain and simple, docs or no.
Wow, everybody's getting confused. CBS probably has photocopies made in 2004 of documents photocopied since 1972 of originals typed in 1972. That only makes CBS's documents something less than the best evidence, but not forgeries.
I found some old typed personal documents, photocopied the photocopies a couple of times, then scanned the last copy made into a pdf file and viewed it. It pretty much looks like the smudged piece of shit the CBS documents looked like.
Anyway, Iraq's on fire. Many more casualties today. Some Guardsmen, I recall.
A lot of people are letting smoke get in their eyes.
The memos might be forged, and that's a problem for Rather. But forged or not, they're most likely dead-accurate. That's a much bigger problem, for Bush. We mustn't let the former problem eclipse the latter (although that seems to be happening, for the moment). The forgery question is a sideshow. The real story is the myriad ways GWB lied about his non-service.
Rather is not CinC, and he's not running for re-election. Let's keep our eye on the ball.
Bush will rue the day his surrogates made "memogate" a big deal. This just ensures that lots of people are paying attention right now. Soon the dust will clear and some number of bystanders will realize that Bush's problem is more serious than Rather's problem.
By the way, a credible witness is now on record saying GWB himself admitted that daddy got him both into and out of TANG (and this contradicts other statements by GWB). See: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/1.../15kris.html?
hp. See also: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT...bush.professor/
Also, it's increasingly clear that the Killian memos are not needed to show that Bush didn't complete his service (and has been deceptive on this subject). For example, see: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/
new...roane040908.htm.
The real story isn't that Bush didn't complete his service. It's that he's been lying about it. I think lots of people are inclined to forgive the former but not the latter. (One of the main pro-Bush memes is "maybe he's a dunce, but at least he's honest.")
Apologies for some mild cross-posting.
Say what Scott?
MR. McCLELLAN: ... In terms of this whole National Guard issue, we're not doing our own investigation to determine whether or not those documents were fabricated or authentic.
It has been widely reported that during Bush's Texas gubanatorial re-election campaign in 1998 Karen Hughes and some staffers were sent out on a mission to scrub the TANG files just in case some foolhardy journalists started to sniff around. It seems plausible to me that following that escapade the Bush people may have been wary of the national media finding something provocative in the the holes missing in the files and been more of a problem as they rolled out a national campaign. Thinking that a less pliant media with greater resources may uncover something, it may be that Karen Hughes sought a way to reconstruct certain documents and replace them so as not to attracct too much attention to the unlawful scrubbing that occurred in 1998. This, as tortured as the logic may seem, would account for the possible forgeries.
Asking Karen for the truth probably will not help. However, it seems that more questions should be asked as to why no criminal prosecutions have been brought forth regarding the initial well publicized document tampering that underlies all the allegations about Bush's service. Is there not an editor or producer in some newsroom somewhere who can devote more resources to a story as rich as this?
You mean reproductions of originals that had bogus dates, bogus addresses, bogus military titles, bogus military terminology, mentioned actors who were retired, etc? < /i>
Uh, no, but thanks for playing.
The fact remains that the White House has officially released these documents without denying their veracity. That means that the White House, the seat of the US Executive branch has--if the documents are false--lied to the American people openly. They represented these documents as official documents part of the George Wrong Bush legacy of his 'service'.
If the documents are in fact authentic, the White House has just added several more logs to the fire that will burn George Chickenshit Bush.
Let them deny it! Why isn't ABC, et al, up in arms about being blatantly lied to by the White House? What the hell does CBS have to do with it? They didn't make up the documents. No one in his right mind (ha!, or left mind) would imagine that Dan Rather is so far gone that he would conjure these documents up himself, or his staff would.
The burden of proof is squarely on the White House. Start slamming all the press whores to find out why they've been lied to yet again by these scum.
then shouting that any moron could see that they were authentic...and now shouting that they don't matter.
You don't read very well, do you?
Why isn't ABC, et al, up in arms about being blatantly lied to by the White House?
Because ABC's parent company, Disney, is a client of the same Republican PR firm, Creative Response Concepts, that started the "forgery" meme AND is pushing the Swift Boat whores?
Who knows?
Frankly O, it amazes me that, on the one hand,you accept this woman's very specific recollections of what the guy she worked for thought of Bush's record and his concerns about fullfillment of service requirements and, on the other hand, reject the idea that she could remember what kind of typewriters were in her office for years and which one she primarily worked on.
Proves my point...
Now, the only question is whether you're intellectualy dishonest or merely naive.
Isn't the main point here that Bush cannot produce anything to prove that he DID satisfy his duty beyond his honorable discharge papers? If these documents are forgeries and the claim nonsense, it should be quite easy for Bushco to refute them. Right?
Just what conclusions can we draw from his inability to produce any documents supporting his position?
Someone should be going through the files of that jail in Texas of which Hatfield wrote before his death.
Hatfield said George was taken there and not released for a day or so. (Coke arrest)
Even if his records were expunged, there could have been an oversight or a screw-up of some kind. Records of that arrest may still exist in some musty storage room.
The lack of White House denials when they released these documents are evidence of one of two things: either the documents - cooked or not - reflect what Bush knows is the truth OR there is something truly bizarre going on with fabricated documents being added to the mix in order to deflect from the actual facts being reported. Who would do such a sneaky thing - and alert the wingnut blogshphere to boot - is a question that I'll leave to anyone who's read "Bush's Brain" to answer.
Mr. Van Os called Mr. Burkett "a man of impeccable honesty who would not permit himself to be a party to anything fake, fraudulent or phony." He also said, in response to questions, and stressing that he was speaking only hypothetically, "If Bill Burkett were to later discover that something he was a party to were fake or phony, as a man of honor who lives by a code of honor of the military, he would not permit the falsity to continue." But, the lawyer hastened to add, "This is not intended to be any kind of specific statement."
translation: this is a shot across the bow at the real source of the documents, if Burkett gave the docs to CBS.
It could be Hodges (who comes off well in the docs) or Martin or Shoemake (neither of whom are mentioned in the piece, and both of whom played a major role in the scams.)
From the September 14th 2004 White House Press Gaggle
Q Scott, does anyone in the administration or the campaign that you know of share the First Lady's view that the documents about the President's record are fake?
MR. McCLELLAN: I can speak to our view, the White House view. I mean, obviously, she was -- Mrs. Bush was expressing her view, and there have been, as you're aware, a number of continuing questions raised about those documents. And media organizations are continuing to investigate it further. And we look forward to seeing what the results of those investigations are. And those are serious issues --
Q Have you looked --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, we're not doing our own investigation to look into the authenticity. There are serious questions that have been raised and they should be looked into.
Q By?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, media organizations are already doing -- I'd say most media organizations are already -- or many media organizations are already investigating the questions that have been raised about these documents' authenticity.
Q But you're only calling for an investigation -- when you say you want it looked into, you only want it looked into by the media. You're not suggesting some type of --
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think I said the same thing the last few days, that it ought to be looked into.
Q Any response to Operation Fortunate Son that the DNC is launching today?
MR. McCLELLAN: Any -- well, I think I responded to it last week. That was -- Fortunate Son was the name of a book written in the 2000 campaign by an ex-convict who was widely discredited. And I think it just shows the Democrats and the Kerry campaign are determined to throw the kitchen sink at us because they can't win when the discussion is focused on the issues and the future. The President believes that this race ought to be about the future, and they are resorting to recycled attacks that have come up every time the President runs for election. . .
Q Scott, in the past, the President and you, when asked about -- questions about his National Guard service, have said that people should not be so quick to denigrate service in the National Guard. Does the President see a distinction between what he was called on to do in the '70s and what people who serve in the Guard today have to do?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are certainly many significant challenges that the men and women in our Guard are helping to address today. Our men and -- and the President will talk about this in his remarks. He'll talk about how our men and women in the Guard, in addition to the reserves and active forces out there, are serving and sacrificing for an important cause. We are engaged in a global war on terrorism, and the men and women in the Guard are playing an important role in the war.
And I don't think anyone is making the same comparison or saying -- drawing the same distinction. Right now you have a number of men and women i
MR. McCLELLAN:
And I don't think anyone is making the same comparison or saying -- drawing the same distinction. Right now you have a number of men and women in our Guard who are serving abroad in this global war on terrorism.
Q Scott, if I read it right, all the President says in his speech about his service is that he's proud of it. He doesn't answer a lot of the questions that have been raised by the same reporters that you're looking to look into the documents, such as, why did he not take the physical, why did he -- was there any reasons that he left the Guard other than his own volition. Are you going to answer those questions?
MR. McCLELLAN: Why he has not addressed it, is that what you're saying?
Q Well, yes, any reason --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think, as you see in the article today -- there's an article today in USA Today -- most of those in the National Guard, like most Americans, want the candidates to focus on the future. And the President has been, and will continue to focus on the future. The President is talking about how we confront today's war and how we lead in the global war on terrorism. And I think that's what most Americans, including those in the Guard that he's talking to today, want to hear from the candidates -- not what happened 35 years ago.
Q I'm asking you what happened 35 years ago. Is there any reason why you can't tell me --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think it's all been -- I think it all has been addressed, Ron. The President met his obligations and was honorably discharged from the Guard. And it's supported by the facts. It's -- this is more of the same old, recycled attacks by the Kerry campaign and Democrats. And that's -- they can't defend his out-of-the-mainstream record, they can't defend his lack of a vision for the country going forward.
Q Did he receive preferential treatment in the National Guard?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's already been addressed, and that's more of the same, recycled attacks from the Democrats that they keep asking. And he's already addressed that matter, every single campaign he's been in. It's been asked and answered numerous times.
Q So the answer to my question is, he's not going to answer those specific questions, because the public is more concerned about the future than the past.
MR. McCLELLAN: What specific questions? They've been answered, Ron.
Q Why did the President not take a physical?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's been answered in reports, as has been answered before. He was going to Alabama to perform equivalent duty in a non-flying status. And he talked to his commanders every step of the way, and received permission to do so.
Q Why did he not take the physical?
MR. McCLELLAN: Because he was going to Alabama and he was not going to be in a flying -- he was serving in a non-flying status in Alabama.
Q Was he excused --
MR. McCLELLAN: Asked and answered every campaign.
Q Did he leave the Guard on his own vo
Q Was he excused --
MR. McCLELLAN: Asked and answered every campaign.
Q Did he leave the Guard on his own volition, or was there other reasons for him to leave?
MR. McCLELLAN: He met his obligations, and he was honorably discharged. So I think you should look at the facts, and the facts are clear, versus old, recycled attacks from the Democrats. This race -- there are too many critical issues facing this nation for us to continue to engage in these old, recycled attacks. That's what the Democrats want, because they can't win on the issues, they can't win on a discussion of the future.
Could someone please unleash an old, recycled attack on Scott McClellan's pasty ass?
Could someone please unleash an old, recycled attack on Scott McClellan's pasty ass?
I think you just did. 
Presuming the documents were forged, I wonder if the documents were released as part of a cointelpro style op?
Careful on how we choose to swing our sword...
Left-wing frootloops and barking moonbats admit that CBS's documents were forged. Mass suicides expected among the Kool-Aid drinkers. Film at 11.
I think the latest CBS statement cleared it up: they talked to many people on- and off-camera and went with the preponderence of the evidence as vetted by journalists whose credibility has never been questioned. The main point is the story; the documents were just a part and some say they are 'iffy' but others say not -- it appears the document authentication is a theological question that may (or may not) be resolved in the next life but certainly not by mere mortals on this terrestrial orb.
On the mortal plane, we have the best of professional investigative journalists who have been on the story for five years standing by their previous report -- I don't think it gets much more solid than that.
Then, for icing, add this: The secretary interview! Rather is never satisfied with good documentation -- he always goes the extra mile. It's no wonder he's a legend.
Put this one to bed -- I'm a CBS'er for life.
From the Lileks blog, which is a lot funnier and more quotable than I am:
"Again, from the Times, a quote from the lawyer re: the fellow who, it seems likely, may have forged the docs, or passed them along.
Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush’s military service, Mr. Van Os said: “If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done” - then, he continued, “what difference would it make?”
Leave aside “without much evidence,” which is a standard rhetorical trick; you spin a fib about damning evidence en route to making your final point, so your interlocutor argues that last point and appears to concede the parenthetical assertion. Focus on that last line: “What difference would it make?”
On the other side of that question stretches a hall of mirrors a mile wide and ten miles long. Translation: the issue isn't whether the memos are fake. The issue is what the faked memos prove to be true. You want that to be your standard for accuracy?
Look. They’re fake. CBS screwed the pooch on this one. They pursued the story for years, and in the end they lost perspective, just as lousy pilots become disoriented in bad weather and think they’re flying level when they’re actually heading down at a 45 degree angle. Imagine if the GOP had spent three election cycles trying to impugn Kerry’s service, and finally came up with a Swift Boat Vet guy who said he saw Kerry shoot himself in the foot – and within a day it was revealed that the source spent the entire war in a supply depot in San Diego. End of the entire Magic-Hat / Xmas in Cambodia / V-for-valor/ rice-shrapnel story. The fruit of the poisoned tree, baked in a nice pie, smashed in the face of the accuser.
The left thinks that the issues around the TANG service are relevant – Bush was AWOL then, Bush lied about WMD, both instances involve acronyms, and can’t you SEE the cloven hooves? It’s the same sort of thing that gripped the feverish elements of the Right in the 90s: Clinton winked at drug-smuggling out of Mena, therefore he sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign donations. ISN’T IT CLEAR? But that sort of nonsense was confined the margins; the editor of the Clinton Chronicles wasn’t sitting in the presidential suite at the 2000 convention like Michael Moore sitteth at the left hand of Jimmy Carter in 2004."
See the rest yourselves at
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/arc...904/
091604.html
cheap lead loan mortgage cheap lead loan mortgage cheap lead loan mortgage. 100 faxing loan no payday 100 faxing loan no payday 100 faxing loan no payday.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
