This was found in a 2000 year old clay pot in Jerusalem and reported by CBS.
It's somewhat difficult to read do to its extreme age.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't get it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
CBS got caught promoting obviously faked documents about Bush's national guard service. The forger obviously forgot that word processors hadn't been invented in 1972 and thus they wouldn't have the particular font, the type of spacing used or the superscripted "th" in 11th.
Posted by Jess N (Member # 6744) on :
Very funny!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
That's just sad that a major network would do such a thing. People trust what they hear from the news little enough as it is.
I just envision a time when no news will sway anybody from their position because it's too easy to assume that any news that doesn't fit their worldview is just falsified anyway.
Posted by Jess N (Member # 6744) on :
There are some people that will never be that smart on their own. Unlike you and me, many people would rather just have someone tell them what to think.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In all fairness, CBS hasn't been "caught" yet, although the typographical evidence is pretty damning. If it turns out that the memos were forgeries, heads will roll -- and should.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Unlike you and me, many people would rather just have someone tell them what to think.
Unless you are Porter's life coach. If you are someone who is actually responsible for how he thinks, I take it back.
[ September 10, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Jess N (Member # 6744) on :
I try to be responsible for what I think. I thought that was the first rule in thinking for yourself.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, man. That comes very close to swinging my vote for congress. (response to Tom)
Welcome to Hatrack, Jess. We are not an intellectual elite. You came across as effusive there.
[ September 10, 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Jess N (Member # 6744) on :
Sorry--didn't mean to sound like that. I just think that many people (not all and certainly not you) have gotten, not stupid, but intellectually lazy. Sometimes, I watch other folk and realize that they don't think some important things through very well and take a lot of things they hear on the news at face value. That doesn't mean I think I'm better, but I do worry that people don't feel they need to think. I hope that doesn't make me sound snotty, it's just a humble (albeit opinionated) thought.
Oh, and thanks, Pooka. You seem like a real friendly type. I really like the people here because they allow me to state my opinion without hurting me too badly! Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*pokes Jess in the eye*
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
A poke in the eye ain't gonna do much: the poor dude's head is already rollin' around on the floor.
"...typographical evidence is pretty damning..."
Only if one automaticly accepts "Man never landed on the Moon" type evidence as true. Other records on the topic released by the WhiteHouse contain the same type of "error"s.
And speaking of Jesus, have ya seen the latest Bush ad?
[ September 10, 2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
We need Frank Navasky on this case.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm pretty sure Monk could handle it, too.
Posted by WishfulWiggin (Member # 6823) on :
People that believe we didn't actually land on the moon annoy me greatly. I volunteered at an aviation musuem near my home, and talked about the Lunar Module we had on display (it is one of three in the world). I hated it when people questioned me about its authenticity. Those were the most ignorant people I have ever met, and who ever imagined the theory should be locked in a LEM for a week .
sorry, just had to get that off my back, even though this post isn't really about this topic.
-liz
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
aspectre, awesome link.
Through, careful, documented: this is damning to the claim that these documents must be forged.
Wow. Rarely do you see something so well refuted. Thanks for the link.
[ September 10, 2004, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
My favorite part from the link:
quote:Now, would the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron have extravagantly purchased typewriters that contained the th superscript key? Would the military want or require typewriters with the 'th', 'nd', and 'rd' characters? Hmm. Ponder, Ponder. What would the 111th need with a th character... I'll leave that to the enterprising among you to deduce.
Regardless of how this turned out, this would make a great sequel to The Insider. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:We need Frank Navasky on this case.
You get 20 Annie Chick Flickity points
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Also, recall that it's not know that those in charge of the CBS show knowingly used forgeries. That's probably why they're having an internal investigation.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
At least that's the official party line.
-Trevor
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Chick Flickity points... redeemable at Kleenex stores everywhere. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It should be noted that it's one thing to refute a partisan blog with no expertise in document forgery.
I'm waiting for the Wash. Post or another daily to finish their investigations. Nobody's as dilligent about tracking down journalistic breaches as competitors.
I'd be surprised if they are forgeries, but I'm not going to form an opinion based on competing blogs.
Dagonee
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:
The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard. The memos include superscript, i.e., the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters. The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters. The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters. The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.
I don't particularly trust the previously presented evidence from a left wing blog. I don't really trust ABC News either but they have more credibility than a partisan web site. Especially when they only addressed the points they thought they could disprove, rather than all the points such as the 'curly' apostrophes.
quote: Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe today said neither his organization nor John Kerry´s campaign leaked to CBS documents questioning President Bush´s service record, which may have been forged. He suggested White House adviser Karl Rove could be behind the documents.
quote: He did not explain how the White House would benefit by providing forged documents trying to undermine Mr. Bush´s service record...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Pretty somple....convert them to a font not used then, and leak them....then sit back and claim plasuible denial.
Not that I think that happened... ...but it is possible.
Wait and see, that is my motto for now....
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wise motto in general, but especially in this campaign.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You can ascribe veiled, conspiratorial motivations to both sides - conspiracy theorists do it all the time.
The only question becomes, will we ever really have a conclusive answer that will satisfy everyone?
Probably not.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nope, probably not. But a newspaper trying to show up a television news show has both the motive to keep digging and the incentive to be extra careful about authenticity.
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
There's a lot more than just the superscript to indicate this was a forgery.
quote:The network's statement said typewriters were available in the early 1970s which were capable of printing superscripts. CBS pointed to other Texas Air National Guard documents released by the White House that include an example of a "th" superscript.
But one of Killian's fellow officers, an independent document examiner and Killian's own son doubted the veracity of the memos.
The personnel chief who served at the same time doubts the records are true. With all the talks on the memos about transfers and such - don't you think the personnel chief would have been informed as to what was going on?
quote:In an interview with FOX News, Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he is "very dubious" about the genuineness of the documents.
[Click here for more on the interview.]
He said his father was "not in the habit of keeping secret files," didn't have a home office, didn't work after leaving his office and didn't have available to him at work the kind of typewriter that was apparently used to compose the documents.
Gary Killian said the sentiments in the documents didn't reflect his father's "true feelings" about Bush, and that if his father had actually written the papers, he would have signed them using his full name, not just "CYA," which is on the documents.
He also said his father would have typed such a document himself, "hated" typing and was a "very poor" typist. "He did not type memos to himself," Gary Killian added, saying it was "too much effort" and "very dangerous … not a good practice."
The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake.
"They looked to me like forgeries," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years."
Killian's widow, Marjorie Connell, described the records to The Washington Post as "a farce," saying she was with her husband until the day he died in 1984 and that he did not "keep files." She said her husband considered Bush "an excellent pilot."
"I don't think there were any documents. He was not a paper person," she said, adding that she was "livid" at CBS journalists who did not, she said, ask her to authenticate the records.
CBS supposedly obtains files that were kept in this man's private home and doesn't even ask his family to verify it?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I clicked on aspectre's link out of morbid curiosity. To quote the link, "Um, OK then."
[ September 11, 2004, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't think do...not after reading a bit more about it.
First the Bush people say "The th is a dead giveaway...typewriters can't do that."...and when it is pointed out that half their doc's that they released have the superscripted th on them...and that a ton of different types of typewriters could and did have the ability to do this, and all 3 types WERE in use at the time...
They say ......"New Times Roman wasn't in use at the time....which isn't true, not that it matters. The font isn't New Times Roman, it only looks like it if you reduce the size to a very small size:
quote: Glyphs in fonts are defined by tiny, minute details. There are sometimes big and obvious differences, but you of COURSE have to examine the originals in high resolution to tell definitively if they are the same. Shrinking a font down to 10 or 12 pixels high is an absolutely foolish way to compare two typefaces. Hell, if you shrink it down to NINE pixels you can make ANY two serif fonts look the same! Observe:
(In here at the link is a GREAT example that won't print here...)
And in the limit, if you shrink to ONE pixel high, ALL fonts look identical! Why, if I were stupid I'd think it was like magic!
These are obviously two very different typefaces. Superimposed on each other at extremely low resolution, however, they look identical.
In other words, the LittleGreenFootball crowd has successfully demonstrated that two typefaces designed to look similar do indeed look similar, at small type sizes, if you don't look very hard. The fact that this "discovery" has now been trumpeted across the continent by everyone from Rush Limbaugh to the major news networks should make mainstream media sources very, very embarrassed. (It is constitutionally impossible, however, to make LGF contributors embarrassed. They named their site after nose-picking, what else exactly do you need to know?)
Another definitive indication the letter was typewritten, or at least that it was a more clever forgery than a five-minute Word job, can be seen when examining the letter closely, as opposed to the birds-eye view that the right-wing claims rely on.
(The CYA document).
Look particularly at the word "interference", at the beginning of the second line. It contains four 'e's. Two are at the baseline; two are raised slightly above the baseline. It is inconsistent, even on the same line, within the same word.
This isn't an artifact of a fax, or a copy distortion; if that were true, all 'e' elements would be equally misplaced. These character drifts must necessarily exist in the original document. Similar drifts exist throughout, and for other letters.
If you were comparing this document with a Microsoft Word document at a small type size, you wouldn't even notice the differences. But as we have previously demonstrated, if you are comparing those two documents at a small type size, you are a moron.
They only look similar, even at that size, not exactally alike.
So the Bush people say "Well, there is no typewriter that can do ALL that, not back then."; not true again. at leat 3 types could do all that and more. And the Guard had all 3 in offices at the time.
Kwea
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
In the NYTimes, CBS stands by their statements that these documents are untouched copies of originals. I would not be so quick to jump to the conclusion that these documents must be false. Testimony from his son that this does not "sound" like Killian in no way proves that the documents are false, but merely that his son does not want to believe the documents are true.
I dislike:
quote:CBS got caught promoting obviously faked documents about Bush's national guard service.
It is not obvious at all if the documents were faked if experts are disagreeing as to whether these documents are faked or not. Saying these documents are "obviously faked" is only displaying partisanship, not respect for the facts.
[ September 11, 2004, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: JonnyNotSoBravo ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kwea, first of all, it's not the "Bush people" saying anything. Second, there are several news organizations hiring experts to examine the documents. I'll take their word for it over eithe blog any day.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
His widow, his son and his former crew chief all disagree.
And while that is hardly conclusive evidence, it does cast the shadow of doubt on whether or not he wrote the afore-mentioned memos.
It's possible he told someone to write them for him since he wasn't much of a note taker or writer by all accounts, but as Dag mentioned, several experts have been hired to review the documents.
It's possible to dig up a typewriter from the appropriate era if someone wanted to make a seriously believeable forgery, but analyzing the paper itself should provide a more plausible dating reference - not that I claim to be an expert in paper.
-Trevor
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I worked at McGraw-Hill at their California Test Bureau's Strategic Products Division. It was 1991, just as laser printers were coming into widespread use. The excitement in the advancements of the publishing field at that time cannot be appreciated by anyone under the age of 25, and apparently not by anyone who was outside the field.
The idea that these documents came from a commonly available typewriter is incredibly naive. Linotype machines did exists, but they cost more than a luxury automobile.
We can argue whether the signatures were forgeries until we are blue in the face.
What really disturbs me is that these documents undermine the integrity of a dead man. Are the democrats going to distance themselves from this debacle as they should, or cling to it like the holy grail?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Read the links, and then go to GE's webstie...I did.
Linotype machines aren't the only types that could produce this.....and the "font" as reported, isn't really NTR.
I am still willing to hear what is said, but what disgusts me about this is that the mainstream media swallowed this whole without waiting for confirmation.
I just used that link to prove that anyone who said it was "impossible" for these to be era copies based on faulty information is not worth listening to.
I also have a friend that works in a forensic lab, and when I showed him both sites he was amazed at the lack of research by the accusers.
He really though the critism of the "font" was funny....as fonts were created to mimic typesetting styles in the first place!
And he said that is you want to compare typesetting (or fonts) the last thing you should do is shrink them.....in fact he said that they magnify them many times over when comparing font, typesetting, or handwriting.
Guess which blog he thought was correct?
BTW, I never said the Bush Admin, I said Bush people, so I should have been more clear. Then again, did you check out their web site? I don't thing they are Kerry supporters....
Oh, BTW....he plans on voting Bush....lol...
And I still let him in my house...
Kwea
[ September 11, 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Linotype machines aren't the only types that could produce this.....and the "font" as reported, isn't really NTR.
This is my (albeit limited) understanding as well. Why, exactly, "must" these be from a linotype machine? (I thought the reasons why not were adequately addressed in aspetre's first link.)
quote:What really disturbs me is that these documents undermine the integrity of a dead man. Are the democrats going to distance themselves from this debacle as they should, or cling to it like the holy grail?
pooka, the documents are also in reference to prevent the impugning of the integrity of a live man.
Like a Speaking, I think addressing the truth of the matter (whatever it may be) is the most repectful to all involved. To hide the documents' content -- if accurate - would be tantamount to saying that this man would prefer to maintain a lie after his death. That's insulting to his integrity, too.
It's also possible to hold the documents as accurate without addressing them with the religious love and emotional investment appropriate to a "holy grail." Perhaps they are just another piece of information in the whole story.
I don't think it's obvious that the documents are not forged (certainly, they could have been, and as was mentioned above, someone could have used an old typewriter and old paper to create them). But I don't think it is at all "obvious" that they were forged, and there is enough evidence laying around on the metaphorical ground to show that at a most cursory glance.
What is "obvious," to me, is that at this time people seem to be willing to swallow unnexamined claims fairly blindly, regardless of party affiliation. That polarization gives me cause to worry about what will happen after the November election, regardless of who wins.
[ September 11, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Exactally...I don't know if they are fakes or not.
All I know is that every claim made stating that they MUST be fakes (and therefore are a smear towards the Dems who "produced" them) has been refuted.
This isn't the docs, you see. It's about how quickly they demanded an apoligy for something that has no proof....yet.
If the Democrats did anything near this bad then the Republicans would use it as an example of how they filp-flop, and don't do their reasearch.
There are plenty of other documents in Bush's file that are damming enough.
Unless they are obviously fakes like this one.
Kwea
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Actually, I kind of credit the testimony of the wife and son.
Would I know if a document had been typed or written by my husband? Most certainly.
His son didn't just live with him - he SERVED in the guard with him. He would know his father's habits, how his father did things.
His wife would know whether or not he kept files at home. His wife would know whether or not he had a typewriter machine at home.
The personnel chief says he doesn't belive they are genuine. He served at the same time. Bush was asking for transfers (according to the documents) - the personnel chief would be involved in a transfer request. The personnel chief knew both of them - the dead officer and Bush. He served with and knew the officer for 17 years - he must have read hundreds of memos and letters from the guy and says this doesn't sound like him.
I don't like the assumption that people's testimony should immediately be dismissed and not credited.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Would you be arguing that the testimony of close persons should be credited (to some good extent), or would you argue that such testimony means that the documents were "obviously" forged, or would you argue that regardless of whether they were forged, the matter should be settled at that point, Belle?
That is, if the family and friends were to come out against the documents' veracity based on memory and personal knowledge of the loved one, should there still be abeyance of judgment until further investigation -- or should there then necessarily be no further investigation?
(I'm not pulling partisan sides here, just curious as to what you are trying to say. I found myself able to interpret it in all sorts of ways, which likely reflects my own lack of interpretive abilities. )
[ September 11, 2004, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"Wait and see, that is my motto for now...."
Yeah, sign me up for that wait-and-see camp. Either way, some journalists are going to get burned. For some reason, that fills me with glee.
-Beren
[ September 11, 2004, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
My tick was with the claim that these documents "must" ("obviously") be forged.
I'm willing to be persuaded either way as further analysis is done, and I agree with Belle that some weight should be given to the testimony of friends and loved ones, although I'd also add that such a source would not be entirely unbiased (which doesn't mean that they are not at all credible, just a reminder to take testimony in context).
I'm still nervous about what will happen to such heightened and polarized feelings after the election.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I see two camps on this, when reading the various sources.
One camp says "These look like forgeries, and this is why." (And this view I'm basing on reading statements, not from the RNC, but from people like the document examiner from the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, whose opinion I do give weight to.)
One camp says "But they might NOT be forgeries, because it was actually possible that such a thing might have been done."
Now the family and co-workers come out and say "but we know the man who was supposed to have written this, and we don't think he did." Then the wife says "They didn't even ask me - and I'm angry, if they'd asked I would have told them my husband didn't even keep such files at home."
I'm leaning for camp one. CBS obviously didn't investigate the authenticity very well. Again, if it were business files then I can see asking the wife as not really necessary, but these were supposedly personal files kept at home.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:I see two camps on this, when reading the various sources. ... I'm leaning for camp one.
So -- just for clarity's sake, not to be challenging you -- you reject "Camp Two." That is, you reject the notion that "they might NOT be forgeries, because it was actually possible that such a thing might have been done."
Or, to put it another way, they must be forgeries. Yes?
(just checking, I promise not to be setting you up for some criticism, here or down the road )
[ September 11, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Marcel Matley, the expert CBS relies on, isn't he the same guy that examined the Vince Foster suicide note?
-Beren
[ September 11, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Sara, I said I was leaning toward camp one. That's a long way from "Camp two is obviously wrong."
To me, the weight has to be on the camp trying to prove it genuine. Forgeries are so easy to do, of written documents, without an original signature. Lines, the forensic sciences examiner, (and what a cool last name for that profession!) produced a virtually identical copy of one of the memos on Microsoft Word to show how easy it was.
So....Occam's Razor favors the forgery theory. It is easy to do, and no one personally involved has come forward to say "Hey, this is true, I was there and I know." Instead, the people close to it have come forward and said the opposite. Unless some evidence comes to light to completely discredit the testimony of these people (it would help if someone could produce a bunch of personal memos written by this man, to show it was indeed a pattern, despite the family's insistence that he didn't keep files or write personal memos) I'm having a hard time accepting it as genuine.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Can the White House maintain their position that they do not know if the documents were fabricated?
If the new documents contradict Bush's assertion that he received no special treatment, wouldn't the Bush camp HAVE to argue that the documents were forged. I guess you could also attack Killian's credibility, but that might not be well-received.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Belle, I worked in a personell office at USAMRIID, and it is amazing the amount of paperwork that goes through those offices.
His wife wouldn't be allowed to see those papers...they are classified...not top secret, but restricted due to privacy concerns, and as a general pratice.
There is no possible way they could have remembered every single request or form that every soldier put in.
And his son served wuth his father, but would not have had access to those records either, unless he took over his fathres job (or another in the same office)....and he couldn't remember every little thing either.
I am NOT saying they are forgeries...I am saying that people don't have the right to assume guilt without looking at all the evidence....which isn't what they did here. They screamed foul claiming that it HAD to be a forgery...and then every bit of "proof" they had was proven to be incorrect.
Even if these allegatons are proven false, try and tell me that it won't adversly affect the Kerry campaign this close to the election.
Something smells about this whole thing.....
Kwea
[ September 11, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Kwea, once again - he did't produce these files at the office, they were only personal notes to himself.
I'm not arguing the wife would have read them - I'm arguing she would have known whether the man kept files at home AT ALL. She is saying he didn't.
She is saying he never typed memos to himself. The son says he hated typing. The son says the man believed keeping paperwork was dangerous. They both say the man didn't have files at home.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I hope they are forgeries, too, though I do feel sorry for Dan Rather if they were. Personally, I don't need documented proof that Bush spend his twenties drunk or high, instead of being useful. Hasn't he admitted as much? If they are forgeries, the media is just going to have to get more careful, and an impetus for responsible journalism is not a bad thing.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Belle, that cleared it up for me. Thanks. I can certainly understand and appreciate your reservations. (I wasn't understanding you before, and though I most definitely wouldn't have jumped on you, I was having trouble reconciling it. Thanks.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Occam's Razor favors the forgery theory
No, it suports the opposite.
The simpilest answer is that they are true. It is the least complicated answer, so Occam's Razor would support that.
Forgerey would need a complex conspiricy to disguise the documents to pass them off as real.
If (and I do mean if:D) they are real, then they are documents that would ahve been common to any person who requested them at the time.
Occam's Razor isn't reall a good tool either...but that is a different discussion.
Also, the point you made about duplicating the typesetting with word has been addressed....
The fonts are uniform, and copied from old typesets, so of course they look alike. Not identical, but alike.
Anything reduced to that size looks alike.
Check out the link above...it shows 2 fonts superimposed on each other at that size...they aren't even similar fonts but they look the same at that size!
I would be interested in reading what they said....but I wouldn't consider it definitive at all.
Kwea
[ September 11, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
the washington post has info about the documents as well. In addition to the typographical issues they also call into question some of the language used (using incorrect terms) and one of the people in the letter had been retired for 17 months at the time the letter was dated.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not a slam dunk that they're forged, but the Post article today has me leaning that way.
What disturbs me most is CBS's reaction so far. It's fine for the rest of the country to decide that the documents being forged do not make the issue of Bush's service go away. But when a national news organization runs a story in prime time that relies heavily on documents that turn out to be at least suspicious, they don't get to whine that "It's been frustrating to us to see all this reduced to a debate over little 'th's." Everything in that story is suspect until this issue is cleared up, especially given the sloppiness of ignoring their own experts.
The rest of the press can follow up on CBS's story all they want. But CBS has lost the ability to do so with any credility. Had they faced this head on from the beginning, they might still have some.
Dagonee
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I hear you, Dagonee.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Franky, from what I understand of this story (pretty much what I've read here) even if these documents turn out to not be forgeries (and this seems to be looking very unlikely), there should still be some major reprecussions in CBS. If the impression I got is correct, they got some memos with some potentially very volatile information, but didn't put a whole lot of effort into verifying the authenticity of these documents. Even if they turn out to be the real thing, the people who used them without subjecting them to proper scrutiny should be faced with some serious consequences.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, absolutely. It was bad journalism even if they're valid.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
This is how strongly I feel about the issue...I haven't even read the documents.
I won't, unless they are authenticated, because they shouldn't have been released until they were.
Obviously, I don't feel that they necessarily are fake...the Republicans came up with all the wrong reasons why the MUST be....
But I am not sure they are real, either.
And until I am convinced they are, I don't need them to make my point.....Bush has given me plenty of ammo about his record WITHOUT needing to fake any documents.
And however is responsible, even if they are real, probably should be punished....
And if they are fake, they should be fired.
Just checked out the CBS link....and they are making some of the same mistakes that earlier anilizers made...superscripting WAS available, the kerning has been addressed as well.
More interesting are their notes on language used...
Kwea
[ September 19, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But the press is never so interesting as when they've turned on one of their own.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, do those of you saying "I'm refraining from making any judgement until these documents are verified, as I always do" really do this for EVERY news article based on documents?
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
I hate to say this (no, I don't), but Occam's Razor really isn't the simplest way to find out the truth on any given matter.
--DOG
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I said that, Dog....but there is enough evidence of that to full a thread of it's own...lol...
Yes, I try to..although unavoidably there are times where I don't...I usually hope that the news agency reporting it has at least done SOMETHING to avoid these types of mistakes.
Kwea
[ September 19, 2004, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Pixiest:
quote:CBS got caught promoting obviously faked documents about Bush's national guard service
Wow! And to think that I almost missed the point.
Please to be comparing this to GWB getting caught promoting obviously faked documents about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium "yellow cake" from Niger in order to develop nukular Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Ask yourself: how many people have been killed as a result of this "promotion of obviously faked documents"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What faked documents, DOG?
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Here are the responses I expect:
Liberal/Democrat: HFS! You're right!
Conservative/Republican: BFD! [add misdirection about why we really went to war] [add misdirection about the Republican-planted "new evidence" supposedly "proving" the Niger connection all over again, (which conveniently disappeared--again--once it was learned that people just weren't buying that particular brand of total BS any more)]
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Please to be noting the times of Dag's last post, and mine. This proves two things:
1) I am not DAG, nor is he me.
2) Score another point for Liberal Democrat predictive abilities! I win, again!
--DOG
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
DAG,
Either you are being fascetious, or you haven't been paying enough attention for the last few years. Since I know the latter not to be true, I shall assume the former; neither shall I nibble on that worm tonight.
--DOG
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
(Thinks to self: did Kwea get it? Pawses, thinks...did I?)
--DOG
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, I get it. You get to spout off with conclusory statements without providing evidence or citation.
*Adds DOG to the /ignore list.
Dagonee
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
quote:You get to spout off with conclusory statements without providing evidence or citation.
I'm so sorry, DAG. It's just that the whole "Niger yellow-cake document forgery" issue has been so beaten to death that I figured it stood on its own.
You know, sort of like when you go to Google, and enter the search terms:
quote: CBS News plans to issue a statement, perhaps as early as today, saying that it was misled on the purported National Guard memos the network used to charge that President Bush received favored treatment 30 years ago.
The statement would represent a huge embarrassment for the network, which insisted for days that the documents reported by Dan Rather on "60 Minutes" are authentic. But the statement could help defuse a crisis that has torn at the network's credibility.
It is not clear whether the statement will include an apology for a story now believed to be based on forged documents, although that is under consideration, sources familiar with the matter said. The sources said they could not be identified because CBS is making no official statement.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
quote:The Bush Administration plans to issue a statement, perhaps as early as today, saying that it was misled on the purported Niger/Iraq "Yellow Cake" memos the administration used to charge Saddam Hussein with attempting to fabricate Weapons of Mass Destruction over one year ago.
The statement would represent a huge embarrassment for the administration, which insisted for months that the documents reported by US intelligence agencies were authentic. But the statement could help defuse a crisis that has torn at the administration's credibility.
It is not clear whether the statement will include an apology for a war now believed to be based on forged documents, although that is under consideration, sources familiar with the matter said. The sources said they could not be identified because the Bush administration is making no official statement.
Just wanted to see how it might read...
--DOG
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Apparantly DOG is incapable of discussing one situation without dragging up something else utterly unrelated. We're not sure why he likes doing it, but there you have it.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I think DOG's just pointing out that bigger mistakes than this one have been made in regards to forgeries, and thus perhaps it's not fair to poke fun at CBS.
Although, truthfully, saying CBS is no more misleading than the Bush administration doesn't say all that much for CBS.
[ September 20, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So only the worst offender for any given misdeed can ever be called on it? That's ridiculous, and you know it.
quote: CBS News today apologized for the "60 Minutes" story charging that President Bush had received favorable treatment in the Texas Air National Guard and said its source for the story was Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel who has urged Democrats to wage "war" against Republican "dirty tricks."
"We made a mistake in judgment and for that I am sorry," anchor Dan Rather said in a statement.
CBS News President Andrew Heyward, in a separate statement, made the acknowledgement about Burkett.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
If you read the CBS story, you will find that the problem is NOT that the documents were proven to be forgeries. Currently, they have NOT been found to be forgeries. The original source of the documents is in question, since Burkett lied about where he got them from. And, the truth cannot be verified. But they are not (perhaps "yet") considered forgeries.
The Niger/Yellow-Cake documents are KNOWN FORGERIES, just to bring up some history that DAG would rather we all forget.
Also note that GWB himself feels that the investigation of his AWOL from the ANG should still be investigated:
quote:During the weekend, Bush told the Manchester, N.H., Union Leader that "there are a lot of questions" about the CBS documents "and they need to be answered."
Go, George!
--DOG
BTW, DAG, just because you want them to be unrelated, doesn't mean that they are unrelated.
I'm sure once people find out that GWB had sex with a male intern, that the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal will be brought up as a reference--even though it would be unrelated.
[ September 20, 2004, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Again, please explain the relevance to this thread?
Dagonee
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
The relevance is the damage that can be done by falsifying documents.
The relevance is the character of our nation's leader--who, basically, "runs" on character (he certainly does not run on intelligence).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it's a typical deflection attempt, which poisons debate when practiced by either side.
It's as bad as bringing up "well, Clinton lied" when someone complains about Bush. It's childish, and unproductive.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I find a very interesting parallel.
Liberals flat out call GWB a "liar" for stating that Iraq had WMD's (even though our intelligence, the german intelligence, the british intelligence, the french intelligence and the russian intelligence all believed they had them but that's another thread).
So does that make Dan Rather a "liar" as well?
Should all the cries about GWB (he should step down, and crap like that) ring true for Rather as well?
Is Rather a liar?
Is Bush a liar?
Why or why not?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You miss a major step in that logic: many liberals, myself included, feel that Bush knew the intelligence was flawed and didn't care, because he was seeking a pretext for war.
Now, this WOULD be a good analogy if you believe that Dan Rather suspected the documents were forgeries but went ahead with them anyway because he just wanted some way to smear Bush's record.
[ September 20, 2004, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: You miss a major step in that logic: many liberals, myself included, feel that Bush knew the intelligence was flawed and didn't care, because he was seeking a pretext for war.
That's what I find hilarious because for him to KNOW that he would have to be a prophet.
You actually BELIEVE he knew more that all of our PROFESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE agencies and those of the Rest of the developed world combined?
Wow. That logic is just.....wow.
Also, the analogy is exactly fitting because the Rather Documents are comming out as having been filtered through the DNC, the analogy fits perfectly.
quote: Now, this WOULD be a good analogy if you believe that Dan Rather suspected the documents were forgeries but went ahead with them anyway because he just wanted some way to smear Bush's record.
Have you been reading the NON CBS news lately regarding this and WHERE the documents came from?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So only the worst offender for any given misdeed can ever be called on it? That's ridiculous, and you know it.
Well, no, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to put things into perspective when you do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But how, exactly, does this put things in perspective? It's simply more shrill accusation and counter-accusation.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That's what I find hilarious because for him to KNOW that he would have to be a prophet."
Really? I knew that, and I'm not even the president.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
CBS is now admitting they were "misled"
They still have not answered why they aired the documents when two of their own experts expressed reservations about the authenticity and why the only on-air expert they used was a former librarian whose only document examining credentials were a correspondence course.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The "unimpeachable source" turned out to be an anti-Bush activist. See front page of the Washington Post for details.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
USA today is saying CBS set up a meeting between said activist and the Kerry Campaign as well... as a quid pro quo.
edit: I only skimmed the article, but that was the impression I got.
[ September 21, 2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Really? I knew that, and I'm not even the president.
So the president should listen to you instead of the PAID PROFESSIONAL intelligence gatherers of the whole world?
Yeah, maybe if he was a democrat we would just throw missles at a pill factory in Sudan, but I think a good president listens to those people who get PAID to spy. Not those who have an opinion based on their political motivations.
Sorry, you didn't KNOW anything. You just believed it.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
As has been asked, if this is NOT how CBS does all of their news stories (which has HUGE implications for CBS if they don't answer correctly) then here is a couple of tough unanswered questions:
1. If there is a "higher standard" CBS uses for all their news stories, including those in the past, why wasn't that "Higher standard" used in this case? Why air a story that doesn't meet that high standard of criteria for all the rest of their stories? What was their motivation for releasing a story that they KNEW was shaky AT BEST?
2. If they did follow all the procedures of all their other stories, does that mean that all of CBS's past broadcasts should be questioned? What justification for THOSE stories do they have if the same procedures were followed in this forgery as compared to past reports?
Something STINKS big time.
I think I'll act like Al Gore now:
"He BETRAYED this country! He played on our TRUST! He BETRAYED the Media!" Scream, rant, scream, etc. etc.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So the president should listen to you instead of the PAID PROFESSIONAL intelligence gatherers of the whole world?"
Apparently. It's kind of sad, really. Perhaps they're in the wrong profession.
"Sorry, you didn't KNOW anything. You just believed it."
Interestingly, the same can apparently be said for the paid professional intelligence gatherers of the whole world. It's worth noting that when the chips were down and it came down to what I believed versus what they believed, I'm a better guesser.
[ September 21, 2004, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
quote:The "unimpeachable source" turned out to be an anti-Bush activist
Dag, the papers have not been shown to be forgeries; the path needed to verify them has been called into question. They are true (or not) independent of who brought them to CBS' attention.
Or are you trying out "distraction tactics," just as you accused me of doing a few posts ago?
And regarding "Bush knew the intelligence was flawed" issue (again, to the Niger Yellow-Cake fiasco). Of course he knew it was flawed. When the CIA brought it to his attention THEY SPECIFICALLY TOLD HIM THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE FORGERIES. BRITISH INTELLIGENCE ALSO STATED TO TONY BLAIR THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE FORGERIES.
Of course TomDavidson knew. Everyone who was paying attention and not deeply, religiously in love with GWB as the next coming of Christ knew.
To which, Dagonee, I expect your response will be "Oh, sure. Words, words, words, words, words."
--DOG
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, I'm ignoring the non-issue. Start your own thread if you want to talk about it.
I haven't said the documents are forgeries. However, calling someone who is an anti-Bush activist an "unimpeachable source" is incredibly misleading by CBS. Everything new I hear abou this story makes me question the credibility of CBS as a news organization.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:many liberals, myself included, feel that Bush knew the intelligence was flawed and didn't care, because he was seeking a pretext for war.
I think this, and I am not a liberal.
I remember when he started talking about Iraq - out of nowhere, scrambling for reasons to invade, refusing to listen to anyone else, insisting time was of the essense. There were/are a half a dozen so-so reasons for war, but they all felt/feel like justifications. I don't think we do know why Bush et. al. wanted to go to war, but it's enough for me that I don't. I don't like being lied to.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Wow, people actually believe President Bush knew there were no weapons of Mass Destruction before going in to Iraq?
Wow, wow, wow, wow, wow.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
www.m-w.com Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I think there's more evidence Clinton knew he was bombinb a Pill Factory in Sudan and Empty Tents in Afghanistan than that GWB knew more than the combined intelligence agencies of the whole world.
Frances Intelligence admits telling us they had WMD's. DESPITE being against the war.
Russia's Intelligence admits telling us they had WMDS's. DESPITE being against the war.
Germany's Intelligence admits telling us they had WMD's. Despite being against the war.
Britain's Intelligence admits telling us they had WMD's. Despite being a reluctant ally in the war.
Our OWN Intelligence completely informed the Administration there was reason to believe they had WMD's.
The whole world intelligence believed had had WMD's, (except Jeanine Garafolo)
The whole IRAQI response evidenced it.
But some people actually believe President Bush KNEW more than they did.
I am in AWE!
[ September 21, 2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...despite the winking smiley, it's coming off as more whiney and sarcastic than actually funny. Go read Tom's Hey Chad thread (that was for you). There might be potential here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. Are you suggesting, Chad, that Bush was manipulated into war with Iraq by other countries who provided him with poor intelligence, and that he would not have invaded had he received quality intelligence in the first place?
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Um, Chad,
Could you please post the links to the Rush Limbaugh site that makes those "Everybody KNEW" references, so that we can read them for ourselves?
Thanks in advance,
--DOG
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Hm. Are you suggesting, Chad, that Bush was manipulated into war with Iraq by other countries who provided him with poor intelligence, and that he would not have invaded had he received quality intelligence in the first place?
I am suggesting that when you place the evidence he had WMD's on a scale, they tipped considerably towards the "He has them".
GWB wasn't manipulated. He was given bad information. ALOT of bad information. But that information was the best he had to work with.
I honestly believe that to be the case. Why? Because if he "made the whole thing up" or "Knew about them not existing in advance" then there is an automatic scenario that has not played out.
It would take about 48 hours to transfer our WMD's in the area into captured Iraqi warheads and bury them in the desert, then lead Al Jazeera there and VIOLA! We've found the WMD's.
Why hasn't that happened? Because there's no conspiracy to begin with that needs to be covered up. If there was, the scenario I just described would have already played out.
EVERYONE including Bush believed there were WMD's and that due to faulty intelligence.
People can believe otherwise. But that doesn't make it anywhere near true.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
David Kay appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee shortly after he resigned as special advisor to the Iraq Survey Group. Kay states, referring to the expectation that there would be substantial stocks of, and production lines for, chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, that "we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here." He also notes that other foreign intelligence agencies, including the French and the German, also had believed that Iraq possessed such stocks and production lines. In addition, he discusses the issue of whether political pressure had any impact on the content of the October 2002 national intelligence estimate (Document 15). Kay also notes that "based on the work of the Iraq Survey Group … Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441. He goes on to note the discovery of hundreds of instances of activities prohibited by U.N. Resolution 687.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Look, I don't think anybody is saying that Bush knew there were no WMDs. What I am saying is all I can speak to, however so I'll say it. If George W. Bush had such great intelligence, all he had to do was tell Hans Blix where to look and we would have known for sure. If e didn't know where to look, all he had to do was keep up the pressure while the inspectors did their job. However, all sides (except the republicans on my college campus, who still hold that Saddam aparently Fedex'd the stuff to Osama Bin Laden befor the invasion) now agree that there are no stockpiles of WMDs. It's the President's job to protect America, yes, but it's also his job to make DAMN sure that his information is correct befor sending American soldiers, including your family and mine, to fight and possibly die on foreign soil.
His most recent way of addressing the controversy is to say that he was faced with a choice. "To either go to War (dramatic pause) or to forget the lessons of September 11th and trust in the words of a madman (roars of pre-screened crowds as the president continues, speaking over them:) faced with that choice I will defend America, every time." But there was a third choice. He could have trusted in the team of Blix (who was ostensibly NOT a madman) to do their job and recognized that he had Hussein cornered and under surveillance, and beginning to cooperate. Faced with THAT choice, he should have been more responsible with the lives of our army and the political capital of our nation.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I really like the people here because they allow me to state my opinion without hurting me too badly! ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
...but it is possible.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)