posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
posted
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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"?
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
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)]
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
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
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.
posted
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).
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
