the signatures look a lot less authentic to me than anything else 

do lt colonels know how to type?

Is it true... I don't know... but its damn interesting.

historyishere -

You're right - interesting. But not proof of anything.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Aldebaran -

Thanks for pointing that out - I didn't actually print the document, just viewed it, so the phenomenon you describe is very possible, and I should have remembered that. However, my meager efforts at understanding this are dwarfed by Draginol's link:

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/

Go there, if you haven't already, for the clearest and what appears to be the best authenticated information on this subject I've seen.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Those of you in the self-delusion game:

Here is Windows XP with MS word typing the same document with default settings and font overlayed ontop of CBS's released memo:

A perfect match. Let's be real here. It's over. You can't get a match this perfect even if you used say Word Perfect or some other word processor.

Not only was this done on a computer but it was done on a computer with a very specific word processor using its default settings. CBS got hoaxed.

the signatures look a lot less authentic to me than anything else

I agree, kingbee. Despite the CBS analyst's assertions, those signatures look far more suspect to me than the document contents.

And there are some other tiny inconsistencies. The only documents in which the Lt abbreviation in Lt Colonel has a period after it are the suspect documents (Lt. vs. Lt). All the document fragments that CBS offered as proof of similarity show the rank as Lt Colonel or Lt Col - none of them have a period. And in my tour in the Navy from 1978 to late 1980, rate/rank abbreviations never had periods (I just went through my entire stack of records from that tour to confirm). Even if you argue these were just casual "memos to the file" so wouldn't necessarily have followed military correspondence standards, military habits are rarely broken - he would have typed his rank the same way every time.

Also, was the acronym "CYA" commonly used in the early 70's? I suppose it was, but frankly can't recall, it's such a taken-for-granted cliche.

Beyond that, would any military officer put something like that in writing, using that acronym? If his intent really was to cover his ass, would he announce in the memo's subject line that he was "covering his ass"? That would patently defeat the purpose, and fails the Spock Test.

Cheers,
Daiwa

"So... this story ain't over, folks."

I hereby dispute myself. Drag is absolutely correct. It is over.

Cheers,
Daiwa

The story ain't over - not long by a long shot.

But the dispute is over -- at least if you're not self-deluding. Anyone with even the slightest amount of doubt I have to ask if they've ever even used a type writer? Even little things like identical word wrapping are pretty damning.

That second line which ends with "regarding" would have gone on to say "Bush" on a type writer because in all likelyhood the little "ding" to let you know you're approaching the margin wouldn't have gone off until he had started typing Bush and it's not like a compute where "Bush" gets automatically put onto the next page.

There is alsot he issue with the curved apostrophe. I've never seen a type writer (including the IBMs) that have this feature. Even our fonts here don't have the curved apostrophe.

The story won't die yet because CBS foolishly is sticking to its guns. I think this is going to kill the Kerry campaign because at the very least this controversy will eat into next week and then there will be calls to find out who this "Source" was as there are rumors going around that someon ein teh Kerry camp fed this document to CBS.

Daiwa:

I did check out that link and it's very fascinating. Another thing that just doesn't seem to add up. I'm still trying to withhold definitive judgement for all of this but it keeps getting harder and it's looking more and more like someone's got some 'splainin' to do.

I'm just fascinated with cases like this where esoteric, technical details most laymen wouldn't even consider suddenly start to become very important.

http://www.imao.us/img/bush_awol_memo.jpg

I said I was 90% convinced... and now we have a slam dunk... good hunting all

Draginol: !!! Very cool . . .

I'm just fascinated with cases like this where esoteric, technical details most laymen wouldn't even consider suddenly start to become very important.

The power in this story is that it was a collection of "laymen" who blew CBS out of the water. And without question, CBS is well and duly blown.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I love that! If anything, this fabrication will make for great parodies.

Reply #54 By: sandy2 - 9/10/2004 10:03:20 PM Well he did go to war without congress approval, and there was certainly no dire emergency there.

Your dead wrong on this one sandy! It's against our laws and he DID have congressional approval.This is from a CNN website.

The decision to go to war is exclusively that of Congress Sadly, it seems we've reached the point where the Constitution is no longer relevant on matters of a president's war-making powers. Presidents, the Congress and the courts have made going to war, once a serious constitutional issue, and a purely political question. As a result, in the last half century, the war powers clause of the Constitution has become a nullity, if not a quaint relic. While conservatives often insist on following the letter of the Constitution on most issues, on matters of war they ignore it. That's a disgrace, because the Framers of the Constitution carefully laid out the decision-making process for war. Pursuant to the document, war is a decision to be made exclusively by the representatives of the people -- the Congress. Only Congress is authorized to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make the rules for these armed forces. There is nothing vague or unclear about the language in Article I, ¤ 8, clauses 11-16

And this is from "The Center of Constitutional Rights"

War Crime Not Self-Defense: the Unlawful War Against Iraq By: Michael Ratner, President, Center for Constitutional Rights http://www.humanrightsnow.org http://www.ccr-ny.org Opinions and Documents No War (PDF) 121 KB Synopsis CCR President Michael Ratner explains how a war with Iraq would be a "war of aggression" and would violate the UN Charter. ------------------------------------------------------------ Viewpoint ------------------------------------------------------------ As I am writing this, I do not know what action the United Nations Security Council will take with regard to the U.S. push for authority to attack Iraq. It appears unlikely that the Council will give the unambiguous authority for military action that the United States needs in order to comply with the United Nations Charter. Short of receiving that authority from the U.N., the use of force by the United States against Iraq, even with the recent congressional approval given for that war, would be flatly illegal under international law.

He declared war which he said he would do with or without the approval of congress. I am not saying the war would have been legal, but he would have done it anyways.

Reply #90 By: sandy2 - 9/11/2004 8:49:34 AM He declared war which he said he would do with or without the approval of congress. I am not saying the war would have been legal, but he would have done it anyways.

Yes you are correct in that. But you made the statement that he "went" to war "without" congerssional approval" which is false. There's a "world" of difference between would have and did.

I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn that the Boston Globe, under the headline "Authenticity Backed on Bush Documents," published an article today parroting the CBC.com defense, offering no proof whatsoever that the documents are genuine, lamely saying only that the documents could have been created with an IBM Selectric Composer. We know that to be untrue from the documentation @ http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/, of course.

And I don't know for sure, but getting a job as a newspaper reporter must be pretty damn easy these days. Here's a quote from the Globe article:

"The controversy over the authenticity of the documents has all but blocked out discussion of their content."

Well, DUH! But even the content doesn't hold up. The intellectual bankruptcy at the Globe is breathtaking.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Hilarious pic, Draginol. You might wanna contact CBS about that amazing find, as I'm sure it'd meet their criteria quite easily.

It reminds me of that episode of Futurama ("Luck of the Fryish"??) where there's a scene at the beginning of which the text "2000 A.D." is shown on the bottom of the screen. The scene dissolves to another scene with the text "Present Day (ie, The Future)" on the bottom.

Thank goodness finger printing isn't as politicized as this. Because very few finger prints match as exactly as the MS Word vs. Memo document.

former generals still have weight right?

Kingbee -

I just caught on to what you were getting at (missed it in the blizzard).

However, you are wrong. I can tell you from my personal experience in the Navy from 1978 through late 1980 that retirees are treated with respect and accorded every courtesy appropriate to their service. That's it. Once you're gone, you're gone, especially as regards day-to-day operational matters and personnel, even a general.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Woah, this is a huge issue here... but I, for one, never watch CBS. Could someone please fill me in on what their episode was about, exactly? I've read what everyone's said, and it sounds pretty damning for CBS, but I'm not sure I entirely understand what they claimed. Could someone please fill me on on what happened? Thanks.

MusiKitty, you haven't missed a thing.

Don't let this tweak your interest in watching CBS (Complete BullShit), either.

Follow the link in the article & you'll get a pretty good idea.

Cheers,
Daiwa

This entire discussion and topic is amazing.

If anyone had read the comments from the secretary who worked for the TNG member in question this is solved all too quickly.

In comments readily avalable today the secretary stated that she found the memo itself questionable. However, she said that she didn't question the content of the memo at all. She actually said that the contents of the memo sounded exactly like things her boss had said.

Should the question really be about the authenticity of the document or the contents of that document?

Who wants to bet that CBS's source is "Kitty Kelley"? Why else would they be holding out? The docs are false and more and more experts come out and say so. They don't want to say because they're afraid they'll come off looking like idiots.

Should the question really be about the authenticity of the document or the contents of that document?

Well, if you really wanted to be conspiracy minded, creating easily identified forged documents about something that was true and then "leaking" them so your camp ends up with deniability about the content of such documents would seem to be a smart political play. Because if real documents surfaced confriming those facts, well, the credibility of those documents would probably also be in question now. IF such a thing was what happened, it is masterful... but that's probably not what happened. Interesting to contemplate nonetheless.