Latest on the battle of the Bush memos

BTW, for those people who are still grasping at straws on CBS's behalf consider this:

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

Someone with an IBM Selectric composer, a machine thatwould cost $20,000 in today's dollars, went ahead and tried to recreate the document. Answer: can't.

The issue isnt whether (for enough money) there existed typewriters that could do some of the same features as the documents CBS used. The issue is that none of them could create this document as we have it.

On the other hand, MS Word, with its default settings, no changes, produces an identical document. Check and mate.

Rather's run out of his medication.

Here is Rather quoted in today's paper:

"This story is true. The questions we raised about then-Lieutenant Bush's National Guard service are serious and legitimate," he said. "Until and unless someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill."

The guy's turned journalistic integrity completely on its head. He's saying he will support the lie until someone else proves the lie isn't true. He's lost his freakin' mind, what was left of it.

Cheers,
Daiwa

From Citizen Kane:

Emily: Charles, the people will think...
Charles: ...what I tell them to think.

This is Dan Rather's Charles Foster Kane moment. How dare these little people question his journalistic integrity. Don't you know who I am?

Man, I feel drunk watchin' that memo pulsate ...

There's already a thread for this. It's right below this one.

Just because Word can produce a document that looks like the one in question, is not enough to prove it's a fake. Yes, it raises question as to the authenticity, but it is not creating solid, factual proof that the document is a hoax; it only proves that Word was able to make a similar looking document. We already know that just about any formal document pertaing to George W. Bush has either been "lost", sealed by court order, or is otherwise unavailable. That alone is the most questionable and suspicious detail pertaining the man! Those so quick to stick up for him, or defend him are just doing so because they know most of the bad things said about him are true. Somehow, he seems to mystically captivate people in this country, with some sort of fakeass-Southern-accented-downhomestyled-for the people charm, and I just do not get it! Doesn't anyone remember how Bush and the Rep. Party stole the friggin' election that put him in office, in the first place? That whole stunt with the Florida polls? Katherine Harris, and brother Jeb's list of people who's right to vote suddenly was taken away, because they had criminal pasts supposedly. A lot of those names that were revoked actually were just names that were similiar to the listed names, yet they were yanked anyway. How do you overlook the fact that he is a liar, and merely a puppet at a podium? This country is crazy! I mean, people go to such lengths to defend him, as if he were their best friend or father or something... like they take it personally or something, and it's just weird! What has he done for you, I mean really done for you, to earn such devotion and loyality? Why is it suddenly "ok" to not only tolerate lying and deception, but to accept it from the President of the United States of America? Well, when you really think about it, I guess it comes with the territory (no pun intended), since this country was founded on lying, deception, bio-terrorism, and the likes, and then through a blurred history, and distorted media the truth gets sugar coated like a fucking Krispy Kreme doughnut coming off the conveyor belt

Just because Word can produce a document that looks like the one in question, is not enough to prove it's a fake.

When it's the only thing that can reproduce it exactly, then yes, it is enough proof that it's a fake.

I LOVE WHATS HAPPENING TO RATHER AND CBS!!! I have seen them destroy fine people who couldn't afford to fight back.

KENNETH, WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY???

KENNETH, WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY???

who woulda guessed that nice electronic harrassment guy had it in for dan? 

As linked to from a blurb about the Political Machine, only to find that the dev in question is a pretty strident right-wing bigot. IMO, of course. Pretty ironic. In any case, to answer your petty whinings about untruths, here is an informed opinion piece from a considerably more mainstream publication than the various zealot blogs you are quoting.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp

We already know that just about any formal document pertaing to George W. Bush has either been "lost", sealed by court order, or is otherwise unavailable. That alone is the most questionable and suspicious detail pertaining the man! Those so quick to stick up for him, or defend him are just doing so because they know most of the bad things said about him are true.

The same things can be said about John Kerry. He hasn't released all his records either! That also is suspicious. I'm sorry it must be because he knows "the bad things said about him are true"!

Draginol:

I have been looking at all the reports and have watched the networks on this issue and here is the sense I am making of it:

1) The evidence is inconclusive. It is not conclusive that YOU can duplicate the document with Microsoft Word. This only says the technology to forge is available, but is not a smoking gun.

2) Journalists on the right (like Kate O'Beirne and Robert Novack on Capital Gang, CNN, 9/11/04) are not calling them forgeries. These are people with strong connections to the White House and know that the White House is not denying the memos.

3) The Republican Party is using "unofficial channels" such as those like yourself to paint a picture because they DON'T want to answer for Bush's military record or any official reports of Bush's behavior themselves. As long as they remain silent, then they are exonerated from any responsibility.

4) Different papers (Washington Post, Boston Globe, for example) are stating different conclusions about the documents. That there is a DIVISION of opinion is important because everyone is using different experts.

5) If they are FORGERIES, then the White House should say that they don't believe there is credible evidence that Killian ordered Bush to take his physical in May AND that Bush was never aware of such sentiment from his commanding officer.

6) If they are AUTHENTIC, CBS should present other documents done on the "same typewriter" that show the same signature so that all documents can be verified.

Reply #13 By: CrispE - 9/12/2004 9:44:29 AM Draginol: I have been looking at all the reports and have watched the networks on this issue and here is the sense I am making of it: 1) The evidence is inconclusive. It is not conclusive that YOU can duplicate the document with Microsoft Word. This only says the technology to forge is available, but is not a smoking gun. 2) Journalists on the right (like Kate O'Beirne and Robert Novack on Capital Gang, CNN, 9/11/04) are not calling them forgeries. These are people with strong connections to the White House and know that the White House is not denying the memos. 3) The Republican Party is using "unofficial channels" such as those like yourself to paint a picture because they DON'T want to answer for Bush's military record or any official reports of Bush's behavior themselves. As long as they remain silent, then they are exonerated from any responsibility. 4) Different papers (Washington Post, Boston Globe, for example) are stating different conclusions about the documents. That there is a DIVISION of opinion is important because everyone is using different experts. 5) If they are FORGERIES, then the White House should say that they don't believe there is credible evidence that Killian ordered Bush to take his physical in May AND that Bush was never aware of such sentiment from his commanding officer. 6) If they are AUTHENTIC, CBS should present other documents done on the "same typewriter" that show the same signature so that all documents can be verified.

Pardon me CrispE, but this "is" America. And as such the "burden" of "proof" lies with the accuser NOT the accused.

Just Dropping By

Whining? Did you even read the link you gave?

One: the guy does not talk about the other half dozen other things that the the select can not do.

Two: Quote: "(As the note explains, the large-type headlines in the manual were not typed on a Selectric Composer, but everything else was typed on that machine)." So he saying that the letter head was typed on a diffrent form. Ok, that means it would be a standard form letter head right? I worked with stardard form letterheads before computer were used and I never had one so shotely build one like that. They would of had the unit insignia on the right and Air Force crest on the left. Then if this memo was typed for one's own records why would he bother in the first place.

Three: Quote: "If you go to the page numbered 100 in the scanned IBM manual, you can find a list of type elements in different sizes, including ones with capitals sized 5 and 6 points. Superscripts may not have been quite as difficult to type on a Composing Selectric as many people say they were." In simple words: You need to change the font sizes to get the right size that is used in the memo. So a man (the Commander) that does not know very much about typewriters would change the font size on a michine (that you would have had to read to page 100 to find out that it was possible) just because it looks a little diffrent?.

Of course this is on a $20,000 dollar machine that looks like it came out of a Starteck epasode (at the time).

This guy is grabing at straws and I don't think this atrical will even make it to print.

My Two Cents

drmiler:

So, if you follow your logic that the media should receive the same protections as the courts give defendents in criminal cases then FOX can say that North Korea exploded a nuclear weapon, right? I mean, you can't prove they didn't, can you?

I think we have a different situation in terms of the media where we need to consider whether the documents are real as well as the significance of what they tell us. No one wants a witch hunt less than me BUT I also don't like the idea that a person is falsely accused and can't defend himself (Killian is deceased).

60% of the public in a CNN poll done Friday said that military service is an issue for the candidates. So we need to understand what happened here, regardless of political affiliation.

CrispE Herein lies the problem.

. Reply #5 By: WiseFawn - 9/12/2004 10:25:20 AM From what I understand, the DNC are just trying to do what Kerry didn't believe in doing. The trouble with taking the personal attacks, if you defend yourself, you look guilty, if you sit and take it, you look wimpy and guilty, if you fight fire with fire, you are accused of many things

CBS "still" should be made to prove that the memo is not fake

Reply #16 By: CrispE - 9/12/2004 10:33:23 AM drmiler: So, if you follow your logic that the media should receive the same protections as the courts give defendents in criminal cases then FOX can say that North Korea exploded a nuclear weapon, right? I mean, you can't prove they didn't, can you?

And that's NOT what I'm saying! BUSH is the accused, NOT the accuser! And as far as "I'm" concerned Kerry is sadly lacking in the military dept. At least given by what he did on his return from Vietnam.

CrispE, you're really reachin'.

1) The evidence is inconclusive. It is not conclusive that YOU can duplicate the document with Microsoft Word. This only says the technology to forge is available, but is not a smoking gun.

The "technology to forge" would be a typewriter in use in 1972 & 1973, NOT MS Word. Draginol is not the ONLY one who can dupe it - ANYONE can dupe it, which is precisely the point. There is no way a machine from the early 1970's could have produced the documents CBS claims are genuine.

2) Journalists on the right (like Kate O'Beirne and Robert Novack on Capital Gang, CNN, 9/11/04) are not calling them forgeries. These are people with strong connections to the White House and know that the White House is not denying the memos.

The White House is doing the only thing it can - let others determine their authenticity. To paraphrase: "This is conclusive. It is conclusive that neither journalists on the right nor the White House have not called them forgeries."

3) The Republican Party is using "unofficial channels" such as those like yourself to paint a picture because they DON'T want to answer for Bush's military record or any official reports of Bush's behavior themselves. As long as they remain silent, then they are exonerated from any responsibility.

You've lost your mind. Draginol is an "unofficial channel" of the White House? The White House is "using" unofficial channels? Meet me at Roswell tomorrow - I've got something you should see.

4) Different papers (Washington Post, Boston Globe, for example) are stating different conclusions about the documents. That there is a DIVISION of opinion is important because everyone is using different experts.

The Post and the Globe did nothing but regurgitate the CBS reply. They've done nothing to independently investigate. How could they arrive at any conclusions? And everyone is not using different experts. The only independent party CBS admits to consulting was not even called an expert by CBS - they called him an analyst. Not even a forensic analyst. And he admits he was not given original documents. Every other typewriter or forensic document expert (and these were experts) believes these documents are fake.

5) If they are FORGERIES, then the White House should say that they don't believe there is credible evidence that Killian ordered Bush to take his physical in May AND that Bush was never aware of such sentiment from his commanding officer.

The White House is under no obligation to offer any proof one way or the other as to the authenticity of these documents. They didn't go on TV and claim they were real. CBS did. The burden of proof is on CBS. Your comment suggest you believe that all lies are true until the victim of the lie proves the lie to be false. I don't think so.

6) If they are AUTHENTIC, CBS should present other documents done on the "same typewriter" that show the same signature so that all documents can be verified.

Well, almost 1 out of 6. Could be worse, I guess. They need to prove the documents they showed are real, not prove some other documents typed on the same machine are real. After what's happened already, nothing less will suffice.

Cheers,
Daiwa

if the whitehouse believes cbs owes bush a retraction, i doubt theyll be shy about demanding one. until they do, this is all so much noise that's ultimately distracting attention from much more serious questions, not the least of which is bush's honesty.  if its an impeachable offense for a sitting (or possibly standing ) president to lie about a blow job, it should also be an impeachable offense for a war president to lie about fully discharging his military service.

if the whitehouse believes cbs owes bush a retraction, i doubt theyll be shy about demanding one. until they do, this is all so much noise that's ultimately distracting attention from much more serious questions, not the least of which is bush's honesty. if its an impeachable offense for a sitting (or possibly standing ) president to lie about a blow job, it should also be an impeachable offense for a war president to lie about fully discharging his military service.

At least you have a sense of humor, but you've lost your freakin mind, too, kingbee. It's NOT THE WHITE HOUSE'S JOB to prove the documents are bogus. IT IS CBS'S JOB to 1) verify the documents are authentic (they can't - woulda happened already) and 2) voluntarily issue a retraction if they are not (which would require a scintilla of integrity, something CBS simply does not possess). And you apparently believe the content of patently fake documents. Based on that, I conclude that you don't buy DNA evidence so the stain on that dress could have been someone else's semen.

And you can only be impeached for acts committed while in office, so you're gonna have to try claiming the Iraq war was an impeachable offense, or something else - I have complete faith you can come up with something.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #20 By: kingbee - 9/12/2004 11:16:03 AM if the whitehouse believes cbs owes bush a retraction, i doubt theyll be shy about demanding one. until they do, this is all so much noise that's ultimately distracting attention from much more serious questions, not the least of which is bush's honesty. if its an impeachable offense for a sitting (or possibly standing ) president to lie about a blow job, it should also be an impeachable offense for a war president to lie about fully discharging his military service.

I really hate to break it to you "kingbee" But you and a lot of other people have missed a VERY important fact. "If " and I stress IF he did not complete his military service he WOULD NOT have gotten a honorable discharge from the US NAVY! No way, "no" how! I don't care how important his daddy was/is, there's no way around that!

"And you can only be impeached for acts committed while in office, so you're gonna have to try claiming the Iraq war was an impeachable offense, or something else - I have complete faith you can come up with something."

I'll retract that part - you're claiming he lied while in office. OK, not good enough (& not proven), but OK.

Cheers,
Daiwa

As linked to from a blurb about the Political Machine, only to find that the dev in question is a pretty strident right-wing bigot. IMO, of course. Pretty ironic. In any case, to answer your petty whinings about untruths, here is an informed opinion piece from a considerably more mainstream publication than the various zealot blogs you are quoting.

I like how that site links to Daily Kos. Anyway, the comments the story received are enough to invalidate it, so I won't bother. Here's something cute I found from the Dvorak Uncensored link: http://politicalities.typepad.com/photos/politicalities/clippy.PNG. I have a serious question. Is the left so desperate to get Kerry elected that they've abandoned all reason and common sense for anything that might cast Bush in a negative light, no matter how insignificant it may be?

Reply #23 By: Daiwa - 9/12/2004 11:40:09 AM "And you can only be impeached for acts committed while in office, so you're gonna have to try claiming the Iraq war was an impeachable offense, or something else - I have complete faith you can come up with something." I'll retract that part - you're claiming he lied while in office. OK, not good enough (& not proven), but OK. Cheers, Daiwa

And lying in office is "not" an impeachable offense "either" If it was Bill Clinton "would" have been impeached! And "that"one "was" proven! Way to go, Daiwa!!