So what was the consensus on the AWOL papers?

[jtb33]

Were they faked? Real?

[rfranklin]

1. Papers are real and...

Bush is phoney.

[lunarboy13]

2. Ultimately, they do not matter...

This election is about W and his failed policies after four years in office. But, if you want to get down to it, the memos CBS has only support the evidence W was AWOL -- evidence that is in W's own files that HE released. There's a thread to a US News report article here in GD: 2004 where the link is. So whether they are forged or not doesn't matter, they didn't bring to light new evidence, just supported old news.

[Warpy]

10. The HELL they don'! Bush is still trying to push his CHARACTER,

and those memos demonstrate what a fake he is. He's trying to be a strong, resolute leader, and those documents show what a protected little punk he's always been, how he's always run away from everything when it's gotten uncomfortable.

[djg21]

24. They matter only to . , ,

those of us who already hate Bush, because they give us further reason to despise the piece of crap. Likewise, those on the right will discount the AWOL documents, and the entire AWOL issue, no matter what.

Unfortunately, for those who haven't yet made up their minds, I don't think the AWOL story matters one bit either way. In fact, I don't think much matters aside from the fiasco in Iraq and perceptions of national security, i.e., who is perceived to be better able to protect us from terrorism TODAY.

I'd like to think that undecided voters are also considering domestic issues. However, if they were, this election wouldn't be close given Bush's despicable track record on issues such as the economy, health care, and the environment.

[Panda1]

3. BFEE has not disputed the contents......

...therefore they must be real. They are relying on freepers to cast aspersions on the documents, distracting everyone from the content. Rather knew this would happen. Shrewd move.

No denial whatsoever from the White House other than the president (sic) received and "honorable discharge" which we all know he obtained "technically and through connections" rather than fulfilling his duties. HE WAS AWOL.


Drumbeat:
9/11 Happened on Bush's watch!
Terrorism has increased on Bush's watch!

[shraby]

5. He wasn't just AWOL, he was

a deserter. After I believe it's 30 days he became a deserter.

[Panda1]

6. True, he should have been sent to Vietnam....

... technically for 24 months. He disobeyed direct orders and should have had the consequences "normal" guardsmen would have had.

[demvoterforlife]

4. I feel they are detracting from the real issues.

There is no way any thinking person cannot look at the facts and not believe that bush shirked at least some of his TANG responsibility. I believe with all my heart that he did not fully live up to his commitments. I think in their hearts, the majority of voters believe his daddy helped get him in, and that he probably didn't show up aor a required physical and then he missed a lot of drills, particularly during his last two years.

Having said all that, this memo debate is overshadowing bush's failure to meet his obligations. I don't know what the truth is. There seems to be credible experts on both sides. But what I do know is that we are spending too much time talking about the documents and not nearly enough time talking about bush's character flaws. Sadly, it seems that this is playing right in to Rove's hands.

[Southern Patriot]

7. It was a textbook example of how to turn a damaging issue

for Bush into an avenue of attack against Dems and Kerry.

My "consensus" is that Rove's organization is about 100 times more adept and prepared than Kerry's.

The salient character issue was TOTALLY obscured by doubts about authenticity. The ongoing debate about arcane technical minutae (i.e. kerning, typography, letterhead, whether the guy typed memos, whether the guy was even in the service at the time of the memo etc.) was a fabulous multi-layered smokescreen and distraction.

More and more, this campaign reminds me of a 1,000 Boy Scouts being out-foxed by a well-armed but surrounded and out-numbered patrol of Special Forces.

I'm still hoping that outside events will win the election. I'm less and less confident that our campaign operatives will.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. Bush being AWOL and having lied about it seems to be taking hold

in the public consciousness. This is great traction for us and will drive up Bush's unfavorable numbers.
This will be a straw on the camel's back of undecideds.

[democrat_patriot]

21. I totally agree.

I scanned the medai - CNN, Faux, MSNBC.

ALL had guests on saying "experts have stated these are more than likely forgeries"....nothing about the contents.

It was sick.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

25. Yeah, I'm kind of feeling like, "How the F*CK did we get into this

tar baby of an issue (re whether the Killian documents are forged)?" I mean, I know how we did, but no one is talking about what a disaster Iraq is and how it's shrubya's fault.

[oasis]

9. The documents are authentic. The right wing continues to be in denial.

Sadly, too much time has been wasted on the issue.

[librechik]

11. "oh, yawn, don't you have some dirt on Kerry?"

[goodhue]

12. Real

[Qutzupalotl]

13. Real.

Unless you're on the Rove payroll, in which case there are "concerns" and "questions." If you're the webmaster at littlegreenfootballs, you're willing to fake a Word document and say, "See! It matches perfectly with another Word document!" It's pathetic.

CBS and their team of experts stand by the story AND the documents. The White House has not disputed their contents or their authenticity. Rush Limbaugh is lying today when he says CBS' only expert was a handwriting analyst, and lying again when he said handwriting wasn't an issue. The documents were signed by Jerry Killian. They are authentic.

[Poiuyt]

14. MSNBC just did a piece about it

They were pretty much saying that they were fake; Killian never typed his memos, always wrote longhand, handwriting experts, etc. They even said that even though Dan Rather is standing by his story, he was leaving the door open to the fact that they might not be authentic.

I think they are just jealous that they didn't break the story.

[yardwork]

15. Of course Killian never typed his memos

Secretaries typed everything back in those days. Anyone who was not a secretary wrote their items in long-hand and tossed them in the secretary's in-box. I know. I was a secretary! LOL!

I don't know if the documents are real or false. We don't have the originals and I'm not an expert anyway.

I do know that the arguments raised to "prove" they are fake are wrong. I haven't seen one credible piece of evidence suggesting that they are fakes. They look like typewritten documents to me.

[City Lights]

18. MSNBC did prove one thing with this piece.

They are a fake news organization.

[CityDem]

16. Fake or real

It doesn't really matter any longer. The fact that the media is discussing the possibility of forgery makes tunes most people out. Rove and his minions are very adept at defusing these issues.

[Bridget Burke]

17. Real.

I agree that there are more important issues for campaigning.

But I'm glad to see that Bush's people are worried, even though they can't directly deny a thing. Why, if they paid disrupters (as some of our more paranoid think), we'd be seeing a bunch of new folks over here saying "we" should abandon the AWOL thing.

[Nederland]

19. Fake

That's the consensus at least. Whether or not its correct remains to be seen. At this point in time what CBS news needs to do is pull out a typewriter from that era and demonstrate exactly how it could produce a document that matches the ones that they have in their possession. I've heard of a couple people trying to do this with some success, but there remains a couple problems. The biggest appears to be reproducing the 'th' superscript in the same size as on the document. Yes, it can be done, but it requires changing type balls to a different font size and then switching back--an extremely unlikely procedure for a mere memo.

CBS however is standing by their story and I assume that this means they have an ace up their sleeve and will bring it out soon and shut everybody up. I just hope they don't wait too long to do it...

[leftyandproud]

20. Faked...but it doesn't matter!

heehee ;)

[jtb33]

22. Thanks... Now, those of you who say that they are fake...

...of what are you basing your comclusion?

[Onlooker]

23. Of course they're real!!! How can anyone believe otherwise?

The idea that someone managed to fake documents so perfectly that none of the content seems implausible and that none of the phrasing seems to be from a later era strikes me as far fetched. CBS has already provided evidence that:

(1) The font existed since 1931 (while Freepers lied that it did not)
(2) That IBM typewriters existed since the late 60s that supported superscripting and proportional spacing (while Freepers lied that it did not)
(3) That handwriting experts believe the signatures to be accurate (though Freepers found other handwriting experts who disagreed)
(4) That people who knew Killian believed the memos were genuine (though one changed his mind, probably due to political pressure)
(5) That other independent evidence exists (particularly unexplained gaps in Bush's NG Record) that provides indirect supporty for the content of the memo.

The evidence that the memos are fake is amazingly flimsy. If the memos were fake, the evidence would certainly exist in their content. Instead, naysayers are creating a purely technical argument that simply doesn't wash.

[smb]

26. Fakes

The documents are as phony as an aluminum gladius. The real question is who created them (Hint: Who benefits from having the charge "Dubya skirted his Guard duty" associated with "bogus evidence"?)

[skip fox]

28. If that's the case, we'll never find out. Ant THAT

should be telling. That Rove can hide his fingerprints on everything.

Unfortunately, it's only telling for us. Impossible to make the case.

[City Lights]

27. What about the 2 new docs?

Has anybody heard anything about the 2 new docs on USA Today's site on the news today? The MSNBC piece I saw (didn't see all of it) only mentioned the 4 from 60 Minutes, but I heard nothing about the 2 new docs.