Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect

[Radius]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html

snip
CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush's National Guard record last week on "60 Minutes."

"I think this is very, very serious," said Bob Schieffer, CBS's chief Washington correspondent. "When Dan tells me these documents are not forgeries, I believe him. But somehow we've got to find a way to show people these documents are not forgeries." Some friends of Rather, whose contract runs until the end of 2006, are discussing whether he might be forced to make an early exit from CBS.

/snip

Now the story is the source of the documents. I wonder if Kinkos keeps video, and payment records? All fax docs are time stamped and on new machines can be tracked with a credit card transaction number.

[w4rma]

1. duplicate. Kurtz's story has already been posted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x830118

[Radius]

5. I don't see the headline

do you have the du link. If so I will self delete..

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

8. The headline you posted is the accurate one

And it sucks. That wasn't my take-away from Rather's interview with Ms. Knox. And in his on-air remarks he said "CBS stands by our story." Kurtz's spin sickens me.

[Radius]

10. Mod Notified

I will let them figure out how to sort the dupe and incorrect title out.

[w4rma]

12. The WP changed the headline since it was posted originally. (nt)

[Junkdrawer]

2. So this is how the WH will spin the verification of the memo's contents...

Who'd have guessed?

[hansolsen]

3. F*ck the WP. This headline should read: Mrs. Knox flames George Bush

[thebigidea]

4. as opposed to Kurtz and his lovely wife, who are NEVER suspect

"Some friends of Rather, whose contract runs until the end of 2006, are discussing whether he might be forced to make an early exit from CBS."

So unnamed sources are bad if you're Kitty Kelley, but good if you're Howard Kurtz.

[KC21304]

7. You're right. Tell me again Howard, who does your wife

work for ?

[Eloriel]

50. Aaron Brown pilloried Kitty Kelly on just this kind of "gossip"

I thought he had a good point, EXCEPT that it happens ALL the time in the mainstream press these days, despite his rather pompous assurance to KK that that's not the kind of "informtaion" he considers good journalism. (She handled that one well too, tho didn't mention that contemporary journalism does it all the time and why is he picking on her instead of the network and cable anchors. :grr: )

[Media_Lies_Daily]

65. Interesting. When KK reports that FratBoy was seen doing coke...

...at Camp David when Poppy was president and she has sources to back up the story, Brown calls it "gossip".

If the Swift Boat vets write a book claiming that they saw Kerry do, or not do, certain things in Vietnam, but have no sources to substantiate their claims, that's considered good journalism.

When Aaron Brown reports on a story that has no basis in fact, which seems to happen quite a bit, does he consider that "gossip" or good journalism?

[cthrumatrix]

6. BUT ...content is ACCURATE

[Qutzupalotl]

58. And forensic details indicate authenticity.

The typewriter used, the spotty Xeroxing of the early 70's, the freaking SIGNATURE...

They weren't typed by Knox, but could easily have been typed by Killian.

[Ganja Ninja]

9. This is an article by Howard Kurtz a well known Bushite.

And Dan Rather doesn't admit to anything of the sort.

(This really isn't LBN. It's Kurtz's spin, another echo from the Rove media machine.)

[Radius]

11. A1, Today, on WP front page, its LBN(NT)

[Ganja Ninja]

16. There's a difference between propaganda and news.

It's a misrepresentation of what Rather is saying. Does Dan Rather come right out and say "The papers are suspect"? Just because it's on the front page doesn't make it news.

[Radius]

39. Other sources

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/newcomer/index.htm

By technical analysts and document experts question the documents.

IMHO they are fake, who, and why is now the real question.

[Ganja Ninja]

41. Speculation from web bloggers doesn't prove or disprove anything.

There's one way for Bush to prove they're false, produce a full and complete copy of his service record. Until then the CBS documents and the smattering of records Bush has produced are all we have to go on.

[Radius]

43. Regretfully

When CBS ran a document that its own reviewer ,an forensics analyst in Raleigh, NC advised them not to run, they put the focus on this.

Emily Bell I believe. Anyway the document is now the subject of national debate.

Did you actually read the guys page, he unlike KOS has experience writing font logic.

[Qutzupalotl]

59. Here's what I get.

It's NOT a match. It's not Times New Roman (look at the Y).

The superscripting doesn't match either:


Newcomer LIED in the Washington Post, saying the 1968 memo didn't have a superscript because it didn't rise above the cap height. But it's obviously a dedicated keystroke because it's a different size from the rest of the letters on the page. There is no other way to explain the '68 superscript than having a dedicated key. The guy's a flake and doesn't know shit about typography, and seems to be motivated to cloud the issue.

[mbperrin]

57. What I saw was one person who is not paid to analyze fonts, but

claims to have helped create them 30 years ago. There are no multiple anybodies at this site, and only his assertion that his article exists and the only mention of his name, J. Newcomer, which I cannot find listed yet in any research base.

There is no documents expert of any sort at this site, just another blogger.

[tom_paine]

13. So now Imperial Foes must prove all negatives

"Prove they AREN'T forgeries?"

What is wrong with this picture.

Prove they are forgeries!

Old Amerika started dying the same day the Busheviks decided to kill the FCC Regs and institute Totalitarian Style Media of their own modeled after the Nazi Media and Goebbelsian Principles.

[Radius]

17. Proof

Will be determined by a court of law. I assume a crime has been committed, forgery at minimum. If CBS paid, fraud.

However the fact that a document examiner told CBS not to run them, that they were suspect, is leading to reasonable doubts of their authenticity.

Their source is now the real issue.

[Ganja Ninja]

19. No wrong again! Bush's conduct in the ANG is the real issue and ...

this is a Rove diversionary tactic.

[tom_paine]

20. Exactly, but Busheviks excel at the Red Herring.

n/t

[Radius]

21. Forgery

Is a crime. While ANG is an issue, this is an issue as well.

I will not point fingers but document forensics may.

[Ravy]

24. The fact that the memos were retyped does not make them a forgery.

I haven't seen conclusive proof that they HAVE been retyped or reprinted, but unless someone forged Killian's signature at the bottom, and there are plenty of experts that say it is his signature, then it is not a forgery.

Even if they were re-worded/re-typed/re-printed, if that is Killian's signature on the document, then it is real.

That is why all of the concentration on the typeface is immaterial.

If I were to request my high-school transcript today, I and they sent me a printed version from a computer (even though I graduated in 1973), it would not be considered "forged".

The signature is the key. If it is really his signature on the original document, which could have been typed or printed at anytime before his death, then it wasn't forged.

[candy331]

25. Good example since I too had to get high school transcripts

from 1965 and you don't get the original you get a copy. How many legal docs do you actually get the original of anyway, most docs you get the copy the source keeps the original.

[Radius]

32. Signature

If I retype a document and then place a signature on the bottom it is forged.

If it has been re worded it is not a circa 70's review it is something else. Even if it was signed by a dead man.?

Consider if was reversed and Kerry's service record was being treated this way. My point is if it is not an original document and has been represented as one that is not good for anyone.

[Qutzupalotl]

60. But if it's genuine and people keep throwing around the "forgery" claim,

it's not good for anyone either. So far NO evidence of forgery has held up under scrutiny.

The likeliest explanation is that Killian typed and signed the letters himself.

[Ravy]

64. You obviously skimmed my post before spouting off...

If I print out a paper I wrote in college, and sign my name to the bottom, it is NOT forged, even if I change some words.

If you place SOMEONE else's name at the bottom, without authorization, then there is forgery. That is why I said it depends on if the signature is legit. Please read the post you replied to for more clarification.

BTW, Kerry DID have a similar thing in his service record, I believe. I don't recall anyone calling this a "forgery".

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips28.html

[Bdog]

36. One thing is for sure they were not made with a word processor

They were typed. And when you listen to what the witness have said and are saying...Thank you Dan Rather for saying the obvious.

The Emperor wears no cloths.

[Radius]

40. see #39, techies and font freaks disagree..(NT)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. And they have what documentation to prove their point of view?...

You keep getting shot down on this story...what's your real agenda on DU?

[Radius]

44. I am

Actually RNC operative sent here to throw the election by posting in this forum. Karl is paying me $100 an hour to post here...

I have made no political statement, just that is looks like the documents are forged, which raises the question by whom and for what reason.

Just because I don't believe everything I read from one party or the other does not mean I have an agenda.

Your nic is pretty much my agenda..

[bobbyboucher]

49. Neato, a pre-emptive "you got me" sarcastic post.

Sounds familiar. Where have I seen that tactic beofre? Hmmmmmmm.

[Radius]

51. Last time

someone questioned my motives here i told them I was a no bid cia contractor. sent to gather intillegence..

Sorry I don't do the echo chamber thing. If my opinion is not welcome a mod can ban me.

I have not been rude or even said anything political on this topic.

It is easier to attack my "agenda" than the actual topic.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

67. Sounds like you're backing away from your earlier....

...contention that the documents appear to be fakes. Would that be a correct statement?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

66. And unless I miss the mark completely, you personally have NO...

...training or expertise to claim that ANY document is a fake.

Rather and CBS based their article on five years of research and the careful fact-checking of four diferent lawyers. Tell me how much time was spent by CBS' detractors on this material.

[Bdog]

56. you know if you shrink fonts down to one pixel

all fonts look identical.

When you don't shrink the letters. You can see the documents have the same type for ones and lower case Ls. Word has a different type for ones and lower case Ls. The eights and fours are subtly different from Microsoft Word.

[Bdog]

38. kudos to the freepers for discovering fonts

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603
We're going to make this simple.

First, of course, in order to do this, he first had to reduce the document so that the margins were the same, since the original PDF distributed by CBS is quite a bit larger. Then he superimposed the two documents, such that the margins on all sides lined up.

What he then discovered is that Times New Roman typeface is, when viewed on a computer monitor, really, really similar to Times New Roman typeface. Or rather, really really similar to a typeface that is similar to Times New Roman typeface.

Um, OK then.

You see, a "typeface" doesn't just consist of the shape of the letters. It also is a set of rules about the size of the letters in different point sizes, the width of those letters, and the spacing between them. These are all designed in as part of the font, by the designer. Since Microsoft Word was designed to include popular and very-long-used typefaces, it is hardly a surprise that those typefaces, in Microsoft Word, would look similar to, er, themselves, on a typewriter or other publishing device. That's the point of typefaces; to have a uniform look across all publishing devices. To look the same. You could use the same typeface in, for example, OpenOffice, and if it's the same font, surprise-surprise, it will look the same.

So kudos on discovering fonts, freeper guy.

Next, however: do they really match up? Well, no. They don't.

If you shrink each document to be approximately 400-500 pixels across, they do indeed look strikingly similar. But that is because you are compressing the information they contain to 400-500 pixels across. At that size, subtle differences in typeface or letter placement simply cannot be detected; the "pixels" are too big. If you compare the two documents at a larger size, the differences between them are much more striking.

For instance: In the original CBS document, some letters "float" above or below the baseline. For example, in the original document, lowercase 'e' is very frequently -- but not always -- above the baseline. Look at the word "interference", or even "me". Typewriters do this; computers don't. Granted, if you are comparing a lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high with another lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high, you're not going to see such subtleties. That doesn't prove the differences aren't there; it just proves you're an idiot, for making them each 12 pixels high and then saying "see, they almost match!"

"This typeface -- Times New Roman -- didn't exist in the early 1970s."

There are several problems with this theory. First, Times New Roman, as a typeface, was invented in 1931. Second, typewriters were indeed available with Times New Roman typefaces.

And third, this isn't Times New Roman, at least not the Microsoft version. It's close. But it's not a match.

For example, the '8' characters are decidedly different. The '4's, as viewable on other memos, are completely different; one has an open top, the other is closed.

So yes, we have proven that two typefaces that look similar to each other are indeed, um, similar. At least when each document is shrunk to 400-500 pixels wide... and you ignore some of the characters.

"Documents back then didn't have superscripted 'th' characters"

That one was easy. Yes, many typewriter models had shift-combinations to create 'th', 'nd', and 'rd'. This is most easily proven by looking at known-good documents in the Bush records, which indeed have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout.

"This document uses proportional spacing, which didn't exist in the early 1970s."

Turns out, it did. The IBM Executive electric typewriter was manufactured in four models, A, B, C, and D, starting in 1947, and featured proportional spacing. An example of its output is here. It was an extremely popular model, and was marketed to government agencies.

"OK, fine, but no single machine had proportional spacing, 'th' characters, and a font like that one."

No, again. The IBM Executive is probably the most likely candidate for this particular memo. There is some confusion about this, so to clear up: the IBM Selectric, while very popular, did not have proportional spacing. The Selectric Composer, introduced in 1966, did, and in fact could easily have produced these memos, but it was a very expensive machine, and not likely to be used for light typing duties. The proportional-spacing Executive, on the other hand, had been produced in various configurations since the 1940's, and was quite popular.

(Note: However, it is not immediately clear that the Selectrics and Selectric IIs could not in fact emulate "proportional" spacing. There is skepticism in some circles that these memos really show "proportional" spacing. Looking at the blowups, it appears pretty obvious to me that there is, but still researching.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

[nolabels]

47. "So kudos on discovering fonts, freeper guy"

What a hoot :D

(Don't teach em any more lingo, they might get suspicious and call you a Red Communist)

[Radius]

52. nice adhominem, great way to make a point, I didn't write it.JO(NT)

[nolabels]

55. I make the joke all the the time at work

People at work know I am a political junkie. Every time some heavy crap goes down they come to ask me what's up, or if I know anything about it.

Sometimes, some like to talk politico talking points, and question me some more about it there. If I can give them a rejoinder I do, but often tell them I am a Communist just off the cuff.

A lot of them guys suffer from information overload and don't want to spend too much time to figure out some the contradictions.

If you let them start to think you are exactly what that brainwashing was all about, they seemed to get disarmed if you are civil with them. I really didn't mean to attack anybody in particular, but did think that phrase was rather funny :D

No real big adgenda here other than getting rid of Bushco

[CarinKaryn]

63. You're sure working hard to discredit the documents

almost as hard as you work promoting the "free machine guns for all" philosophy so beloved of our freeper friends.

Welcome to DU, Radius (member since Aug 22nd 2004).
:hi:

[gasperc]

14. lotta gold in figuring who, if they are forged

THAT would be a story!!!

[The Stranger]

15. The contentions in CBS News' story remains unrefuted

CBS News has stood by its story and no one -- but no one -- has attacked the heart of the story, the contentions made -- that George W. Bush received preferential treatment to enter the National Guard, disobeyed orders while on duty there, and was never forced into active service in the Vietnam war also on the basis of preferential treatment. Witness after witness has confirmed these contentions, and the White House has never disputed any of them.

While other young men were being drafted and sent to die in the jungles of Southeast Asia, one politically-connected young man was given a special break -- his life was placed above those of other young Americans who died and from whom we will never hear again -- and this politically-connected young man, given that special break, still failed to comply with his obligations. Somehow, in spite of being given special treatment and having others sent to die in his place, and despite his refusal to obey simple orders or fulfill his undisputed commitment, this same politically-connected young man was STILL never ordered to active duty.

[Cicero]

46. I'm sorry, but I have to respond to this one

I'm probably going to catch a lot of flak for this, but...

If, at the start of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the woman who was taping her conversations instead decided to type them out in letter form, purporting to actually have been sent by Monica, and then those documents made their way to the press, and then questions came up as to their authenticity, WOULD THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CONTENTIONS IN THE DOCUMENTS HAD NOT BEEN REFUTED BE CONSIDERED THE SLIGHTEST BIT CREDIBLE???

That's the problem I have. This is a story that's been bumping around for years, now all of a sudden these documents show up, and people are surprised when their authenticity is questioned.

"It's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge." Remember that? Accusations that Bush41 had something to do with the resolution of the Iran hostage crisis? Do you also remeber how it ment not a hill of beans when it came down to the results of that election? Bush41 still won handily.

So long as the "vector" for the charge continues to be seen as coming from the "Killian memos", you're not going to get a DAMN but of traction in making the charges stick, and in fact it may have permanently damaged any chance in pinning Bush43, because now not just the documents, BUT THE CHARGES THEMSELVES ARE NOW PERMANENTLY TAINTED.

(Puff, gasp, wheeze)

OK, I'm off my rant now. Flame away!

Later,

[Media_Lies_Daily]

69. Tell us why you believe that your "rant" merits any flames at all....

...you provided nothing but your personal opinions on a number of subjects.

Let us know when you you can provide something of a factual nature to discuss.

[Tempest]

18. Killian's Secretary: Everything In Memos Is True

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml

[Frances]

22. Rove wins again--he has attacked so hard that the facts are

being ignored:

Bush checked a box saying that he did not want to go to Vietnam.

There is a Harvard professor saying that Bush told him personally that Bush got into the Texas National Guard through his father's influence.

There is a Texan saying that he used his influence to get Bush into the Texas National Guard.

There is a secretary saying that Bush refused a direct order to take his physical.

There is a former National Guard pilot who says that he looked for Bush in Alabama but never saw him.

There is no documentation or evena claim by Bush that he checked in with the Mass National Guard as he was required to do.

These facts should be the story. Instead once again Rove and the media are attacking the messenger.

Folks, if Bush gets back in the White House, we will have lost our freedom to speak the truth. Our very democracy is at stake in this election.

[robbedvoter]

23. Some papers get it, sorry, Radius

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/232644p-199762c.html

And some people too

[Character Assassin]

45. Evidently, you don't get it.

Accusations based on suspect documents are suspect in and of themselves.

[Cicero]

53. Exactly! That's what I said in a previous post

Quoting myself:

If, at the start of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the woman who was taping her conversations instead decided to type them out in letter form, purporting to actually have been sent by Monica, and then those documents made their way to the press, and then questions came up as to their authenticity, WOULD THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CONTENTIONS IN THE DOCUMENTS HAD NOT BEEN REFUTED BE CONSIDERED THE SLIGHTEST BIT CREDIBLE???


Later,

[Dr Fate]

68. Bush should have a press conference, like Clinton had to.

I'm personally wondering why Bush refuses to have a press conference so he can refute these accusations-evidence of Bush=AWOL hasn around long before these documents.

Your analogy is not so great- its hypothetical- Clinton actually had to answer questions, time & time again-

Answering questions seems to be somthing Bush is unable to handle.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

26. So sick of crappy journalism...

"Some friends of Rather, whose contract runs until the end of 2006, are discussing whether he might be forced to make an early exit from CBS."

No J-School professor on the planet would allow that line to stand without considerable substantiation. That's the sort of crap that only the National Enquirer use to do -- citing anonymous "friends" of Dan Rather who float the idea that he's going to be fired. And they wrote it in passive voice, to boot! What rubbish!

You've got both Killian's C.O. and his secretary on record that the substance of these memo's is accurate. Mrs. Killian has clear recollections of George W. Bush failing to report for duty and other officers complaining about his kid-gloves treatment. But the Washington Post focuses on Dan Rather. Considering that U.S. soldiers are dying at a rate of 2-3 per day, this is celebrity journalism at its worst.

[Karenina]

27. It is NOT about the documents

having been re-written or reconstructed. So was the BIBLE!!! :evilgrin: IS the <<<CONTENT>>>, the INFORMATION contained therein, ACCURATE???? It's that "messenger/message" thang. :think: :freak: :think:

GO DAN! YOU GO BOY!!!! PLEEEEEAAAAASSSE punch the *primate and his parasitical band of predatory puppeteers so hard that it's THEIR BLOOD SPURTING for a change. O8)

[KansDem]

31. yeah?...YEAH??...the Bible?...THE Bible???

PROVE to me the bible wasn't forged!!!

(/sarcasm)
:crazy:

[Karenina]

54. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

How's YOUR Aramaic? ;-)

[mac56]

28. WP's headline is misleading. Surprise, surprise.

As I read it, all Rather is saying is that questions exist about the documents, and that if there's a problem with them he plans to be the one to tell the public.

[robbedvoter]

29. Army Times: Rather says memo flap doesn't change his story

Army Times:Rather says memo flap doesn’t change his story
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-357972.ph...

[nolabels]

33. The body of evidence is growing by the day

People that served as agreed are keeping AWOL front and center.

I don't know if they are trying to keep this story scrubed from the net because I have only found two links to it :think:

Key Challenges to National Guard Documents Answered: Type Style, Typewriter and Superscript Function All Existed in the Early 1970s, The CBS Evening News Reports Tonight (10)

(snip)
Rather: STRONG SAYS THE HIGHLY CHARGED POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE OF THE GUARD AT THE TIME ... WAS PERFECTLY REPRESENTED IN THE NEW DOCUMENTS

Strong: "IT VERGED ON OUTRIGHT CORRUPTION IN TERMS OF THE FAVORS THAT WERE DONE, THE POWER THAT WAS TRADED. AND IT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE. FROM A MORAL AND ETHICAL STANDPOINT. IT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE."

Rather: IT IS THE INFORMATION IN THE NEW DOCUMENTS THAT IS MOST COMPELLING FOR PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORD IN THE NATIONAL GUARD. AUTHOR JIM MORE HAS WRITTEN TWO BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT.

Rather: "YOU'VE STUDIED PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORDS FOR 10 YEARS ... ARE THESE DOCUMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE RECORD AS YOU KNOW IT?"

Moore: "THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT WITH THE RECORDS AS I KNOW IT."

Rather: "PUT IT IN CONTEXT AND PERSPECTIVE FOR US ... THE STORY AND WHAT WE CALL THE COUNTERATTACK ON THE STORY. WHERE ARE WE RIGHT NOW?
(snip)
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=2286400
http://www.awolbush.com/

[karlrschneider]

30. I don't believe this for one moment: (the snip below)

But a Republican legislator said forensic experts warned CBS that the memos were bogus before Rather went with the story.

CBS "intended to unfairly damage reputation and influence the outcome of the 2004 presidential election," said Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.), who called for a congressional probe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

How would Cox be able to determine this? I think he's lying through
his goddamn teeth.
:grr:

[nolabels]

37. His district is was once a pug stronghold and now is getting a little soft

People in postitions like that often do blantant things like this to try boost their name. I would guess he is feeling the heat

NBC opens a 'West Wing' in Orange County

Democratic character's run for Congress offers a look at O.C. that seems more reel than real.

By MARTIN WISCKOL
The Orange County Register

The chief speechwriter for America's favorite prime-time president is headed for Orange County.

Tonight, Sam Seaborn will leave NBC's "The West Wing" to begin a run for election in a congressional district that includes Newport Beach and Laguna Beach.

One result of the story line is that the country gets a glimpse of Orange County to follow up on what it saw during the World Series.

"I don't think anybody has fully portrayed Orange County � not 'West Wing' or elsewhere," said Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Santa Ana, whose 1996 upset of Republican incumbent Robert Dornan is echoed in the show's plot. "I still believe that people don't fully understand Orange County."

Indeed, the show � an inside look at the lives of staff members in the West Wing of the White House � plays on the county's reputation as a bastion of white Republicanism, but the stereotype is growing increasingly inappropriate. In nine of the county's 34 cities, the majority is no longer white. And Hispanics will make up the majority of the county's population by 2020, according to projections. Following up Sanchez's 1996 win, county Democrats also won seats in the state Senate and Assembly � although the county remains overwhelmingly Republican.
(snip)
http://b4a.healthyinterest.net/news/000187.htm

[bobbyboucher]

34. What you're carrying resembles Repug water.

Why are you going to so much trouble to muddy the waters? What Bush did is the real story and what you keep peddling is exactly what the Repugnicants want, a big confusing debate over some documents.

Nice work, if you can get it.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

35. The Whoringtonpost is the New York Post of D.C.

:grr:

[Imalittleteapot]

48. Forced to make an early exit from CBS?

Like Novak might be forced into early retirement for TREASON?
HYPOCRITES!!!!

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

61. The PBS Newhour did a segement on this....CBS has a credibility issue.

Ken Auletta (New Yorker) and some journalism prof from Duke where the experts.

CBS does have a credibility problem...needs to be an internal investigation...CBS needs to come clean.

If source knowlingly lied to CBS, source can be exposed...

[robbedvoter]

62. Oh, yeah, the new boss of F*er Carlson is the authority on "credibility"

Nice try.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

70. The source is someone well known to the Bushies, someone they've....

...tried repeatedly to silence.

The information provided by CBS took five years to develop and was fact-checked by four different lawyers.

And what specific evidence did Ken Auletta and the Duke professor bring to the table to support their contention that CBS has a "credibility problem"?

[spatter]

71. An ipso facto case against Bush

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the most revealing fact in this case isn't the authenticity issue, but what the memos actually claim, and the reaction from the White House when the story first broke.

According to USA Today, "Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday the White House, which distributed the memos after obtaining them from CBS News, was not trying to verify their authenticity. 'We don't know if the documents are fabricated or authentic,' McClellan told reporters traveling with the president to West Virginia."

Don't know if the documents are fabricated? If that's true, then the only logical conclusion one can make is that the White House knows the memos' contents are true, that Bush for example, did indeed refuse a direct order to take a required medical examination, and tried to skip out on drills. If not, wouldn't they have been adamant right from the start, stating that they know for a fact that the memos are forgeries? Unless I'm missing something here, it would seem McClellan's statement is proof positive they've been lying about his service record all along.