AWOL Bush?

“I heard that traitorous Bob Novak Believes in Revealing Confidential Sources, After All.”

“violin brings up a good point. The Kerry campaign should be protected at all costs.”

“Again, it is asspac that has his head in the area of #2:

"CBS revisits Bush's Guard memos

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The growing controversy over President Bush's National Guard records, and whether some of the memos aired on CBS were fake, took another turn Wednesday night.

CBS News reported that the documents it first broadcast last week on "60 Minutes II" appear to be forgeries to the woman who would have typed the original memos in 1972 and 1973.

But Marian Carr Knox, a former Texas Air National Guard secretary, said she did type similar documents for her boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

"I know that I didn't type them. However, the information in those is correct," Knox told CBS anchor Dan Rather.

Knox, 86, had previously told the same story to the Dallas Morning News in a report that was published Wednesday morning.

The newspaper said Knox "spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events."
......"


more here:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/guard.memos.congress/index.html


I can't wait for the right to start calling her an old hag tat can't remember anything but the time she went to the Commie party get together back in '19.”

“I watched the sixty minute piece. The lady clearly stated the documents were fake.”

“"These are not real. They're not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him," the former secretary, Marian Carr Knox, told the Dallas Morning News.”

“In John Frankenheimer's Seven Days in May, a cabal of military leaders plots to overthrow the U.S. government because they oppose the president’s foreign policy. The scandal over last week’s 60 Minutes II episode increasingly resembles a remake of that film — with bumbling media mavens standing in for seditious servicemen, and with a band of Internet bloggers[1] acting as the hero who thwarts them.

Last Wednesday evening, the CBS program "60 Minutes II" aired a story critical of President George W. Bush’s National Guard service. Its case was based largely on four memos apparently written in 1972 and 1973 by the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, Bush’s commanding officer.

Soon after the program aired, many Internet bloggers concluded, based on their own analysis, that these documents were inauthentic. Their verdict is now widely accepted by independent professional typography experts, and it appears that CBS willfully ignored the concerns of its own document analysts.

Dan Rather and CBS News have relentlessly defended their reporting of the story, repeatedly asserting that multiple experts had authenticated the documents. Up to the time of this writing, however, they have refused to share the names of all but one of the document examiners whom they consulted (more on this individual, below).

Late on Tuesday, ABC News reported that it had identified two of the previously unnamed CBS experts, Emily Will and Linda James. Both denied having authenticated the memos. Emily Will told reporters that she quickly found problems with the document CBS hired her to review and "sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns," strongly urging the network "not to use the documents." She added, "I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story."

Linda James was also dubious about the documents and told ABC reporters, "I did not authenticate anything, and I don't want it to be misunderstood that I did."

CBS ran the story nonetheless, making no reference to either analyst's objections. Most recently, CBS denied the assertions of both James and Will, with spokeswoman Sandy Genelius claiming that they "played a peripheral role and deferred to another expert," Marcel Matley.

Matley is the one authenticator, referred to above, that CBS has publicly identified. When Dan Rather defended the 60 Minutes story on Friday, September 10th, he told viewers that "[d]ocument and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. …"

The next day, Jim Geraghty of The National Review online quoted a September 2002 article Matley wrote for the journal The Practical Litigator:

[M]odern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity is possible. [italics added]

Since Rather also stated that CBS has only photocopies of the alleged memos, he clearly claimed that Matley had authenticated those copies — something Matley himself has said "is not possible."

Though CBS reportedly asked Matley not to speak to other news organizations, he was interviewed for a September 14th article in The Washington Post. In that article, Matley acknowledged that he reviewed the copied memos for CBS, but flatly denied that he had authenticated them. He told Post reporters: "I knew I could not prove them authentic just from my expertise. … I can't say either way from my expertise, the narrow, narrow little field of my expertise."

As bloggers at the Beldar and Power Line Web sites had already discovered within hours of Rather’s appearance, Matley is a handwriting examiner who does not have any special expertise in typographical analysis. Subsequent reporting by the New York Post confirmed that that Matley "lacks recognized document training."

According to The Washington Post, CBS's "trump card" for validating the memos was retired Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, Lt. Col. Killian’s former commanding officer. But Hodges has now told reporters that he never saw the documents, and that they were in fact read to him over the phone. Hodges says that he feels he was misled, and that CBS gave him the impression that the memos were handwritten.

After having seen the memos, Hodges concluded that they were "forgeries."

CBS does not deny reading the documents to Hodges, but claims that he changed his story after actually seeing them.

The litany of questionable professionalism and possible bias goes on and on. CBS News interviewed Lt. Col. Killian's son and widow, both of whom disputed the veracity of the memos, but CBS chose not to air their views in its story. CBS claims that it was told by its source that the memos came from the Lt. Col.'s personal files, but both his widow and son deny that he typed or kept personal files.

Though Lt. Col. Killian's secretary at the time, Marian Carr Knox, is still living, CBS elected not to interview her for the story. On Tuesday, September 14th, The Dallas Morning News did.

"These are not real," Mrs. Knox told The Morning News, pointing to numerous "telltale signs of forgery," including the fact that the typeface did not match either variety of typewriter in use at the time in her National Guard office. "They're not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him," she explained.

Mrs. Knox cannot be mistaken for a Bush supporter. She told reporters that she believed the president is "unfit for office" and that he was "selected, not elected." Most intriguingly, she also said that despite their being forgeries, she believed the documents "accurately reflect the viewpoints of Lt. Col. Killian." (To be fair to President Bush, it should be noted that according to the Washington Times, "Defense Department records show that in 1973 Col. Killian praised Mr. Bush's performance and approved his honorable discharge.")

The irony is compelling. If CBS had listened to its expert advisors and regarded the memos skeptically, it might well have sought out further expert testimony and Mrs. Knox's views. It could then have run the blockbuster story that a forger was apparently trying to skew a presidential election, while still being able to quote Mrs. Knox on Lt. Col. Killian's ostensibly critical views of then-1st Lt. Bush. Even if they had allowed their bias to get the best of them and omitted the fact that Killian is known to have praised Bush, hardly anyone in the major media would have batted an eyelash.

But CBS didn't choose this path.

Before these most recent revelations, it might well have seemed that Dan Rather and CBS News were guilty only of the relatively common journalistic crime of insufficiently researching a story that they wanted to believe. Today, that interpretation has collapsed. The 60 Minutes team is now alleged to have known that the memos had been challenged by their own experts and by Lt. Col. Killian's family, and it appears that "60 Minutes" deliberately chose not to make the public aware of these objections.

Partisan bias appears to have so deeply infected one of the nation's established news organizations that it has rotted from the inside. This will drive more and more people to seek out confirmation of "old media" stories in the open fora of the Internet, where the news is mercilessly, instantaneously and endlessly scrutinized by thousands of critics — all vying with one another to offer the most current, incisive, well-constructed analysis.

The era in which old media could publish only the news they saw fit to print is over. And we are left to wonder, what lies slipped quietly past us before the birth of Internet blogs?

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=6836”

“I doubt anyone's going to attack Ms. Knox, I'm sure she really believes the things she is saying. However there are plenty of people who dispute what she is saying, and the fact that someone had to forge documents (Burkett? who has his own axe to grind) in the first place certainly doesn't lend credence to the accusations.”

“"and the fact that someone had to forge documents...."

This is a fact? If it's fact, or common knowledge for that matter, why isn't the issue resolved?

Also, why hasn't Bush come out and say that these things are incorrect? Not justifying the *error* with a response doesn't cut it in the political world. Casting a shawdow of doubt is a hard thing to over come, vis a vis, Kerry.”

“How should the issue be resolved? CBS has egg on their face. The Kerry campaign may have worse.”

“Sounds like CBS is standing on their research. I don't think that constitutes egg on their face. GW wussed out with the help of his inflential pappy and lots of $.”

“I see a political ad in the near future that has a bed track with a tune by CCR.

But why should be be embarrassed? He is part of the *have mores*. Isn't that what you do? Send the young, poor in. War is too good for them....”

“Ugh.

Could we move the debate into the lat decade, at least?”

“This debate is current events. It involves forged documents which some have claimed came from the Kerry camp.”

“hey Phaed. Bacpac is going to drive this thing into the dround. He's outraged that someone may or may not have forged docs about his beloved commandant. Of course, the Swift Boat Liars' falls into the ancient history category to him, but that figures, doesn't it? Selective putz!”

“Some have said Karl Rove forged them to discredit the whole (well documented) story line, too.

I think there are more important issues facing the country right now.”

“I don't know about you guys, but if I ran for President, I would come out and explain what happened. This is getting worse than *I didn't inhale*, which was a joke. If it's not true, then there should be no reason for Bush to come out and say, *Folks, it's not true*.

The man is running for President. It's a poor move to let the street decide this matter.

I have two opinions on what is going on:

1. It's true and Rove is laying low. There has been a little tweak recently in the stump speach, calling Kerry's *attacks* "old", which shows no ablility to re-but what Kerry is saying. No answer, a little shuck and a *can you believe this guy?* goes along way with the pre-screened, hardcore Christian right audience. The great thing is that Bush lays out his domestic policy, which in itself will spend an awful lot of more money we don't have, then right after attacks Kerry for wanting to spend more money, create more government, you know....all of the things HE just said he's going to do. Of course, the room full of cheerleaders flash the appause sign and the place goes nuts.

2. Bush is a confirmed alcholic. Maybe he was in a *black out* and just can't recall just what the hell was going on back then. You'll notice that a common thing wil Alkys is that the yalways say *we can't live in the past*, or *that was along time ago, this is me now*. It's a sign of *Hey, I phucked up real bad, but I'm sober now and shouldn't be judged for that time. Part of which, IMHO, is true, but you can never use a disability as an excuse.”

“Are we still on the 'If you don't deny it, it is true' train? How absurd.

If the Kerry campaign continues the '70s stategy I say more power to them. If they are currently forging documents then I say they need to be held accountable.”

“I agree.

Prove the Kerry campaign had something to do with it and hold them accountable with your vote.

Also, be sure to hold the other administration accountable for the Valerie Plame leak, Abu Ghraib debacle, and the 9/11 intelligence failure.”

“"Also, be sure to hold the other administration accountable for the Valerie Plame leak, Abu Ghraib debacle, and the 9/11 intelligence failure......."

And let's not forget that grand oldie:

For destablizing Iraq to be our terrorist b!tch! I'm sure the Iraqi mothers and children would just love to give Bush a BIG OLD Christmas gift this year!”

“We can only hope that the Kerry campaign will initiate an open investigation as the Adminisration has in the Valerie Plame leak, Abu Ghraib debacle, and the 9/11 intelligence failure.

I am not sure if the Valerie Plame investigation is complete, but the other two have been completed and released to the public.

Kudos to the Administration's commitment to the truth.”

“"Kudos to the Administration's commitment to the truth." -- bacpac

Would that happen to be anything along the lines of "All major combat action in Iraq is over" or "Mission accomplished" or "Saddam has WMDs" or "I'm the uniter, not a divider" or "Our economy is strong" or "I'm the education president" or, or, or...”

“Dissembler.

The Bush admin dragged its feet on all of those investigations, and eventually other branches of government had to step in to take charge of them.

BTW, the Kerry campaign should launch an investigation into this as soon as the Bush campaign launches an investigation into the photoshopped kerry/fonda picture, the alexandra polier lie, the swift boat smears, etc, etc.”

“The Administration did not drag it's feet. You cannot cite an Administration in the history of the United States that reacted as quickly.

Phaedrus is wrong. Prove your assertion.”

“I find it depressing that Phaedrus blames the President for photos of Fonda/Kerry, the swift boat veterans and whoever the hell alexandra polier is.”

“No comment means that Phaedrus agrees with me. Isn't that the logic we now use as proof?”

“I never noticed you answered, and since you've provided no evidence for Kerry's campaign being the source of the documents in question, I won't provide any evidence of anything, either. Personally, I could care less if you, of all people, believe you're right.

BTW, I didn't say the Bush administration was responsible for those things, although I don't mind the idea of you being depressed. Reread what I wrote and try to figure it out.”

“I figured you out.”

“One of the recently released records on Bush's Guard service indicates that he was discharged because he was was unfit for service.”