The mainstream media has now picked up on CBS’ forged documents relating to Bush’s ANG record, admitting that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence leads to the conclusion that they were hoaxes – and not particularly inventive ones at that.
Apparently the kind of basic research and questioning of sources that journalists are supposed to do is now the domain of the blogosphere. The fact that a major media outlet could fall for something so blatant is sadly not as shocking as it once was…
UPDATE: It appears that the documents may have come from the Kerry campaign, although there’s no evidence that the campaign itself manufactured them.
You really run the risk of losing whatever semblance of credibility you have left by stating these libelous potshots at CBS as fact before the Bush-Cheney ’04 shills, er experts, get a chance to confirm or deny the outlandish charge that they’re fakes. Will you write a lengthy apology to your readers and to CBS News if the hypothesis you are passing off as scientific law turns out to be fool’s gold?
“…libelous potshots..”? Mark you are a joke. Anyhow, let’s wait to hear the case from the CBS ‘document expect’ when they come forward with their facts. BTW, I will NOT hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
CBS needs to do damage control and try to rebuild their reputation by admitting to the mistake and also by firng Dan Rather.
These are so obvious to be forgeries. When anyone with MS Word can create the exact same document and have it match up exactly with the CBS doc, you know they are forgeries.
The only questions now are: who gave these to CBS, and why did CBS run with this?
I think both obviously relate back to Kerry.
These were given to CBS by the Kerry Kamp as part of a coordinated effort to smear Bush this week…they needed to stall his momentum, and they wanted this story out to coincide with their lame Texans for Truth campaign. The timing was everything, and so CBS followed the lead of its master, the DNC.
What they didn’t count on was the power of the internet. They didn’t realize there were all sorts of graphics and computer people out there, who know about stuff like proportional spacing, kerning, fonts, and the like. If this had been 1984, instead of 2004, the media might have gotten away with a fraud like this.
Let’s face it…most of the mainstream media functions as a propaganda arm of the DNC. And it is telling that the Kerry Kamp gave these docs to CBS News…probably because they believe CBS News is one of their greatest allies.
This sounds like a standard cooked-up fantasy of the GOP blogosphere, and the fact that nobody outside the Jay Reding world (save for a blurb in the Washington Post) has given the story the time of day speaks volumes. Yet I’m willing to wait for the final analysis before declaring a hypothesis as fact the way Bush’s professional apologists do. I’ll be holding all of you to heartfelt apologies towards CBS and fellow readers if this myth is debunked. Of course, a crowd that creates its own reality like you guys will always find some reason to discredit real world outcomes when they doesn’t jive with your personal desires.
This certainly raises questions about the journalistic ethics of CBS and 60 minutes. If you start with the assumption that the documents are forgeries you can make a pretty strong case. I don’t think CBS has done enough to quell this argument. Announce who your document expert is, where they got the info, and when did they obtain it.
I am finding more information about the late Mr. Killian’s family and they’re scheduled appearance on Dateline. Now I was listening to the Laura Ingraham, a conservative radio host, but she was saying that Dateline will be interviewing Mrs. Killian and her son about Mr. Killian. We’ll have another chance to know more then.
Also, what hasn’t been said much here is how the Swiftvet test applies to the credibility of Ben Barnes. Stop me if I’m wrong but there were three general questions that makeup the swiftvet test.
1. Where they in the right place at the right time?
2. Is it possible that they have other motives for making their claims?
3. Does the record show that they have been consistent in their claims?
Please correct me if I’m wrong about the above. Now I’m going to dump some the info I’ve heard from various sources, I don’t know if the info is true. Can someone please fact check these:
1. Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes was not Lt. Gov. during the time that Bush went into the National Guard.
Exert from: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml:
“In May 1968, Mr. Bush signed a six-year commitment to fly for the Air Guard.â€
Exert from: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040828_194.html
“I got a young man named George W. Bush into the National Guard when I was lieutenant governor of Texas, and I’m not necessarily proud of that, but I did it,” Barnes said in the 45-second video, which was recorded May 27 before a group of John Kerry supporters in Austin. Barnes, who was House speaker when Bush entered the Guard, later became lieutenant governor.â€
2. Ben Barnes has given considerable support to John Kerry this election year.
Exert from: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/18/politics/main624711.shtml
“As of last week, according to information received by CBS News, 20 donors have given and/or raised more than $250,000, enough to earn them the designation of Trustee. Of those, eight have actually raised more than $500K. Those half-millions include Texas lobbyist Ben Barnes, Wall Street financier Stan Shuman, Iranian American PAC Board of Trustees member Hassan Nemazee and Texas lawyer Mark Iola.†(emphasis mine)
3. Ben Barnes seems to be consistent in his statements. Although he did state while testifying in a deposition for a lawsuit in “that he recommended George W. Bush for a pilot’s slot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam Warâ€, he said then that it was “at the behest of a Houston businessman close to the Bush familyâ€. Source below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/barnes092899.htm
Barnes even stated after the deposition, quoting WashingtonPost “that neither Bush’s father…†Quote Barnes “nor any other member of the Bush Family†Quote WashingtonPost “…asked Barnes for helpâ€
These statements have not changed today:
Exert from: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/18/politics/main624711.shtml
“Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes — then the 29-year-old speaker of the Texas House — told CBS News Anchor Dan Rather that he used influence on Mr. Bush’s behalf at the request of a Houston businessman friendly with the Bush family, oilman Sid Adger.â€
So Mr. Barnes fails 2/3 swiftvet tests. My point is, I’m not a journalist, so I don’t know about what rules there are in journalism. But if they weren’t biased and had used the swiftvet litmus test to gauge the credibility of the story they might not be so willing to bet their institutional credibility on this issue during a national election. If they are right, HUGE HUGE win. But Like going all in during Texas Hold’em, you risk everything for it.
Jay is there a size limit to our messages here. I tried to submit something but I don’t see it?
This certainly raises questions about the journalistic ethics of CBS and 60 minutes. If you start with the assumption that the documents are forgeries you can make a pretty strong case. I don’t think CBS has done enough to quell this argument.
I am finding more information about the late Mr. Killian’s family and they’re scheduled appearance on Dateline tonight. Now I was listening to the Laura Ingraham, a conservative radio host, but she was saying that Dateline will be interviewing Mrs. Killian and her son about Mr. Killian. We’ll have another chance to know more then.
Also, what hasn’t been said much here is how the Swiftvet test applies to the credibility of Ben Barnes. Stop me if I’m wrong but there were three general questions that makeup the swiftvet test.
1. Where they in the right place at the right time?
2. Is it possible that they have other motives for making their claims?
3. Does the record show that they have been consistent in their claims?
Please correct me if I’m wrong about the above. Now I’m going to dump some the info I’ve heard from various sources, I don’t know if the info is true. Can someone please fact check these:
1. Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes was not Lt. Gov. during the time that Bush went into the National Guard.
Exert from: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml:
“In May 1968, Mr. Bush signed a six-year commitment to fly for the Air Guard.â€
Exert from: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040828_194.html
“I got a young man named George W. Bush into the National Guard when I was lieutenant governor of Texas, and I’m not necessarily proud of that, but I did it,” Barnes said in the 45-second video, which was recorded May 27 before a group of John Kerry supporters in Austin. Barnes, who was House speaker when Bush entered the Guard, later became lieutenant governor.â€
2. Ben Barnes has given considerable support to John Kerry this election year.
Exert from: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/18/politics/main624711.shtml :
“As of last week, according to information received by CBS News, 20 donors have given and/or raised more than $250,000, enough to earn them the designation of Trustee. Of those, eight have actually raised more than $500K. Those half-millions include Texas lobbyist Ben Barnes, Wall Street financier Stan Shuman, Iranian American PAC Board of Trustees member Hassan Nemazee and Texas lawyer Mark Iola.†(emphasis mine)
3. Ben Barnes seems to be consistent in his statements. Although he did state while testifying in a deposition for a lawsuit in “that he recommended George W. Bush for a pilot’s slot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam Warâ€, he said then that it was “at the behest of a Houston businessman close to the Bush familyâ€. Source below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/barnes092899.htm
Barnes even stated after the deposition, quoting WashingtonPost “that neither Bush’s father…†Quote Barnes “nor any other member of the Bush Family†Quote WashingtonPost “…asked Barnes for helpâ€
These statements have not changed today:
Exert from: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/18/politics/main624711.shtml
“Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes — then the 29-year-old speaker of the Texas House — told CBS News Anchor Dan Rather that he used influence on Mr. Bush’s behalf at the request of a Houston businessman friendly with the Bush family, oilman Sid Adger.â€
So Mr. Barnes fails 2/3 swiftvet tests. My point is, I’m not a journalist, so I don’t know about what rules there are in journalism. But if they weren’t biased and had used the swiftvet litmus test to gauge the credibility of the story they might not be so willing to bet their institutional credibility on this issue during a national election. If they are right, HUGE HUGE win. But Like going all in during Texas Hold’em, you risk everything for it.
Nice try, Mark, but the major media is all over this story like Michael Moore at a buffet line… I take it you didn’t watch Nightline last night?
The Washington Post gave the story a front-page story, which means there’s damn sure to be something to it.
Hell, when you can reproduce the same thing yourself in five minutes, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out it’s a fake.
Chris: Your comment probably got into the moderation queue because of the number of links. Chances are if a comment doesn’t appear, that’s where it went.
Doe, sorry for spamming
Now Hannity is going to have Barnes’ daughter on, who will testify to the fact that her Dad’s account is just a political ploy.
This just keeps getting better…
The memos are fake, Barnes’ credibility is shattered…
The real story now is the fact that CBS is still sticking with their story, in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it…they literally are operating like Pravda…to hell with the truth, just full speed ahead with the lies and hope people either don’t notice or forget about it…
I think CBS is hoping this will quietly fade as other stories come to dominate the news…well we must continue to hold CBS and Rather accountable…
Is she telling the truth?
I reserve the right to be skeptical.
She is correct that Barnes is a major backer of John Kerry, which does speak to his motive.
Given that Killians’ son, Barnes’ daughter, several document analysts, and members of the Texas ANG have all said the documents are fake, I’m more inclined to believe them than Dan Rather and a shill for Kerry…
The left is in deep denial here. In order for these documents to be authentic, they would have had to have been created on an expensive piece of typsetting equipment that would not have been used for a simple memo. Moreover, the chances of anything being produced using 1972 technology exactly matching something created in Word down to the kerning, spacing, and other unique typographical elements is damn near impossible.
The fact that the usual partisans are swallowing this tripe is not surprising – but one would think that CBS would know better. When you have expert after expert saying that there’s only a minute chance that these documents are authentic, it’s pretty damn clear who is thinking and who is clinging to their ideology in spite of all the facts.
a crowd that creates its own reality like you guys will always find some reason to discredit real world outcomes when they doesn’t jive with your personal desires.
I believe this is what psychologists refer to as “projection.”
Bad analogy, Chet. I don’t know what state AT’s from, but if you tried forging (for instance) my license in PS, it would be immediately obvious as a fake to anybody who knows what my state’s license is supposed to look like (unless you’ve got plug-ins for mag-stripes, variegated barcodes, and a holographic watermark on the laminate).
Which is the point we’re trying to make here. The alleged memos resemble to five decimal places something that can be created in Word 97 on default settings, so the odds are more in favor of that being the case rather than the memos being a product of some early 1970’s uber-typewriter. Painstakingly done using techniques reserved for brochures and other high-quality-required documents. Using language and structure inconsistent with other similar kinds of documents. Referring to manuals that didn’t apply to the situation. Using acronyms that didn’t exist in 1973.
Dr. Ockham’s ghost is chuckling slightly and sharpening his razor.
Well, I won’t hold my breath waiting for someone to address the ‘ABC dimensions’ (a/k/a pseudokerning) issue, which is conclusive proof that the alleged memo was forged.
Oh, wait. I’m already not holding my breath waiting for CBS to let somebody other than their pet ‘experts’ look at the alleged memo.
I said pseudokerned. The alleged memo is not kerned. The fact that some pairs of letters, but not others, appear to be kerned is evidence of a TrueType font using ‘ABC dimensions’. From http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm:
Times New Roman uses a characteristic of Microsoft TrueType fonts called the ABC dimensions, where the C dimension is the offset from the right edge of the bounding box of the character to the next character. If this offset is negative, the character with the negative C offset will overlap the character which follows (in some technologies, the distance from the start of one character to the start of another is called the “escapementâ€, so a negative C offset gives an escapement which is less than the character width). This gives the illusion of kerning, or what I sometimes call “pseudo-kerningâ€.
…
ALL technologies I am aware of in 1972 that would have been available for office work (not, say, the sort of production book typesetters that major publishers might have had) could only advance an integral number of units, and could not “tuck in†the characters like Microsoft’s Times New Roman font under Microsoft Word does, by using a negative partial-character offset. Examine carefully the “fr†in the word “from†in the 18-August-1973 memo. The “r†is tucked under the “f†in the same way a Microsoft font does it. In 1972, technology available in the office, including proportional typewriters, could not do this. So it is clear that the only way this document could have been done is using a modern computer font, and the placement is pixelwise identical to Microsoft’s Times New Roman.
Now you’re just spouting bullshit. Are you seriously saying that a fucking typewriter is smart enough to know what character you’re going to type next and kern the letter pairs exactly the same way Microsoft Word does.
Now forgive me for being blunt here, but how fucking stupid are you?
Here’s a hint: a typewriter has metal type that strikes on a page. A typewriter can’t automatically move the next letter based on the last one. You can’t kern on a typewriter. It’s like saying you can fly to the moon on a 57 Chevy. Not even the fantastically expensive Selectric Composer would produce type that’s anything like these memos.
This is pointless, it’s clear that you’ve already made up your mind on the issue, the facts be damned.
Once more, couldn’t this whole issue be put to rest if someone could just look up in the equipment logs of the Texas Air National Guard for the year of 1972 to see if they had this printer in their inventory? Or if the presumed secretary for Lt. Killian exists? And if she exists if she ever typed on such a typewritter?
At the moment it doesn’t look likely. I mean, I’ve heard of government waste, but a fancy typewritter that costs over $16,000 of today’s dollars for typing personal memos for a Lieutenant of the Texas Air National Guard? The use doesn’t warrent the cost.
And if the machine was intended to be used by more than just a presumed secretary for a Lieutenant would that be an issue that comes to the front in the next couple of days or weeks?
Jay, you letting your frustration confuse what he’s saying. The IBM Selectric Composer CAN produce documents that are close the memo. The proportional positioning that it can do can mimick kernalling by positioning characters based on their widths. (If I understand kernalling correctly). Or have you not read all of this.
Know more about what you’re talking about before you start cussing people. Come on, you know that!