Dan Rather is standing by the authenticity of the Bush documents despite the general consensus that the documents are forgeries. Rather is seriously sticking his neck out, as the chances of the documents being legitimate seem very slim at best.
The documents are fishy at best, and when one can create a near-exact replica of them using Microsoft Word, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. You have a set of documents that appear to have come from the Kerry campaign. These documents do not match documents of the period. Killian’s signature is different on these documents than on other verified documents. The documents contain elements that would have been highly unlikely to have ever been used by the Texas ANG in 1972. The documents get basic facts wrong and do not match other verified documents.
What shocks me is that someone who should be upholding the most basic values of simple journalism has so shamelessly attached his reputation to a set of documents that are reproducably bogus. Then again, Rather hasn’t practiced anything remotely like real journalism in quite some time…
I think Rather’s strategy is a simple one: deny, and hope the story goes away as other stories come to dominate the news cycle.
I can just imagine his meeting with the Kerry Kamp, where they say something like:
“Dan, you can’t admit this is a fake…it will ruin both of us”
Rather: “But what can I do…they’ve caught us redhanded?”
Kerry Kamp: “Do what you always do…just repeat lies…it’s going into the weekend…other stories will surface…by Monday no one will even remember this…”
But we will remember…
CBS News is really taking a very disturbing tack with this story.
They literally have turned into an organization that deliberately lies and doesn’t care about that. Their attitude is that truth be damned, they must stick with the party line. Pravda would be proud of them.
General consensus by whom? Pro-Bush bloggers? You are correct that I didn’t watch Nightline last night, but I’ve kept pretty close tabs on the news today and have seen nothing about this story except from here. Who exactly is forming this “general consensus” about the documents being frauds?
To be honest I dont see this as a moe by the kerry camp, it was either done by a moronic ant-bush operative working alone, or a small group acting alone, OR someone working for the bush campaign.
Consider, this is a great way to help support the idea that the media is biased by having the media get tricked nito using fake evidence. This also puts doubt onto the whole Bush Awol situation. Here after when people talk about it they will start to doubt ’cause they remeber that some other evidence turned out false. Its sort of how the Swift-Boat vets ruined things for themselves, by making claims that were sometimes very difficult to substantiate. Gradually people hear of all the errors in their stories, they begin to doubt.
If this was done by the Bush campaign, it was a master stroke.
Ch3t – please find me a typewriter available in 1972 that will create the ‘s found in these documents. I have never in my life seen ANY typewriter produce the dynamic ‘s that were in that document. Those are created by SOFTWARE.
Is there no way of getting Rather to reveal his source of the letters or even their document expert? So CBS takes some heat but remains relatively unscathed. How disappointing that we may never know the whole truth.
However, Truthado, regarding using unsophisticated trickery as a means to out media bias; I think the fact that CBS used it without vetting it properly says even more about their integrity and competence.
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 operated by a no-doubt-thorougly-trained ANG officer. 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. With acronyms that didn’t exist in 1973. Claiming pressure from a superior who retired over a year previously.
Ockham’s ghost is chuckling slightly and sharpening his razor.
What experts? Name one credible document analyst who says that the memos are authentic.
For a detailed analysis on the feasibility of Killian using the IBM Selectric Typewritter to create these memos in 1972 look here.
I thought I saw a story like that this morning. Went to look for it…took 10 seconds….Jay. Link here.
Chris: Capitol Hill Blue isn’t a credible source, it’s a local tabloid. Plus, Dr. Bouffard has already said that the Boston Globe deliberately misquoted him and he doesn’t believe the documents are typewritten. (The latest post has the link.)
Chet: Barbara O’Brien is not an expert. She claims to have been a typist in the 1970s, but there’s no way of verifying it. She is clearly not a forensic analyst, and there’s no record of her ever testifying as an expert in any court case.
“No one would be dumb enough to fall for this, so it must be true.”
Well, apparently I can think of at least one person dumb enough to fall for such an obvious hoax…
Certainly less than your capability to swallow anything that makes ‘my’ guy look bad.
What’s the expert score now? 10-2.5 in favor of forgery?