Little Green Footballs has posted an animated GIF that alternates between a Word document he created and one of Dan Rather’s memos. A 1973 typewriter, you say? Imbeciles they think we are.
The big bloggers are all over this. Meanwhile, check out Instapundit’s links. Michelle Malkin asks if the Federal Election Commission should get involved.
How will the blogosphere impact the election? Is it a player at all?
This post will be updated periodically.
(Hat tip: Power Line)
Update: The Los Angeles Times spins the memo story with this headline: “Controversy Over Bush’s Guard Duty Escalates.” The controversy isn’t the Guard duty; It’s the forged memos! Hello?
A $10,000 reward to reproduce CBS documents?
Update II: Pentagon says memos are phony. INDC Journal says Boston Globe lie is repeated by CBS.
**Exclusive** – INDC Journal interviews Dr. Philip Bouffard, a document expert who was reportedly misquoted by the Globe. And they misspelled his first and last names. Thanks to weblogs, mainstream media are now under scrutiny. I’m having too much fun.
Update III: More memos? How can this be? The American Thinker says wrong deadline, wrong regulation.
{ 23 comments }
They really do think we are imbeciles, don’t they.
BTW. I like your work. Thanks, and keep it up.
There has been enough credible evidence presented (in the blogosphere any way) to determine that the questioned documents are fakes.
The defining moment for me was when Mately’s words from a few years ago gave the lie to the entire matter. He stated in a book he wrote that you cannot authenticate handwriting from a copy. This is exactly what he did in this case.
I think it is high time to cut to the chase. It is time to raise the hue and cry in this matter in the following manner.
1. Demand that CBS produce the originals.
2. Demand that CBS name their source for the copies in their possession.
3. Base both demands on the condition that failing to do so will justifiable allegations of complicity.
———–
Rather is stonewalling. Clinton could get away with this because he is a sociopath. Rather is not. He is merely an immense ego.
I love how every blogger is now a typeface expert.
“Little Green Footballs has posted an animated GIF that alternates between a Word document he created and one of Dan Rather’s memos. A 1973 typewriter, you say? Imbeciles they think we are.”
Well:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603
You’re a little late to the party, actus. I linked to that post yesterday. Follow the link.
And everybody is not an expert, but there is a dispute among the so-called experts. Is questioning the authenticity of the documents off limits?
WHat I have been amazed with today is all the liberals who have been interviewed have pretty much mimicked Dan Rather’s comments last night (how we are all missing the point and that the fact is the President didn’t show up for Guard drills).
They are worried about something the President did or did not do 30 years ago and we have PROVEN, DOCUMENTED, WITNESSED facts for the past 20 years or more (especially over the past 5 years) of John Kerry not even showing up for Senate Intel Committee meetings and votes … for that fact he did not show up for a lot of Senate votes.
Is that not deriliction of duty or what?
Just poke me in the eye with a pencil so I can wake up
You don’t have to be an expert in typography to see with your own eyes that those docs are fake. Puhlease.
Besides the generous amount of evidence refuting the possibility of those documents looking almost exactly the same over 30 yrs, Daily KOS doesn’t bring up the fact that the versions of Times New Roman from the 70s ARE DIFFERENT from the digital versions available today. Those documents would be more exaggerated in their differences if they were actually created in two different time periods.
TYPOGRAPHIC PROBLEMS WITH THE BUSH MEMOS
http://www.neiluchitel.com/index.php?p=299
I think I know why Kerry can’t get off of the Vietnam era. I think Kerry has post-traumatic stress disorder from his time in Vietnam. That would explain the ramblings, the nonsensical approach to answering questions, the insistence on bringing up Vietnam when his best advisors suggest otherwise, and the fabrications. I’m a little concerned about him.
Hugh Hewitt posts 3 emails from a Computer Science Professor who specializes in Word Processing Programs. The Professor explains chapter and verse why no typewriter or word processing program could do proportional spacing in 1971.
I started believing some time ago that mainstream media thinks that those of us out in TV land are stupid mindless yokels needing to be led and told what to think. And by who better than the mainstream media talking heads. I don’t like to use this word much but I really do hate mainstream media, although they are good at providing me plenty of opportunities to guffaw and snort at their representation of news.
Let’s keep up the scrutiny!
“Is questioning the authenticity of the documents off limits?”
Only for liberal true believers like actus. Instead of trolling conservative blogs and posting so you can prove you exist, actus, just put your hands over your ears and scream “I Can’t Hear You! I Can’t Hear You!” You’ll end up in the same place and you won’t waste our time.
Not sure if anyone posted this yet, but here’s a REAL memo on GWB: http://politicalities.typepad.com/photos/politicalities/bushawol.jpg
” The Professor explains chapter and verse why no typewriter or word processing program could do proportional spacing in 1971.”
Which is curious since IBM advertised proportional spacing as early as 1941. This is all so odd.
Jeannie, that was hilarious!
Actus, point taken. But check this out; Jeff Harrell has finally resolved the Selectric Composer question http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/ — using a sample of text on a real, honest-to-goodness IBM SC. The coup de grâce comes at the end.
If that’s not enough for you, then maybe you should take a whack at winning the $10,500 reward for replicating the memo using the available technology of the day at http://defeatjohnjohn.com/2004/09/10000-part-two-ibm-selectric.htm. Go for it and prove Rather’s point
ROTFL.
Conclusion: It was a hack job. Question is, by whom?
1) by a moonbat — shame on Rather for accepting the docs at face value.
2) by Kerry’s oppo-research — twice the shame, both for CBS & Kedwards.
3) by Karl Rove — rope-a-dope hattrick, wiping out the credibility of CBS, Dems & leftyblogs in one move.
I’m just waiting to see how this shakes out.
CBS should be seriously investigating instead of trying to cover their behind.
Of course, I hope it’s all true. I hope some idiot really did write a bunch of fake documents to damage Bush. Not only will it make him more sympathetic, but it’ll drown out Kerry’s message, whatever it is, and keep him off-balance.
I no longer care.
I’m voting for Colin Powell.
DarkStar, I (and many others I know) would vote for Powell in a heartbeat.
I remember awhile back, Paul Harvey did one of those “rest of the stories” about Powell. Now that I’ve given away the punchline, the suspense is gone, but the story basically was this: this man is in the military, fighting over in Vietnam, getting shot at day and night and living through pretty horrific circumstances. His wife, in the meantime, is back home in Alabama during the height of the racial tension and living with their children at her parents’ house. In his letters, he totally downplays the danger he’s in and emphasizes only the good, and that he loves her and the children and will come home soon. In her letters, she totally downplays the danger she’s in; at one point the front window to her father’s house is shot in and they have to hide in the cellar. She tells him none of this, and only emphasizes the good, like he does. It’s not until years after he’s home that the true stories really come out. What amazing, honourable people.
Glad you liked that silliness, Andy.
Did anyone see Byron York’s column? I’ll reprint it here (no link for it, sorry!), if Queen LaShawn says it’s okay:
Bush’s National Guard years
What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard? That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?
News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.
That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.
Not two years of weekends. Two years.
After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.
According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).
Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. He earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?
That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the
Democratic National Committee).
Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.
“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.
In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.
A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”
A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even
further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”
Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush’s service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry’s
record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
And, as it is with Kerry, it’s reasonable to look at a candidate’s entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide
whether it’s important or not in November.
The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.
And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s.
In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”
Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.
That’s fine. We should know as much as we can.
And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.
Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears each week. E-mail: byork@thehill.com
Colin would get my vote as well, however, since Al Gore and Dick Cheney have redefined the vice-presidency as more than a bucket of warm spit; my dream team would be a Rice/Powell ticket. I’d like to see cHillary beat that in 08.
Rice/Powell would be absolutely wonderful, but I cringe to think of the response by the Democrats who would assume race was the motivator.
It reminds me of a time when a liberal friend of mine (yes, he really was a friend) told me without the women’s movement I’d just be barefoot and pregnant. A conservative friend of mine, standing nearby, said not to let liberals cheapen my accomplishments by trying to take credit for what I did alone.
I like Colin Powell, but I’m not sure that I would vote for him as president. Not only is he pro-affirmative action but he is a little more dovish than I would like for someone who would be president. But that’s just me.
Uh…yeah, Powell for President. I think I would question that as well. Only because he has a set doctrine already that I don’t believe fully applies to our current situation. Of course, that is said without giving him any chance to say what he would do, so, it is open.
Rice…maybe I am a “gut voter” but I like her ability to stay on topic, stay focused and not get rattled when they start throwing darts. She also appears to be able to “improvise, adapt and overcome”. A good mix. I’d love to see that as running for President.
Jeannie, RepJ & Kat-missouri,
Hence my suggestion for Rice as the ticket leader. I like Powell, and don’t get me wrong, if he was the candidate, I’d vote for him over anything the Dems have going other than Zell, plus his military career and current SecState service is admirable. Buuuut, what RepJ and kat mentioned rings true.
However, what’s not to like about Condi for POTUS? What Dem, male or female, White or Black could compare?
As for the race/gender factor, a simple retort to the naysayers; ‘Show me what you got‘.
Red & blue Obama? I don’t think so.
Ford? Not unless the Dems get a complete makeover after the current makeover.
Keyes? There’s room in the Condi admin for a policy wonk.
cHillary? I’d like to think, ‘Over my dead body’; but that’d be
extremisthyperbolic and about as silly as the moonbats threatening to leave the US.Moseley-Braun? Riiiiight.
Dole? There’s room in the Condi admin for a policy wonk.
Simply put, Condi strikes me as Reagan’s kindred over anyone else currently jockeying for 08 and beyond.
People talk about Cheney, but I think Condi is the key player that Bush relies on most.
Caveat, all bets are off should Queen La Shawn declare herself
Comments on this entry are closed.