« Did Dubya fly with the United States Air Force? | Main | More re 9/11 and the Global War on Terror from the Educated Angry Left in Lake Woebegon »

Monday, September 13, 2004

Last links of the night

No quotes, no meaty summaries, but just a few more links before I invite the Sandman to visit:

  • Power Line on CBS News' "seemed to fit the time and the man that Killian was" witness Robert Strong.
  • Bill Safire's NYT op-ed on the CBS News docs.  Quick quote:  "Hey, Dan: On this, recognize the preponderance of doubt. Call for a panel of old CBS hands and independent editors to re-examine sources and papers. Courage." Ayup!
  • Jim Geraghty on Newsweek, Burkett, and connections between the Kerry campaign and the "60 Minutes" broadcast.  Then click here and keep scrolling down until you see something you've read before.
  • Overlawyered's Walter Olson on one of Dan Rather's past credibility problems.

  • Blogger Bill at INDC Journal with a quick example of what a real military memo (this one typed in 1988) looks like.

  • Prof. Bainbridge on Time magazine's "false equivalence" and how Gunga Dan should be punished.
  • Captain Ed on Bush being caught not being AWOL in Alabama.

  • Blogger Dan of dislogue with a first-person account and pix from the Vietnam Veterans for Truth rally today in Washington.
  • Patterico and Tom Maguire on "Texans for Truth" spokesman Bob Mintz.

  • The big picture from Belmont Club's Wretchard.

Read these and you'll be well informed for tomorrow's water-cooler arguments!

My own blogging will likely be light for the next couple of days.  Seems someone wants me, sans pajamas, at a hearing in a rural Texas town.  Beldar, reporting for duty!

Posted by Beldar at 12:37 AM in Law (2006 & earlier), Mainstream Media, Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink

TrackBacks

Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Last links of the night and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


» Dan Rather from Right on the Left Beach

Tracked on Sep 13, 2004 10:45:57 AM

Comments

(1) M. Simon made the following comment | Sep 13, 2004 7:25:25 AM | Permalink

Is Carville up to the same dirty tricks he tried in '92?

That would be way too obvious.

Has Carville tried this trick before?

(2) Chris made the following comment | Sep 13, 2004 9:13:48 AM | Permalink

Still interesting to me is the fact that despite all these experts declaring the memo type "nearly pixel compatible" with Times New Roman, it's quite obvious to everyone that it's NOT Times New Roman, and no one has been able to find the modern typeface supposedly used to forge these memos. If someone just fired up MS Word and started whacking, they sure picked a strange typeface to do it in.

(3) abnjm made the following comment | Sep 13, 2004 9:40:46 AM | Permalink

William Kristol just mentioned "Beldar" on Fox.

(4) MamaB made the following comment | Sep 13, 2004 3:24:20 PM | Permalink

Now, note this memorandum written two weeks later, on May 19, 1972 and allegedly signed by Killian. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc6.gif Compare the first memorandum and the second memorandum....specifically the initials in the left hand corner, as well as the signature of the second one. They do not match the stylistics of handwriting.

In the 5/19/72 memorandum, there is a space between the 1 and the st, which is NEVER done by individuals in the military.They are ALWAYS combined "1st"

Note the specks from the copy machine on the documents. They do not match, indicating a different copy machine was used on each...and indicating the copy machines had not been cleaned.

Note the comments on the second is underlined and there are also initials handwritten at the bottom right side.....a memo to a file wouldn't be initialed by individuals, if it was to be placed in a personal file.

The font appears to be the same on both, however, the web sources of the documents are from a webpage created by Heidt, Heldt of the Clinton County Democrat Party..... http://www.awolbush.com/documents/BushGuardmay19.pdf.


Now check out this U.S Today copy of the SAME document, which has not been redacted with black marker (though the print in the one above, could be read under the black marker. These documents came from the same source, as the dots match up for some of the matter from the copy machine, though far less dots, indicating the dirt on the second document is from a copier that was dirty, not from the original document.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf

Note the 5/26/72 document indicating the President was accepted for transfer at Montgomery Alabama and welcome to participate in their guard unit.

Now, note the U.S. Today copy and compare it to the one that Heidt (heldt) and CBS news had and compare the bottom right handed initials....they are different, as the initial at the bottom doesn't appear to extend to the bottom of the "b" and are written much different. Note the initials in U.S. News and Review appear to be BMB (Burkett?) thought the M, may be an N? And not the initials that Heidt or Heldt had on "his document" that he claims he received from the military read (in the first document above) read for initials: B94, which indicate a severe alteration. (Again, this is the document that CBS news had.)

Note there is no dirt on the copier and no spots, indicating this was not reproduced as the second one that Heldt (Heidt) had

Now, note the U.S.A Today document regarding the suspension of the President. Note it was completed with the same typewriter as the other documents. However, note the following:

The heading is not centered as it was on the 5/4/1972 document.
The initials on this 5/4/1972 document are different than the way Killian wrote his name. Note the J.....the large loops and the K, with the loop meeting at the bottom, not in the middle in the other document. The handwriting between the two do not match up.

Note the title differences, this document reads, Lt. Colonel as the title for Killian, however, in the 5/4/1972 memorandum, it reads Lt. Colonel, Commander.

Note the spots from the copier...once again, this appears to be have copied on a different copy machine, at a different time.

Now, note this memorandum, USA Today had......also signed by Killian. Compare the signatures of the other documents...this one is also distinctly different, though written on June 24, 1973....and a very sloppy forgery.

Note the J of the first of the name and the difference in stylistics to the 5/4/72 memorandum. Note how the erry (at the end of the J) are more defined that the 5/4 memorandum and there is no connection between the middle symbol and the last name. Note the difference in stylistics and slant, undefined a in the last name of the latter. Note the differences writing the "K" in the last name. Again, note the copy machine traces,.

Note the heading...the city is not listed at the bottom of the post office box...and if you look very closely at the tracings under the P.O. Box, you will see there were different letters under the headings, indicating the numbers 55, under the P.O. Box, at one time, where someone made an obvious error.

Note the little "th" for 111th, rather than the "th" in the 5/4/72 memorandum, indicating a different typwriter was used. Note on this memorandum, as well, there is a space between the 1 and the st, as there was in the 5/19/72 memorandum indicating it was most likely typed by the same person who repeatedly made the same error, not used in the military.

Finally, the last U.S.A. today memorandum...note the initials...if you look carefully at the three sets of initials at the top right and the right hand sections, you will see "track marks" around the two on the right......this indicates alteration, that there were erasures of initials....

Look at the print on the documents and the shadow print behind most of the print. This was a document that was erased, copied and recopied and then typed over apparently for the initial in the top left hand corner. (the memo that discusses Hodges)

Note there are different initials that would never be done for a personal memorandum to a personal file....again note the marks or tracks of the copy machine...again, copied at a different date.

Just for your information and review.........so YOU can assess the evidence and make the decision for yourself......

Most of these are altered and fraudulent documents, in my opinion and the U.S. Today documents better show the alterations as they were provided with better documents than was CBS News or had a much better copy machine that picked up on the discrepancies.

(5) MamaB made the following comment | Sep 13, 2004 3:25:18 PM | Permalink

Now, note this memorandum written two weeks later, on May 19, 1972 and allegedly signed by Killian. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc6.gif Compare the first memorandum and the second memorandum....specifically the initials in the left hand corner, as well as the signature of the second one. They do not match the stylistics of handwriting.

In the 5/19/72 memorandum, there is a space between the 1 and the st, which is NEVER done by individuals in the military.They are ALWAYS combined "1st"

Note the specks from the copy machine on the documents. They do not match, indicating a different copy machine was used on each...and indicating the copy machines had not been cleaned.

Note the comments on the second is underlined and there are also initials handwritten at the bottom right side.....a memo to a file wouldn't be initialed by individuals, if it was to be placed in a personal file.

The font appears to be the same on both, however, the web sources of the documents are from a webpage created by Heidt, Heldt of the Clinton County Democrat Party..... http://www.awolbush.com/documents/BushGuardmay19.pdf.


Now check out this U.S Today copy of the SAME document, which has not been redacted with black marker (though the print in the one above, could be read under the black marker. These documents came from the same source, as the dots match up for some of the matter from the copy machine, though far less dots, indicating the dirt on the second document is from a copier that was dirty, not from the original document.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf

Note the 5/26/72 document indicating the President was accepted for transfer at Montgomery Alabama and welcome to participate in their guard unit.

Now, note the U.S. Today copy and compare it to the one that Heidt (heldt) and CBS news had and compare the bottom right handed initials....they are different, as the initial at the bottom doesn't appear to extend to the bottom of the "b" and are written much different. Note the initials in U.S. News and Review appear to be BMB (Burkett?) thought the M, may be an N? And not the initials that Heidt or Heldt had on "his document" that he claims he received from the military read (in the first document above) read for initials: B94, which indicate a severe alteration. (Again, this is the document that CBS news had.)

Note there is no dirt on the copier and no spots, indicating this was not reproduced as the second one that Heldt (Heidt) had

Now, note the U.S.A Today document regarding the suspension of the President. Note it was completed with the same typewriter as the other documents. However, note the following:

The heading is not centered as it was on the 5/4/1972 document.
The initials on this 5/4/1972 document are different than the way Killian wrote his name. Note the J.....the large loops and the K, with the loop meeting at the bottom, not in the middle in the other document. The handwriting between the two do not match up.

Note the title differences, this document reads, Lt. Colonel as the title for Killian, however, in the 5/4/1972 memorandum, it reads Lt. Colonel, Commander.

Note the spots from the copier...once again, this appears to be have copied on a different copy machine, at a different time.

Now, note this memorandum, USA Today had......also signed by Killian. Compare the signatures of the other documents...this one is also distinctly different, though written on June 24, 1973....and a very sloppy forgery.

Note the J of the first of the name and the difference in stylistics to the 5/4/72 memorandum. Note how the erry (at the end of the J) are more defined that the 5/4 memorandum and there is no connection between the middle symbol and the last name. Note the difference in stylistics and slant, undefined a in the last name of the latter. Note the differences writing the "K" in the last name. Again, note the copy machine traces,.

Note the heading...the city is not listed at the bottom of the post office box...and if you look very closely at the tracings under the P.O. Box, you will see there were different letters under the headings, indicating the numbers 55, under the P.O. Box, at one time, where someone made an obvious error.

Note the little "th" for 111th, rather than the "th" in the 5/4/72 memorandum, indicating a different typwriter was used. Note on this memorandum, as well, there is a space between the 1 and the st, as there was in the 5/19/72 memorandum indicating it was most likely typed by the same person who repeatedly made the same error, not used in the military.

Finally, the last U.S.A. today memorandum...note the initials...if you look carefully at the three sets of initials at the top right and the right hand sections, you will see "track marks" around the two on the right......this indicates alteration, that there were erasures of initials....

Look at the print on the documents and the shadow print behind most of the print. This was a document that was erased, copied and recopied and then typed over apparently for the initial in the top left hand corner. (the memo that discusses Hodges)

Note there are different initials that would never be done for a personal memorandum to a personal file....again note the marks or tracks of the copy machine...again, copied at a different date.

Just for your information and review.........so YOU can assess the evidence and make the decision for yourself......

Most of these are altered and fraudulent documents, in my opinion and the U.S. Today documents better show the alterations as they were provided with better documents than was CBS News or had a much better copy machine that picked up on the discrepancies.

(6) george made the following comment | Sep 13, 2004 6:13:05 PM | Permalink

60 Minutes and Dan Rather are either the victims of or the perpetrators of a hoax. There is no way the Killian memos were produced on equipment that could have been found or would have been used in an ordinary office environment. You could do them yourself in MS Word in 10 minutes, Beyond all doubt the documents are forgeries.
You are required by your FCC license to provide "honest" news reporting. Providing air time for forged documents prvoided by political operatives to slander a sitting president and influence an election should clearly be an issue in your next license renewal.

In the meantime, I am refusing to watch your station and encouraging all of my friends to do the same. ABC has provided some honest coverage of this issue and will get our business until your license review.

You can turn this situation around by:

1. Providing honest local news coverage on the Fraud presented on your airwaves by 60 minutes without your consent.

2. Urging CBS Network to reire Dan Rather and fire Mary Mapes

In 70 hours your network has managed to flush 70 years of hard-won credibility. Only the most extreme effort will save this sinking ship.

(7) A Comment made the following comment | Sep 14, 2004 12:17:08 AM | Permalink

I don't think that CBS is interested in saving their credibility in the manner that we think. They have the experience of seeing that people will forget, especially once Election 2004 is behind us, and (rightly or wrongly) figure that as memory fades, they can sort of slide by. It is not as if they are going to be wiped out like the accounting firm that was a part of the Enron? debacle, lost all credibility which was a necessity for keeping clients, and was largely dismembered.

What seems to have happened (personal opinion, so take with shaker of salt) is that somebody, likely an anti-Bush partisan or equivalent, cooked up some memoranda that seemed to reflect history (flight medical and grounding) with possibly some extra wording for effect, plus an extra to illustrate outside influence.

That the memoranda was pretty obviously not from 1972/1973 was not relevant for it would have been assumed that nobody, who didn't want to believe them, would believe them or give them any weight. So long as the news organization, in this case CBS, would maintain that the memoranda was legitimate, then others (Kerry campaign, DNC, 527s) could latch onto it without the danger of being directly connected to it. After all, if CBS says they are not forged, then they must be legit.

Why wouldn't the Bush campaign or suppporters do something like this? For one, the danger is that once the story of forged memoranda comes out, if CBS had any evidence, however slight, to show that someone connected (how ever distantly connected) or sympathetic to the Republicans had been the source, they would fall all over themselves to publicize the "dirty tricks". In addition, there is almost no payoff versus the risk. Maybe, if it was passed to the Kerry campaign and he "exposed" them, there might be a benefit, but even then he might get sympathy for being victimized by a RNC "dirty trick". And you know _that_ would get lots of media coverage.

IF the fallout from this gets to the point where it seriously threatens the survival of CBS News, then somebody, probably Dan Rather, will end up being fired or taking the fall. But I doubt it would be to restore their "credibility".

The comments to this entry are closed.