Posted on 09/10/2004 6:51:55 AM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - Additional questions were circulating Friday about the contents of four purported military documents regarding President Bush's National Guard service that served as the basis for a Bush-bashing segment on the CBS News program "60 Minutes" Wednesday night.
Doubts about the authenticity of the documents spread across the Internet and cable news shows Thursday when several forensic document experts, typographers and retired military officers offered their analysis. Friday's newspapers also carried stories questioning the documents' authenticity.
Even the widow and son of the alleged author of the memos, the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, questioned whether the documents were real. Killian's widow, Marjorie, called the records "a farce," according to The Washington Post, and his son, Gary, who retired from the Texas Air National Guard in 1991, told The Associated Press one unsigned document looked fake.
A memo dated May 4, 1972, claims that Bush refused to follow an order to undertake a medical examination. Another unsigned memo from May 19, 1972, suggests that Bush was "talking to someone upstairs" to get out of his duty with the Texas Air National Guard.
"It just wouldn't happen," Gary Killian told the AP. "The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things. ... No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."
"I don't think there were any documents," added Killian's widow, Marjorie Connell, in a Washington Post article. "He was not a paper person."
Questions about the documents, which were the basis of Wednesday's "60 Minutes" program, prompted a swift reaction from the network.
"As a standard practice at CBS, each of the documents broadcast on '60 Minutes' was thoroughly investigated by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity," the network said in a statement Thursday afternoon.
In a subsequent interview with WorldNetDaily, CBS spokeswoman Kelli Edwards said, "CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written. These individuals were close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written."
The documents were released Wednesday night by the White House, which didn't question their accuracy but characterized them as "dirty politics," after obtaining them from CBS News. The network has refused to reveal the source of the documents.
Typography questions
Initial questions about the 32-year-old documents arose when two Internet blogs - Power Line and Little Green Footballs - noted some of the computer-like characteristics of the documents. Typographers who spoke to CNSNews.com confirmed some of the discrepancies.
According to Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass., the documents couldn't have been produced on a typewriter because they contain the superscript "th" in "111th F.I.S." and apostrophes in words like "I'm" and "he's."
Those characters are native to current word processing programs. Microsoft Word, for instance, automatically changes the "th" after numbers to a superscript. Most typewriters, except perhaps the most high-end models, couldn't process such a character in 1972, typographers told CNSNews.com.
"The 'I'm' is set with an apostrophe," Haley added. "There were no apostrophes on typewriters. There were foot and inch marks that had to do double duty."
Another characteristic not typically found on typewriters in 1972 was a proportional typeface. Although some typewriter models included this feature, they were not widespread. Each of the documents is set in proportional type, meaning the letter "m" occupies a larger space than "i."
Strange military lingo
Former military officers and others with knowledge of military correspondence contacted CNSNews.com Thursday to present their own critique. Among the problems they cited:
* The documents are not on a standard letterhead. Instead, they feature a typewritten and centered address with a post office box rather than an actual street address of the squadron. The address is P.O. Box 34567, which coincidentally includes five consecutive numbers.
* Dates in the letters - "04 May 1972" and "14 May, 1972" - are inconsistent and do not follow military form. The military prefers the following example, according to ex-officers: 4 May 72. It doesn't include a zero preceding the date or a comma following the month.
* The lines "MEMORANDUM FOR:" and "SUBJECT:" that begin the May 4, 1972, document, weren't officially used in the 1970s. According to one retired military officer, the correct format then was most likely "REPLY TO ATTN OF:" then "SUBJECT:" and finally "TO:" preceding the text of the message.
* Bush's name was listed in the memo as "1st Lt. George W. Bush." But other military documents, including those posted on Sen. John Kerry's website use a different format. Bush's name would have likely appeared as "1LT Bush, GW" or "1LT G Bush."
* There shouldn't be disparities in the May 4, 1972, letter such as, "111 F.I.S." and "111th F.I.S.," according to ex-military officers. Also, the acronym "F.I.S.," which stands for Fighter Intercept Squadron, shouldn't have included periods.
* The signature block with Killian's name lists his rank as "Lt. Colonel," when in reality most military commanders abbreviated that title as "LTC" or "Lt. Col.," according to retired officers. The signature block also includes the word "Commander" when "Commanding" was the preferred reference.
Source of the letter
Despite the attempts of news organizations to obtain the source of the "60 Minutes" documents, CBS News has refused to budge. The Washington Post reported Thursday and Friday that the network wouldn't disclose where the documents came from.
Gary Killian told the AP the documents didn't come from his family, even though an article on the CBS News website said they were retrieved from Jerry Killian's "personal file."
One anti-Bush group distanced itself from the controversy Thursday amid suspicion that it was a possible source of the purported memos.
The group Texans for Truth, which has received support and assistance from MoveOn.org, was formed in late August and has created a television ad critical of Bush. A spokesman for MoveOn.org said the left-wing group hadn't supplied CBS News with the documents.
In an article published Thursday by The Weekly Standard, author Stephen F. Hayes wrote that CBS News could clear up the controversy if it provided the name of the expert who authenticated the documents, offered outside experts the opportunity to review original copies of the documents and disclosed the source of the documents.
But, as the magazine reported, CBS News spokeswoman Edwards was "overwhelmed with phone calls" Thursday. She said the network wouldn't provide any further information beyond its statement.
See Earlier Story:
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake (Sept. 9, 2004)
E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
"And on this thread, see reply #47 by Howlin
Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard"
Actually, the famous post 47 was made by Buckhead (to Howlin). But Howlin followed up, along with many alert FReepers!
Question:
Is DAN RATHER the "BAGHDAD BOB" of CBS?
I did a google search on PO BOX 34567 and went into newsgroups. I came up with the this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=p.o.+box+34567&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=Y39Sb.5962239%24be.974637%40news.easynews.com&rnum=17
that references the same address with respect to a document that questions Bush's guard service. I couldn't find the document the poster is referring, but apparently it originated with www.buzzflash.com and the poster questions the authenticity of the document based on the address way back in January. If the address is indeed fraudulent could the documents have been an Internet hoax that nine months later ended up at CBS? Maybe the address isn't fraudulent and buzzflash is referring to a different document by Killian? I need to find the document the poster is referring to. Should I make a separate topic for this?
How about
"What is the typeface, Kenneth?"
Trying to FReep this AM along with all the "work" here today is hectic. I stand corrected.
P.S. can't type well today either.
Ok, I didn't see your response before my post. Maybe buzzflash is referring to some other documents - still I wish I could find the ones the usenet member was citing - it would very interesting, to say the least, if they were the same documents.
I want to know who put a dead mans signiture on a fake doc!!
I know that has to be illegal.
Laura Ingraham is reporting that CBS claims they spent 6 weeks verifying the authenticity of these documents. Yeah right! What he really means is that they spent six week creating these documents.
"It will be very close," the former first lady tells the New York Post's Cindy Adams.
On how the contest will ultimately be decided, Clinton said, "It will be outside forces - something unforeseen that suddenly happens - that tilts the election one way or the other."
So for all we know, it was supposed to be a September surprise.
I also have this theory that this document dump was supposed to be the first of many. It occurs to me that after this one was proven to be forged, nothing they come up with will be trusted at this point.
(All together now: "Awwwwwwwwwwwwww")
Former military officers and others with knowledge of military correspondence contacted CNSNews.com Thursday to present their own critique. Among the problems they cited:
* The documents are not on a standard letterhead. Instead, they feature a typewritten and centered address with a post office box rather than an actual street address of the squadron. The address is P.O. Box 34567, which coincidentally includes five consecutive numbers.
There is something more wrong with these memos according to my sister who was a secretary for one of the top guys at Fort Hood in the mid 1970's. She said that everything they typed was required to have the initials of the typist on the document. She was sure the national guard in Texas would do this the same way.
I noticed that Killian's wife was quoted as saying he did not type. Are there any typist initials on the memos? I didn't see any. The typist could be tracked down using the initials, if he or she exists! She also confirmed that all they had in the way of typewriters back then was the old IBM selectric that did not have proportional font. She doubted that the national guard would have better equipment.
Moveon.org's Texans for Truth denying any involvement.
We'll see, punks.
Dan Rather should resign or be fired !!
CBS news should fire Dan Rather for not being absolutely positively certain of the authenticity of these forged documents. We are in the absolute final leg of a Presidential election and Dan Rather rushed to press to get these dociuments on the air because he thought it would potentially help Kerry and hurt Bush. He is blinded by his partisanship and is not fit to be a journalist.
Dan Rather never even looked into where these papers came from. It was his job to be CERTAIN of their authenticity. It's fitting that Rather's career comes to an end under this cloud of his extremist partisanship. He will always be remembered for this. His legacy will be fitting....a reporter who would lie to America if it supported his Left Wing Ideology.
Can Bush sue CBS for Slander and Personal Damages?
Say a couple of $Billion?
And name as co-defendants, Rather, et.al?
Attach NBC and ABC and others as willful perpetrators?
Curious...
Chris, meet our tenacious jmstein7
Who is that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.