The Swiss Cheese Defense: Enumerating All CBS's Memogate Problems

RatherBiased.com ^

[RatherBiased.com]

September 10, 2004, XX:YY:ZZ EDT

Dan Rather's defense of himself tonight, while probably impressive to shallow observers was far from convincing. Here's a list of things he ignored, did not properly address, or concealed from viewers. Feel free to send us your suggestions to this live fisking. For the transcript, click here.

Sourcing problems

1. The 72-year-old anchor conveniently did not mention the fact that James Moore, one of his key validative sources, is a left-wing activist and author who has written two anti-Bush books, Bush's Brain, and Bush's War for Reelection. Rather referred to him as "author Jim Moore has written two books on the subject."

2. Not coincidentally, Rather also did not mention that one of its main validators, retired Maj. General Bobby Hodges is accusing 60 Minutes staff of lying to him in order to get him to say the supposed Killian memos were authentic. ABC News has the story:
         "Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Guard, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were 'handwritten' and after CBS read him excerpts he said, 'well if he wrote them that's what he felt.'
         "Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been 'computer-generated' and are a 'fraud.'"
         The Washington Post reported earlier today that CBS considered Hodges its "trump card":
   

         "A senior CBS official, who asked not to be named because CBS managers did not want to go beyond their official statement, named one of the network's sources as retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, the immediate superior of the documents' alleged author, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. He said a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone and Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."
   

         "These documents represent what Killian not only was putting in memoranda, but was telling other people," the CBS News official said. "Journalistically, we've gone several extra miles."
   

         The official said the network regarded Hodges's comments as "the trump card" on the question of authenticity, as he is a Republican who acknowledged that he did not want to hurt Bush. Hodges, who declined to grant an on-camera interview to CBS, did not respond to messages left on his home answering machine in Texas.
         Looks like jokers are no longer wild.

3. He deliberately ignored statements from Col. Killian's wife and son who said that he hated using typewriters, hardly ever kept notes, and very much liked George W. Bush. In today's Washington Post, CBS conceded that it had not asked his wife to authenticate the letters it claims were written by her husband. Both Killian's widow and son say that the alleged memos are not characteristic of his style and do not believe they are all authentic.

4. Rather did not mention that Ben Barnes, the Democratic lobbyist who is now saying he helped young Bush into the Texas Air National Guard (TANG), has changed his story according to his Republican daughter, Amy. She says that Barnes is making his Bush claims in preparation for his upcoming autobiography and to build up his political profile in the hopes of getting hired by a Kerry administration, all of which he allegedly told her.

5. Also left out by Rather was the fact that one of the CBS documents dated in 1973 refers to pressure that then-Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, had supposedly been applying on Killian to make things easier for Bush. Unfortunately for CBS's case, however, Staudt had retired in 1973.

6. CBS's own paid signature expert (the network featured no typographers or typewriter experts tonight or in Wednesday's report), Marcel Matley, directly undermined CBS's case several years earlier in an essay for the American Law Institute:
   

         "Do not passively accept a copy as the sole basis of a case. Every copy, intentionally or unintentionally, is in some way false to the original. In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries."
         In his defense tonight, Rather admitted that "the documents CBS started with were also photocopies."

7. The original 60 Minutes report as well as Friday's rebuttal did not feature a single person person who was quoted as coming to Bush's defense who was not on his staff, despite the fact that it is not hard at all to find people who say they served with Bush during the period in which he is accused of being AWOL. The only person that CBS did put on camera hardly provided much support for the documents' authenticity. Rather quoted him as follows (read the rest here.
   

   "Well, they are compatible with the way business was done at that time. They are compatible with the man that I remember, Jerry Killian, being. I don't see anything in the documents that are discordant with what were the times, what were the situation and what were the people that were involved."
         Reached by the AP today, Strong was even more lukewarm toward the documents' authenticity. His former colleague, Retired Col. Maurice Udell called them fakes: "That's not true. I was there. I knew Jerry Killian. I went to Vietnam with Jerry Killian in 1968."

Typographical problems

1. Although he tried to minimize the typographical concerns raised by many critics, Rather nonetheless tried to defend himself in this area. He failed, however. On the superscript issue, which Rather tried to explain away by throwing out the red herring that "Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 70s. But some models did."

   
         The problem with this statement is that Rather fails to list any such typewriters which might have the capability or how a measely Air National Guard office would be able to afford such expensive machines. Simply showing a photocopy of a letter in Bush's official file which originated from the Army's national office is no proof at all.

2. The split screen image CBS offered of an official Bush document with superscript ordinal suffix and one of its own documents was not very convincing to Sandra Ramsey Lines, a forensic document expert who edits the Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners who told the Associated Press that she "could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer." She told the AP that she was "virtually certain" the CBS memos are not genuine.

3. Rather also neglected to mention that all of the documents which were written by Killian himself and his officers relied on simple mechanical typewriters incapable of printing in proportional fonts, let alone superscript.

4. Despite the fact that Jerry Killian hated keeping notes, hated typing things (see above) that National Guard offices mostly use hand-me-down equipment from the full-time armed forces, and that Killian and his Guard officers have not been observed to have ever sent documents printed with proportional fonts, there is a possibility (OK really, really small) that Bush's superviser might have had access to an expensive IBM electric typewriter.
   

         Assuming Killian somehow had access to an IBM Selectric Composer (or similar model), Blogger Jeff Harrell wondered what one of the CBS memos would look like if typed in one of the re-famous devices. His results are yet more evidence that the CBS docs are forgeries.

5. Dan also appears unfamiliar with fonts and typography. At one point in the rebuttal, he refers to the font used in the CBS documents as "New Times Roman," when the real name is Times New Roman. Rather also appears to be ignorant of the fact that Times New Roman was never used in typewriters and only came into wide use in the early 1990s when Microsoft licensed the font from the Monotype Corporation in preparation for the launch of Windows 3.0.
         Even if Times New Roman had been used in proportional typewriters during the 1970s, the font then was not the same as it is today since its present form actually dates from the 1980s following some changes that Monotype made to the font.

Rhetorical Problems

1. Rather tried to smear critics who disagreed with him: "Today on the Internet and elsewhere, including many who were partisan political operatives, concentrated on the key questions of the overall story, but on the documents that were part of the support of the story."
         Since Rather failed to differentiate between who is a "partisan political operative" and who isn't, it's hard to conclude this line is nothing more than a red herring meant to scare his viewers who have not been following the ongoing story.
         Les Jones adds: "Partisan political operatives? That's funny, I don't recall cashing any checks from Karl Rove. Translation: the jury didn't believe the witness, so they ignored the witness's testimony. Therefore CBS is going to claim the jury was rigged."

[centurion316]

My one area of expertise in all of this is my contemporary military experience as a company commander and adjutant involved with the production and administration of various military documents. Although my experience was with the Army, I share the many observations of other military observers whom have noted the many red flags raised by these documents. Sufficient, in my view, to declare these documents forgeries on that basis alone.

I have read with great interest the opinions of typographic experts and evaluated their opinions through the lens of my own experience with typewriters of that era and with computers and word processors since the 80's. There can be no doubt of this - I would love to bring this case in court and would be confident of obtaining a conviction even considering the minor detail that I have no law degree nor license to practice.

I believe that CBS has gone beyond the trivial charge of bad or biased reporting and is now treading on grounds of criminal conspiracy to commit fraud.

[Polybius]

Actually Times Roman has been around for a long time......Polybius

Times New Roman hasn't. There's another thread here about its orgins. I believe it was the 80's.

Like Dan Rather, you are confusing the vital difference of "what was around" and "what was available on a typewriter in 1970".

"Times New Roman" was a typeface designed in 1931 for the newspaper "The Times" of London. The prior typeface used by "The Times" is now called "Times Old Roman".

After it's introduction on October 3, 1932, Times New Roman was used by "The Times" as it's typeface for 40 years.

The Times New Roman appeared for the first time on october 3rd 1932 in the Times. Only fourty years later, while the conditions of printing had completely changed, it was replaced by an other.

So, Dan Rather is correct that Times New Roman existed in 1970.

Howver,.......and this is an extremely vital however.......IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AS A TYPEWRITER FONT!

Times New Roman first became available for typing (which is not the same as typesetting with a Linotype machine for printing press use) in 1980 when it was include as one of the many available fonts in word processing computers.

In my prior post, I mentioned "Linotype machines". A Linotype machine is a machine used by newspapers and publishing houses to mecahanically set the printing typeface that, in earlier times, had to be set by hand. A "Linotype" is not a "typewriter".

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

LOL

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Other than Democrat lackeys, nobody that I am aware of.

One of our local radio talk show hosts said yesterday that he had worked with this producer at one time (the woman - I can't recall her name at this moment) and said she was by far the most blatantly partisan leftist "journalist" he had ever worked with. She was actually angry when Seattle police were cleared of charges of wrong-doing. Her father called the show and said she had swallowed the leftist mantra hook, line, and sinker, and that he was ashamed of her.

[ProfoundMan]

A small point, but MemoGate concerned the leaked Intelligence Committe memos. It might be better to refer to this as RatherGate so as not to confuse the two while also pointing the finger of suspicion where it belongs. Especially since we're now being viewed by a larger audience, it will pay to be clear.

[Redcoat LI]

Not even close.