Posted on 09/11/2004 1:21:29 AM PDT by ambrose
Amid Skepticism, CBS Sticks to Bush Guard Story
By James Rainey and Elizabeth Jensen
Times Staff Writers
September 11, 2004
A CBS News report that suggested President Bush did not fulfill his military commitment 30 years ago fell under a growing cloud of skepticism Friday. But Democrats insisted that they had plenty of evidence to continue their campaign to show that Bush got breaks that other young men did not during the Vietnam War.
-snip-
A retired Guard major general — who Rather said in an interview would corroborate the CBS account — instead told The Times that he believed the memos from the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian were not real.
-snip-
Deflecting questions about whether Democrats had given CBS the documents implicating Bush, McAuliffe suggested it might have been White House political advisor Karl Rove who did so.
He offered no evidence to back that charge and White House spokesman Reed Dickens called the insinuation that Rove was behind the documents "complete nonsense."
-snip-
As another of the corroborating experts for its report, CBS and Rather presented an on-air interview with Marcel B. Matley, a San Francisco document examiner. Rather said Matley had corroborated the four Killian memos.
But in an interview with The Times, the analyst said he had only judged a May 4, 1972, memo — in which Killian ordered Bush to take his physical — to be authentic.
He said he did not form a judgment on the three other disputed memos because they only included Killian's initials and he did not have validated samples of the officer's initials to use for comparison.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
bttt
"In just three days this week, the group said it had raised more than $400,000 from 5,000 contributors to air the ad.
"The group said many of its donors believed the Bush critique was justified after Republicans backed similar ads that said Kerry did not deserve some of the medals he won while in combat in Vietnam.
"To keep the issue alive, the group said it would announce a "substantial" reward on Tuesday to anyone who could offer proof that Bush fulfilled his service in the Alabama Air National Guard.
The whole purpose of Rather et al and the criticism of Bush's guard duty is based on the failure of Senator Kerry to answer the Swifties. He has answered not a one of the charges and Kerry and his colleagues are now reduced to trying to make the President look as dishonest as they are. This is impossible regardless of the authenticity of the documents in question. The President is an honorable and honest man.
The two memos refer to a flight physical and a flight review board, both IAW ("in accordance with") AFM 35-13. But that would stand for "Air Force Manual" 35-13, and manuals are guidelines only. They have no regulatory authority. No one takes a physical exam, flight or not, IAW a manual. ...
So I went there and discovered, sure enough, that there was an Air Force Regulation 35-13, but no AF Manual 35-13 is listed. AFR 35-13 was superceded in 1990 by AFI36-2605 (Air Force Instruction, i.e., the same as a regulation). So I Googled AFI36-2605 and voilá! Here it is. This instruction implements Air Force Policy Directive 36-26, Military Force Management, and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 7280.3, Special Pay for Foreign Language Proficiency. It prescribes all procedures for administering the Air Force Military Personnel Testing System and Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) program. Which is to say, this publication has nothing to do with flight physicals.
From all this I conclude that the Killian-signed documents are forgeries, forged by someone without a very good knowledge of military correspondence or Air Force publications or procedures. Based on the Air Force's own online library of current and obsolete publications, I conclude that there never was an Air Force Manual 35-13, although there was an AF Regulation by that number. But a lieutenant colonel would never have made such a fundamental error as using "AFM" twice when he meant AFR.
Howard Rile of Long Beach, former president of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, cautioned against feverish vetting of the memos without seeing the originals and other documents produced at the same time and place.
That could be difficult because CBS says it does not have the original memos.
What? They don't have ANY originals? What jerks!!!
Just from a cursory reading, LA Times appears to be non-commital on the story at this point.
Another thing that strikes me as odd about the '04 May 1972' Memorandum, is that routine medical appointments of this nature, even in 1972, were computer generated and sent out through the base distribution system.
that 60 Minutes didn't want him doing interviews.
McAuliff is the gift that keeps on giving.
Thanx/bookmarked.
Will possibly be running into some Donk activists in the course of tonite's social activities (unless they decide to hide). Thankfully, the majority of those who will be present are supporting W.
I will pass on this source/info.
Um, is that an admission that they are obvious forgeries? McAuliffe, please cc that transcendently obvious point to CBS News and the NYT. The DNC wouldn't be saying they must be from Rove if the DNC still honestly thought they were genuine.
Demand Dan Rather & CBS News Retraction
Tell Them to Admit Blame about Documents Exposed as Forgeries!
http://www.rightmarch.com/091004a.htm
ALERT: Reports are now exploding across newspapers, television and the internet that CBS News, led by blatantly biased Dan Rather, used forged documents during a "60 Minutes" segment Wednesday night in an incompetent attempt to smear President George W. Bush's National Guard service. Clearly phony, these "new" documents were easily debunked overnight by solid evidence from forensic document experts, typographers and retired military officers.
Closer examination quickly proved the supposedly 30-year-old documents were generated in a modern-day typeface from a printer, not a typewriter, negating CBS News' excuse that the documents were aired because they passed handwriting analysis.
Yet Dan Rather PUSHED to air the groundless smear in an obvious attempt to counter President Bush's jump in the polls. As evidence of fraud mounts, Rather and the network have refused to name their source OR their expert who supposedly "authenticated" the documents.
At BEST, Rather and the CBS News staff are guilty of gross incompetence by allowing their desire to smear the President outweigh their professional duty to properly check the facts. At WORST, CBS News may be guilty of deliberately reporting what they knew to be false, and engaging in libel and slander against the President of the United States during a time of war.
Americans nationwide need to DEMAND accountability from the media -- and we've set up an easy way for you to do just that.
TAKE ACTION: You can click through here to use (or edit) our online letter, demanding that CBS News release the name(s) of its sources and air a retraction as the documents are proved to be forgeries. Tell the network to drop its blatant anti-Bush bias and stop trying to sway the election with unethical and unprofessional "reporting."
Furthermore, IF anchor Dan Rather pushed this story because of his bias, he deserves to be FIRED -- so you might even want to ask CBS to dump him NOW and clean house, so that CBS News can offer fair and balanced reporting worthy of regaining public trust.
http://www.rightmarch.com/091004a.htm
Where were these supposed memos sitting for the last 30+ years? Killian's family apparently didn't have them. The Guard would never have archived something like that, much less kept it for 30 years. Who was holding these documents? And why only these documents? Do they come from some larger file of Killian's papers. If so, why doesn't CBS produce some contemporaneous documents for a fair validation? Dan?
It is obvious he was over his head. In the military it is "medical" not "physical"
That alone says it is fake.
The whole problem with this will be the Sandy Berger Effect. The SBE means that a damning story erupts and simply gets ignored. That's what will happen here. It will be denied and soon ignored. Independent voters won't have a clue what went on, and all Rather has to say is that the challenges to his credibility are "partisan internet and talk radio" people, and the independent voter will understand that this is nothing.
So we must figure a way at FR not just to uncover this kind of thing, but to also carry it through to completion.
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.