CBS Stands by Memos on Bush Guard Service

AP ^ | 9-11-2004

[Arrowhead1952]

This article will be one See BS will not be able to build a CYA MEMO for themselves. I don't think a RETIRED officer could have written this and the memo or order deemed an official document.
Man named in Bush memo left Guard before document was written

[Rome2000]

Yeah, actually the Time Machine theory is more believable than what CBS is trying to pull right now.

It would work perfectly and also explain the "Kenneth whats the frequency" incident.

[P-Marlowe]

It would work perfectly and also explain the "Kenneth whats the frequency" incident.

People from the past. Area 51. Time Travel. Proportional fonts on a military issue typewriter in 1972. Its all related.

Has Art Bell chimed in on this?

[SuziQ]

GOOD! I'm glad they're so solidly behind the veracity of their story. It'll make their fall that much harder! Couldn't happen to a more deserving network.

In this matter, I can't help but think "what goes around, comes around". It was CBS and Walter Cronkite, and their constant harping on how badly we were 'losing', when we weren't losing at ALL, that helped turn the average American against the war effort. CBS also helped turn people against the returning Vets by their incessant claims of war crimes committed by our soldiers.

I think CBS deserves all the derision that they're going to get, and I'm THRILLED that Walter Crankcase is still alive to see his position totally repudiated!!!

[Krodg]

Do you by any chance have a live cam set up?

[claudiustg]

---Lines said that meant she could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer.---

Oh dear! Why do you think she would mention court? :^)

[Henchman]

The CBS network presented the documents. It is up to them to prove the documents are real and truthful. "Trust Me" doesn't cut it. "Solid Sources" are not a "Chain of Custody", therefore there are not only NO CREDIBLE WITNESSES, there aren't any witnesses.

The point is, as they say, the story - it is not credible if the supporting documents are false and not substantiated by facts or witnesses.

Why don't they demonstrate how their copies (don't) meet the criteria set forth in document examination requirements, and cannot substantiate the veracity of the original documents - no less what happened to the original documents. Are they afraid the original documents will prove their allegations totally FRAUDULENT? IF not where are the orginals?

Certainly the CBS network can obtain the "rules" for authenticating documents from a reputable large PD - NYPD, LAPD etc, or the FBI Training Academy at Quantico, or the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Brunswick, Ga. The CBS network needs to demonstrate that they even met the basics for proving their contentions correct.

Some Freepers have pointed out that this brouhaha takes away from the "Swift Boat" contentions. Today, on 911, I doubt that attention would focus on the Swifties, indeed, they will have their day again. Remember the quote about yesterday's news.

Instead of fixating on the news that is turning stale, let's move on. Let US demand EQUAL TIME from the CBS network and have them cover Kerry's visit with the Viet Cong in Paris while he was a reserve Naval Officer... or explain why his discharge from service was delayed (possible Treason charges?)... or cover his Senate voting record so the "people" can know him as we do. Sort of demand a balance of the situation instead of CBS being a partisan news media creating the news.

CBS will loose this one because they are going forward on only one foot - the left foot.

[RossA]

The interesting factor here is FoxNews cleaning the networks cronk for viewers during the convention(s). There is an immediate payback to ABC, George Stephanopoulos and, now, even AP for their dissing of CBS News. The rats are deserting the sinking ship.

[swilhelm73]

I've had enough of anonymous sources in every facet of reporting from "sources" inside the State Dept to "sources" in Kelly's book to Rather's "sources."

But then the press couldn't just make this stuff up...could they?

Look at Gilligan and the BBC. If reporters were forced to say who there sources were he would never have had a story in the first place.

I think journalistic ethics should be updated to ban using unnamed sources. Even beyond the purposeful abuse of this the press engages in on a regular basis, if the source has something of value to say, the public has a right to know who is saying it.

[lepton]

Matley not returning phone calls and even the AP has an expert who says the docs are bogus

Matley says he only examined one of the documents, despite Rather's characterization. The associate who verified the "context" says he was misled by CBS into believing the documents were handwritten, and only said that he agreed that if Killian wrote it, it would have been what he believed.

[swilhelm73]

Here's a question I've yet to see answered....

So CBS claims they forged documents were received from a reliable source.

We know that they did not get them from;

1) Killian's family/estate

2) TANG

3) Any other branch of the NG/military

4) Any of Killian's coworkers at TANG, at least that have been asked about it.

So how else would someone come across such files. Yes I know they did not and printed them up in MS Word, but just to examine CBS's case, I can't think of any other source they could remotely claim as reliable...

[nadlo]

Say goodnight Dan Rather... you left yourself one hell-of-a legacy.
God Bless America!


It reminds me of Geraldo Reviero's search for some item in a vault. can't remember specifically, but he really looked stupid and loss whatever credibility he had.

[GailA]

Solid sources...robin rather.

[boomop1]

They are sinking in the septic tank and holding their breath's, but nutin is going to save them.

[handy]

CBS can state "with absolute certainty" that the disputed memos could have been produced on typewriters available in the early 1970s when the memos are purported to have been written, the network said. Rather said the typeface and style of the memos were available on typewriters since well before the 1970s.

The above is a lie. the proof is here Even IBM composer experts cannot retype the CBS memos accurately.

[JudgemAll]

The Titanic comparison nails it. CBS-DNC, instead of taking the iceberg head on and admiting it, they skim the iceberg and pretend the ship's not sinking.

A Bagdad Bob moment.

[No Surrender No Retreat]

Outstanding, you summed it all up concerning Ratfur and CBS.

[JudgemAll]

There are no forgeries from Saddam and no American troops there, Saddam tells the truth... besides, Dan Rather would agree.

[GailA]

No they must produce the originals to be subjected to scientific testing for rag content, ink composition, paper size, and carbon dating. Only then can you be positively sure. Key strikes are finger prints of the typewriter. No 2 keys strike alike, and no 2 typewriters even the same model produce the same strike. The original type written doc will have indentations where the key struck the paper. A hunt and peck typist would have a different pattern than a fluent typist. If say the K key is worn or chipped it will show up when that key is used each and every time.

An electric or selectric or manual would each produce differing depths of key stroks on the paper.

A computer generated doc will have the ink applied to the surface not imbeded in the paper that a striking key produces.

And what does the Regulation sited in the one memo refer to? The Belmont Club says it's not orders for a physical.

[Rome2000]

These com-symp fifth column subversive trash are so used to their distortions and lies being taken at face value that they must be apoplectic over the fact that they have been outed.

Every minute they keep up this scam only increases the necessity that they must not survive intact.