Posted on 09/15/2004 4:59:29 PM PDT by Cableguy
'A Preponderance of Evidence' Wed Sep 15 2004 19:39:35 ET
The CBS News report was based on a preponderance of evidence: many interviews, both on- and off-camera, with individuals with direct and indirect knowledge of the situation, atmosphere and events of the period in question, as well as the procedures, character and thinking of Lt. Col. Killian, Lt. Bush's squadron commander in the Guard, at the time.
The report also included the first television interview with Ben Barnes, a Democrat and current fundraiser for John Kerry, who said he helped get Mr. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard at the request of a Bush family friend.
Numerous questions have been raised about the authenticity of the documents. CBS News believes it is important for the news media to be accountable and address legitimate questions.
Procurement of The Documents
The 60 MINUTES Wednesday broadcast reported that it obtained six documents from the personal files of Lt. Col. Killian, four of which were used in the broadcast. In accordance with longstanding journalistic ethics, CBS News is not prepared to reveal its confidential sources or the method by which 60 MINUTES Wednesday received the documents. CBS News' reporting determined that the source of the memos had access to the documents he provided and an opportunity to obtain copies of them. Our sources included individuals who had first-hand knowledge of the events in question.
Additionally, Mary Mapes, the producer of the report and a well-respected, veteran journalist whose credibility has never been questioned, has been following this story for more than five years. She has a vast and detailed knowledge of the issues surrounding President Bush's service in the Guard and of the individuals involved in the story. Before the report was broadcast, it was vetted and screened in accordance with CBS News standards by several veteran 60 MINUTES Wednesday senior producers and CBS News executives.
Authentication of the Documents
Four independent individuals with expertise in the authentication of documents were consulted prior to the broadcast of the story regarding the documents 60 MINUTES Wednesday obtained: document examiners Marcel B. Matley, James J. Pierce, Emily Will and Linda James.
As CBS News has publicly stated, the documents used in the report were photocopies of originals.
Two of the examiners, Mssrs. Matley and Pierce, attested and continue to attest to their belief in the documents' authenticity. (see attachments 1 and 2) Two others, Ms. Will and Ms. James, appeared on a competing network yesterday, where they misrepresented their conversations and communication with CBS News. In fact, they assessed only one of the four documents used in the report, and while one of them raised a question about one aspect of that one document, they did not raise substantial objections or render definitive judgment on the document. Ultimately, they played a peripheral role in the authentication process and deferred to Mr. Matley, who examined all four of the documents used.
Additionally, two more individuals with specific expertise relative to the documents - Bill Glennon, a technology consultant and long-time IBM typewriter service technician, and Richard Katz, a computer software expert - were asked to examine the documents after the broadcast for a report in the Sept. 13 CBS EVENING NEWS. They, too, found nothing to lead them to believe that the documents did not date back to the early 1970s. They strongly refuted the claim made by some critics that there were no typewriters in existence in the early 1970s that could have produced such documents. (see attachments 3 and 4)
CBS News Experts' Conclusions About the Documents
- Katz believes the documents were written on a typewriter and not a computer. (attachment 3)
- Glennon confirms that the superscript "th" and proportional spacing of the typeface of the four documents were definitely available on typewriters as early as the late 1960s. (attachment 4)
- Pierce believes that the documents in question are authentic as best as he can determine, given that they are copies and not originals. (attachment 2)
- Matley says the signatures are, indeed, Killian's. (attachment 1)
Again, the documents used for the 60 MINUTES Wednesday report were copies, and most of the analysis fueling the current controversy is based on scanned, downloaded, faxed or re-copied copies. For now, the disagreements among "dueling experts" have not been resolved.
Other Issues
Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, who was group commander of Lt. Bush's squadron, has stated to The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, among others, that he believes the documents are not real, but also told The New York Times, in an article that appeared on Sept. 12, that the information in the CBS News report "...reflected issues he and Col. Killian had discussed-namely Mr. Bush's failure to appear for a physical, which military records released previously by the White House show, led to a suspension from flying." That is consistent with what he told CBS News off-camera as part of the research for this report.
A reference in one memo to Gen. Buck Staudt applying pressure on behalf of Lt. Bush raised questions because Staudt had left his job 18 months before the memo was written. But CBS News' background reporting determined that Staudt remained a powerful figure in the Guard for years after his retirement, a fact that is confirmed by Ms. Knox in a newspaper interview. More importantly, the same memo referred to unhappiness in Austin, an obvious reference to Staudt's successor at the Austin, Texas, headquarters of the Texas Air National Guard.
Conclusions
The editorial content of the report was not based solely on the physical documents, but also on numerous credible sources who supported what the documents said.
Through all of the frenzied debate of the past week, the basic content of the 60 MINUTES Wednesday report - that President Bush received preferential treatment to gain entrance to the Texas Air National Guard and that he may not have fulfilled all of the requirements -- has not been substantially challenged.
CBS News will make every effort to resolve the contradictions and answer the unanswered questions about the documents and will continue to report on all aspects of the story.
END
Because they have what they believe is truth, it justifies forging documents and putting a dead man's signature on it to add credence to their accusations.
Sure...that will hold up in a court of law....NOT!
Cry "HAVOC!!!" and let loose the dogs of WAR!!!
To: Matt Drudge
RE: CBS Newslink
Dear Matt,
May I submit a suggestion that you move the CBS newslink on your website from it's alphabetical slot to a sublink under UK Tabloid, or under THE LIST.
If CBS is any indication, "journalistic ethics" should join the list of standard examples of oxymorons.
"She added, though, that there's no way Staudt could have exerted that influence after he retired."
http://www.ktok.com/script/headline_newsmanager.php?id=347783&pagecontent=nationalnews&feed_id=59
Katz?! Wasn't he from Zero Wing?! hmmm...
In case you missed it:
The First Rathergate
The CBS anchor’s precarious relationship with the truth.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200409150552.asp
By Anne Morse
September 15, 2004, 5:52 a.m.
Critics are calling the media scandal over the Jerry Killian forgeries "Rathergate." But to thousands of Vietnam veterans, the real Rathergate took place 16 years ago when Dan Rather successfully foisted a fraud onto the American people. Then, unlike now, there was no blogosphere to expose him.
Staudt has STILL not spoken about this to anyone?
So this is how CBS does News???
if "By the preponderance of the evidence" it appears to be true....then report it AS TRUE!!!
absolute nonsense!!!
bookmarking so that it can be dissected it later if someone hasn't already done so.
Dirty Dan did-in by the mouses that roared? Stay tuned, as they say.
There is one document from May of 1972 which contains a normal T-H at the top. To produce that in Microsoft Word, you would have to go out of your way to type the letters and then turn the T-H setting off or back over them and type them again.Oh! He's the drooling Bozo who said THAT.
Yesterday, I commented, "Which is impossible" and didn't put a </sarcasm> on the post. I was inundated with people telling me it's not that hard, really.
Problems with CBS release:
1) Matley's statement - only deals with signatures
2) Matley's statement - only states that all came from the same signature
3) Pierce's statement - only states that the signatures are similar between the documents
4) Pierce's statement - no example typeface has been provided although he states one exists
5) Katz's statement - superscripts could be produced. Ok did the superscript font match the one produced?
6) Glennon's statement - CBS does not elaborate on the fact that Texas Air National Guard according to it's secretary did not have an executive. Why not?
7) Katz's statement that you could not do this on a laser printer ignores the mountains of evidence (see http:://www.littlegreenfootballs.com ) that you can and it is easy
8) Regarding General Staudt - According to Knox "there's no way Staudt could have exerted influence after he retired" see link http://www.ktok.com/script/headline_newsmanager.php?id=347783&pagecontent=nationalnews&feed_id=59
This is the weakest defense ever ...
Wes Clark, not Burkett.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/katz.pdf
I don't get it. Is Katz serious? According to this document Katz says you can't even create the documents in word. The fonts aren't available. This is getting too stupid! Give me a break.
Next we'll hear that Microsoft Word isn't capable of producing superscript or proportional space lettering.
I wonder who the lawyers are that approved this statement from CBS. This statement was obviously written to give the appearance of meeting minimal standards for avoiding defamation rather than for high journalistic standards of reporting the truth. Accordingly, they are admitting that their standards of journalism do not require them to broadcast facts that discredit the stories they assemble to fit their broadcast agenda.
If CBS was working this story for five years it could not have been done in secret. What have other news agencies uncovered with respect to this story? Surely other agencies will have spoken on and off the record with some of CBS' sources. Are we to believe not one individual with knowledge of this story left CBS during the five year period who wouldn't have pursued the story for his/her new employer?
Check list to air the BUSH AWOL story:
1.Memos considered "problematic" by two of our hired document experts. One says documents will be instantly questioned if we run story.
2.Killian's son says they're fake
3.Killian's wife says they're fake
4.Known memos from Killian reflect admiration for Lt. Bush
"Looks like an air tight story to me. Let's run" it -- Dan R.
Well, as before, they decided to pre-ponder the evidence, and, if it did not fit what they pre-pondered for it to say, then they deep ponded it. Get it. It's the frequency, Kenneth, the frequency they're on.
...but doesn't mention the make and model of such typewriters. Neither does CBS make ANY attempt to find out what sort of typewriters WERE ACTUALLY IN USE at that TexANG unit in 1972-3."
They don't care, Rather just interviewed the 86 year old woman who did Killian's typing and she said the documents are not anything she typed. Rather then fed her leading questions to get her to say that the information in the memos was correct. Rather should change his name to Rumpelstiltskin, he is trying to spin straw into gold.
Lie #1 - Mary Mapes - court ordered her to reveal past sources.
Lie #2 - Ben Barnes was not Lt. Gov when Bush entered the service.
I haven't even diced the statement yet, but the are begging for it.
My money is on Wes Clark - personal papers and in a position to get them. Did Wes Clark have someone from the Pentagon forge them?
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.