Posted on 01/10/2005 8:57:57 AM PST by FreeTheHostages
Check out the actual investigatory panel report -- it credits Free Republic (accurately) for first questioning the authenticity of thye documents. The actual investigatory report can be seen
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Did you all see this? The pajamahadeen has been mentioned in the CBS panel's report!!!
This thread is about credit (notice the title). My point is that SINCE many people, on FR, tv, radio and elsewhere ARE crediting someone (Buckhead), let's give credit where credit is due. Tanker and Howlin deserve credit, ahead of Buckhead.
B. September 8-9 - ; The Initial Attacks 60 Minutes Wednesday personnel were well aware that the September 8 Segmenta ddressed extremely sensitive issues - the incumbent President's TexANG service record in them midst of an increasingly bitter Presidential campaign. Indeed, Rather regarded the Segment as "radioactive."
Accordingly, senior personnel within CBS News, including those at 60 Minutes Wednesday, fully expected that there would be many critics. However, they seriously underestimated the ferocity of the assaults on the documents and CBS News'; alleged motives in airing the Segment.
The attacks on the September 8 Segment began virtually immediately. One of the first came on freerepublic.com, a website:
[E]very single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.
The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90s. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasnt used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80s used monospaced fonts. I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old.85
This was followed on the morning of September 9 by further attacks, mostly by bloggers with a conservative agenda, challenging the authenticity of the documents. These included stories on Powerlineblog.com86 and littlegreenfootballs.com.87 Finally, by about 3 p.m., Matt Drudge, the author of the widely read Drudge Report website, had joined the fray, and, thereafter, the onslaught of attacks on the authenticity of the Killian documents was unrelenting.
The initial attacks on the Killian documents focused on several technical issues. First, many critics claimed that the superscript "th" in the May 4, 1972 and August 18, 1973 memoranda did not exist on typewriters in the early 1970s.88 Second, others questioned the authenticity of the Killian documents because they displayed proportional spacing, which was thought not to be widely available on typewriters used in the early 1970s and was not used on other TexANG records that were known to be authentic. A Washington Post reporter posed the
following question to CBS News on September 9:
85_ Harry MacDougald, Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard, Sept. 8, 2004,at: http://freerepublic.com/focuslf-news/1210662/posts?q=1&&page=1 86_ See Powerline Wins, CBS Loses, Sept. 9, 2004, at http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2004-09.php. Powerline is |
Thanks!
Meanwhile CNN will bury one of these stories and completely ignore the other.
yw; I'm on lunch break and won't be online again till later....and, if you don't mind, ping me if there's any interesting developments on this. ty.
Ah, I see, a thread about the letter is already right here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1317728/posts
A good read.
Okers.
Not sure there will be any more interesting developments, but if there are there will likely be another thread and a bunch of pings.
And why was it soooo important to insert these little details, hmmmmmm? Of course the libs wouldn't have mentioned it even if they did figure out the papers were forged. And poor See BS felt attacked. What a shame. NOT!
Who is Harry MacDougald? Anybody know?
"I just hope Mapes' career is finished for good."
Oh, it is. I just finishing reading that section of the report about her. The panel basically tracks how her recollection is at variance with most other people in the production team, with her faulty memory always excusing herself or watering down her claims.
In short, her credibility is utterly shot.
(I wish CBS President's letter to employees had also expressly chided her for calling the Kerry campaign. That's just soooo brazen. Curiously, the letter doesn't mention this most important fact.)
About this political bias issue, the tenth of the 10 points made in the executive summary of the panel's report about went wrong is: Maples' call to the Kerry campaign before error, which clearly gave "the appearance of political bias."
Although this was important enough to be mentioned at the top in the report's executive summary, this wrongdoing is not mentioned when the head of CBS issues his letter saying why he is firing her. Best not to call attention to this embarassment, probably.
Not so fast...WHO created and passed on the FAKE Mammo's?
Enquiring minds and all that you know...
G
Thanks Jim!
I am probably overly sensitive. Especially since Dan et. al. fought to the bitter end. Even though it was obvious that the documents were fakes.
I could understand the wording, if this report had been written prior to the findings.
However, since it was written after the investigation, I would expect the wording to be a bit more humble...with a tone of "the bloggers were right."
Right wing, left wing, middle of the road -- right is right and wrong is wrong. The implication is that if this story wasn't on our agenda, we conservatives wouldn't have cared.
Its a "right wing conspiracy" all over again.
Good points. re Dan fighting "until the bitter end," you may be amused to note that the Panel records that Dan Rather's CURRENT point of view is that the story may be right -- that he went on air and said it was wrong at the behest of CBS management.
The panel indicates that they find this statement by Dan Rather "troubling."
The guy is quite possibly insane.
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.