It looks like the rats are hurrying to get off the sinking ship that is CBS, and the title really says it all: “Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn’t Authenticate Papers.”
This is, hands down, the most scathing indictment of the incompetence of the hacks at CBS, and it lists, line by line, the flaws in the forgeries:
– Word-processing techniques. Of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents. Nor did they use a superscripted “th” in expressions such as “147th Group” and or “111th Fighter Intercept Squadron…”
– Factual problems. A CBS document purportedly from Killian ordering Bush to report for his annual physical, dated May 4, 1972, gives Bush’s address as “5000 Longmont #8, Houston.” This address was used for many years by Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush. National Guard documents suggest that the younger Bush stopped using that address in 1970 when he moved into an apartment, and did not use it again until late 1973 or 1974, when he moved to Cambridge, Mass., to attend Harvard Business School…
– Stylistic differences. To outsiders, how an officer wrote his name and rank or referred to his military unit may seem arcane and unimportant. Within the military, however, such details are regulated by rules and tradition, and can be of great significance. The CBS memos contain several stylistic examples at odds with standard Guard procedures, as reflected in authenticated documents.
Compare this coverage to the kiss on the lips but no tongue from the NY Times. Not surprisingly, the piece is authored by Jim Rutenberg, who Balloon Juice readers are well aware is nothing more than a shill for the Kerry campaign. I guess he is moonlighting for the CBS folks, although at this point a distinction between CBS and the Kerry campaign is becoming harder to identify.
You would think that in a climate in which the integrity of mainstream media is on the line, the New York Times, notorious for their closeness to CBS, (ever heard of a New York Times/CBS News Poll?) would want to at least attempt balanced coverage of the issue, let alone the type of laudable journalism practiced by the Washington Post. But then again, the NY Times doesn’t care about integrity. Perhaps CBS should consider a partnership with Burger King next, the admitted home of the Whopper?
Finally, the only people I can still find defending the now obvious forgeries are the idiots at the Daily Kos and Atrios. The Daily Kos has gone so far as to state (brace yourselves):
Those memos added an unecessary exclamation point to Bush’s record. While their authenticity appears to be real, based on subsequent research…
*** Update ***
IF you’ve been following the story, you know this already. If you haven’t been follow ing the story, then I’ll cut to the chase: Four documents used by CBS News last week in a story about George W. Bush’s National Guard service are forgeries.
When I first wrote about this on Thursday, in a column that appeared on Friday, it seemed likely but not certain they were phony. We called the column “CBS’ Big Blunder?” with a question mark just to be careful.There’s no need to pull any punches now. I’m going to be blunt here: Anybody who spends an hour reviewing the evidence and the expert testimony knows they’re forgeries.
*** Update #2 ***
Tom Maguire has similar thoughts, although he characterizes the NY Times piece as ‘offering Dan a little snuggle, as opposed to the kiss on the lips but no tongue I have characterized it to be.
Commence giggling.
PhilTR
Today’s WP is reporting more on the document fiasco and instead of helping resolve the matter is lending to the confuslion. Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn’t Authenticate Papers trumpets “at least three areas of difference that are difficult to reconcile:”
John Cole
You have to be fucking kidding me.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OETR. What kind of document is going to prove the non-existence of something?
As far as the rest, quit being a lazy. There are hundreds of documents out there (check Awol Bush website). The WaPo was not finessed here, they probably just didn;t feel the need to re-prove what has been proved and re-proved 50000 times before.
Crikey.
CadillaqJaq
At least during the Cold War days, Tass and Pravda were on the side of the power in office. Today, CBS and NYT are apparently in the challenger’s corner… same difference as far as editorial style however.
Dr. Weevil
You may not have heard that ‘Hesiod Theogeny’ is posting again, but you will not be surprised to hear that he insists that the documents are genuine, even though on Friday he wrote “. . . if they are forgeries, they are pretty amateurish. It’s almost as though they were specifically designed to fool lay people, but would be obvious forgeries to experts.” No explanation as to how they can be both amateurish and genuine.
Mikey
Kiss on the lips but no tongue? Methinks this sounds more like the peck on the cheek before saying that she still wants to remain friends.
Justin Hart
What do the Rosenbergs and Dan Rather have in common? see here
PhilTR
John, you reckon I’ll find memos on the AwolBush site that are technically correct? Care to link to a few examples?
Ivor the Engine Driver
Let’s assume that “60 Minutes” screwed the pooch with ther memo story. (They have, as we know, done it before — can we all say ‘Audi 5000?”) How do the supporters of Dubya then react to the fact that the Rather memos aren’t necessary to prove that their man was awol and lied about it?
PhilTR
John, with respect to a “OETR,” you are not correct about this. An example of an OETR is on the AwolBush.com site. It commonly referred to an “Notice of Missing or Correction of Officer Effectiveness Training Report.”
Perhaps you may be in error about other thing too?
capt joe
No it is OER not OETR
The doc you mentioned is also found at http://www.glcq.com/docs/notice_of_correction.htm
Notice items 4,8, 12 of both docs. It plainly says OER unless you see a silent T somehow.
As well, here is a list of acronyms http://www.fas.org/news/reference/lexicon/aco.htm
search for OER and OETR. You will get a hit for OER but OETR.
“OER 1officer evaluation report, 2officer effectiveness report, 3operational effectiveness rate, 4[JP 1-02] operational electronic intelligence (ELINT) requirements ”
I believe that someone misread the docs on awolbush and added a T to OER. I would suggest glasses or a good magnifying glass as a remedy.
Mikey
Ivor:
What the forged memos show is that the “Bush-was-AWOL meme” is so weak that those advancing it have to lie to support it. Why is that bad? (1) You are not going to convince an undecided or lukewarm supporter of Mr. Bush that the meme is correct when you are shown to be telling whoppers. (2) By being shown to be a liar (and a darn poor forger to boot) you are not going to shake the confidence of any strong supporters of Mr. Bush. To the contrary, you just reinforced their belief that Mr. Bush is unfairly maligned and that his dastardly enemies will do anything to hurt him. (3) You end up looking like a complete goober by pulling a stunt as asinine as this.
That’s why this is important.
Yours,
Mikey
PhilTR
Joe, I’m only going by the heading of the “ARPC form 204” I don’t know what you’re referring to as you didn’t offer a link.
Clang
John Cole,
“You have to be fucking kidding me.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OETR.”
OETR = Officer Effectiveness Training Report
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc12.gif
Clang
Sorry, just noticed capt. joe already covered that.
PhilTR
Joe, I found it usng your url. It’s the same form I’m referring to with the same “heading” I’m referring to.
PhilTR
Then John, what is a “Notice of Missing or Correction of Officer Effectiveness Training Report” aka OETR? Chichen soup? Me thinkist your trying to parce words.
PhilTR
Clearly, any fair reading of Killing’s memo of 18 August 1973(?) shows he’s referring to an OETR and not an OER. An OER would only be used when the activity is timely. Also to refer to it as a NMCOETR would be a bit clumsy.
capt joe
PhilTR
Ok, I guess I have to spell it out.
look at items 4 (OER will be reac…)
items 8 (OER is returned …)
and items 12 (OER must be …)
Show me when the acronym OETR appears on this form. No, the acronym OETR is not used. The acronym is OER even though the form is called Officer Effectiveness Training Report.
OETR is not the acronym it goes by. The proper acronym is OER.
comprendez?
PhilTR
Joe, the “title” of the form is” Notice of Missing or Correction of Officer Effectiveness Training Report.”
The name of the form is NOT to be found on either line(item) 4, 8 or 12.
I don’t think it is too unreasonable to refer to it by it’s correct name which is to be found at the top of the form.
capt joe
Ok, so show me where the acronym OETR is used in the document. It is nowhere.
So what if the title is “Notice of Missing or Correction of Officer Effectiveness Training Report”.
The acronym for this title is NOT OETR. Find it, prove that it is so. you can’t.
So then why is OER used in items 4,8, and 12. What do you think OER means?
And using a document whose validity is in doubt as your proof is specious logic, to be polite.
I mean, you are being purposely obtuse about this.
Ivor the Engine Driver
Mikey,
There certainly seem to be a lot of gooberness in the word today about Dubya’s failure to do his duty. U.S.A. News and World Report, for example, says that Dubya failred to complete his service. Are telling me that an objective and fair examination of the documents prove that august magazine to be a liar?
PhilTR
Joe, referring to the “ARPC form 204” as an OETR seems to me a natural shortning of the arconym NMCOETR and easier to reference particularly when joting down a quick note.
Surely it would help prevent confusion with the OER. Merely refering to it as an OER would confuse the reader with the function of the NMCOETR and the OER . One is intended to correct a duty error (failing to perform a flight physical) and the other to document a duty (the out-come of a flight physical.)
I realize you guys are struggling with this but, it is really quite simple. Complicating it will only give you ulcers.
capt joe
PhilTR,
The title is acually Notice of Missing or Correction of Officer Effectiveness / Training Report. Note the slash in the title. It is both an effective report and atraining report.
There is a hole punch through the title and if you look then you see the bottom part of the slash.
Since you are an anti bush guy here is a link whith proves the slash.
Also note the remarks section of the doc under question.
It says please return orogonal copy of this form when returning corrected OER
The origin of the term OETR is from the awolbush site. They got the acronym wrong and everyone on the left has jumped on this definition without checking what the military actually calls it.
A case in point. Here is a site doc from there. It show the term OER referring to the correct name of the report.
PhilTR
Actually the OER is AF form 77 (which is found at the bottom left of the document.) You’ll notice the two are different forms with different functions.
capt joe
Oh contraire, the left is struggling with these false memos since every legitimate expert, even CBS’s experts have categorically stated that the memo is a FORGERY.
Did you check that site of military acronyms I gave you before. Did you find OETR anywhere.
Search google for “officer effectiveness training report”. There are 10 instances found. All referring back to the same awolbush site. Even the Kerry and veterans for peace site goes back to awol bush.
Now google for “officer effectiveness report”. There are 402 instances. Most of these are military sites. There are refs to the awolbush site so I guess that you lefties cannot agree on the right acronym either.
capt joe
come on, the term OETR does not exist. It was made up by the awolbush site and the only refs (my google report) can be found to come from there.
Prove it by pointing to a military site and showing me a military acronym for that.
capt joe
Tell me something, why is Kerry less liked that Vladimir Putin.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm
Herbert Hoover: 43 (1944)
Jesse Jackson: 38 (2003)
Vladimir Putin: 38 (2003)
John Kerry: 36 (2004)
Martha Stewart: 36 (2004)
Joseph McCarthy: 35 (1954)
PhilTR
Joe, we’re still talking about two different foms. An “ARPC form 204” and an “AF form 77” The only point I want to make is that when making a quick note to self referring to one as an OER and the other as an OETR seems natural and effective. It would be fast and prevent confusion.
PhilTR
Bytheway, what does “ARPC” mean?
capt joe
The original point was that since OETR is not an official military acronym then it cases doubt on the document.
Acronyms are precisely controlled in the military. You must use the right one at the right time. There are military manuals dedicated to the official sanctioned acronyms that will be used.
It would be very odd for a senior officer (Kilian in this case) to screw this up.
Likewise he would write IAW and not “In accordance with” as was in the forged memo. That would be improper.
Likewise, he would not use CYA in a written memo. He would say it but not write it.
Did you find anywhere that the military uses OETR as a acronym.
No? let me know when you do. we can continue the discussion then.
capt joe
Again from http://www.fas.org/news/reference/lexicon/aca.htm
ARPC is “ARPC 1Air Reserve Personnel Center, 2automated radar prediction capability”
So ARPC = Air Reserve Personnel Center
PhilTR
Joe, this was a “memo to the file,” not an official report. Perhaps the Guard is different from State Rehab but, when I put note in my client’s files they’re merely ment to refresh my memory when my boss is hell bent to chew on my ass. When the file is PAR’d (either State or Federal,) they’re pulled out.
PhilTR
Thanks for the link.
John Cole
God Damn it. There is no such thing as an OETR. There is such a thing as an OER, which the forgers mistakenly called an OETR in the forgery. That is why it is considered a smoking gun.
An officer of Killian;s stature would not use the wrong acronym in a memo.
Here is an example in terms that you might understand.
I drive a BMW, which stands for Bavarian Motor Works. I have driven one for twenty years.
Lt. COl Killian knows what an OER is- he has been filling them out for 20 years.
20 years after my death, someone forges a memo supposedly written by me, talking about my days driving a BMOW. Except there is no such thing as a BMOW. The people wanting to claim the forgery is real then point to a BMW and say see- it is the same thing.
Except, no, you fuckwits, it isn’t. No officer would ever mistakenly refer to an OETR, something that does not exist, when intending to discuss an OER, just as I would never refer to a BMOW when talking about my prized and beloved BMW.
It is that fucking simple.
The overwhelming evidence, 100% conclusive in my estimation, is that these are forgeries.
IF you want to keep showing what asses you are, keep arguing. I have dealt with flat-earthers before.
Not to mention, the whole point of making acronyms for military forms, terms and activities is to shorten the process for everyone- so it is a necessity that we all use the same acronyms. No one wuold ever call anything an OETR, because no one would know what the fuck he was talking about.
If people would spend one damned day in the military, this shit would be pretty clear to you. Christ, why do Democrats think the lungs are reservoirs of thought?
PhilTR
John, I can’t imagine you working for or having worked for he government. If you did or had, you’d know better.
PhilTR
Daing Joe! The AWOL Project web site is something else. Thanks again for the link.
Ivor the Engine Driver
John Cole:
Being a busy man, you must’ve missed my earlier rfequest for an answer. Here it is again:
Let’s assume that “60 Minutes” screwed the pooch with ther memo story. (They have, as we know, done it before — can we all say ‘Audi 5000?”) How do the supporters of Dubya then react to the fact that the Rather memos aren’t necessary to prove their man was awol and lied about it?
Dean
PhilTR:
I’ve worked for and with the government. I’ve worked with military people. The idea that you’d misuse acronyms, knowing better, is quite mistaken. I got a LONG lecture from a Navy Captain in this regard.
Ivor:
What “fact” is this that Dubya was “AWOL”? The very use of that term for an ANG obligation suggests you don’t know what you’re talking about. THAT is why no one’s responding.
John Cole
PhilTR- I am a decorated combat veteran who spent three years on active duty in the army and close to sevn in the National Guard.
Try Again.
IVOR- What Dean said, and, there is no evidence that he was AWOL, even assuming you were using the term correctly (which you are not).
I have not seen one shred of evidence that leads me to believe Bush did anything wrong, other than to lose interest in flying at a time when the Air Force and Air National Guard had a glut of planes andwas shifting missions and aircraft. Anyone who argues otherwise is just a partisan.
PhilTR
John, I don’t care one way or the other about the CBS memos. If they are real, they just add a little more insight regarding the times. I do want to be fair to GW and critically examin them.
So far no one has been able to demonstrate empirically that the memos could only have been created contemporaneously.
That is use of some technology only available very recently. It’s clear that the IBM Selectric II and the IBM Executive-C&D were, to put it mildly, in wide-spread use. Both could do sub & superscript. The exectutive coud do porportional fonts. The Selectric II could switch heads having upwards of twenty interchangable heads. As far as the font Times (New) Roman it has been around since 1931.
I also took a look at Joseph M. Newcomer’s article The Bush “Guard memos” are forgeries! but wished he wouldn’t have editoralized so much.
So, clearly, something else will have to be the tie-breaker.
Ivor the Engine Driver
Dean:
Oh, I’m so sorry. I guess I learned nothing at all about the military during my active duty stint from 1969 to 1972.
Let’s rephrase in the hope that you won’t once more try to weasel out of answering. Even without the Rather-gate memos, it’s clear that Dubya failed to complete his service with the Air Guard. What do Dubya’s supporters have to say about that, especially in light of their criticism of John Kerry’s military record?
Ivor the Engine Driver
John Cole:
You guys are a hoot! “Not one shred of evidence. . . !” Can you do that with a straight face?
You bring rationalization to new levels, my friend. Dubya could jack off down Laura’s throat at noon on Main Street, and you guys would believe that he was doing brain surgery on Einstein. Very humorous, in a pathetic, brain-damnaged way.
capt joe
Perhaps, but to Newcomer, these are such outrageous forgeries he can’t believe that anyone would take them serious. That is his laugn on the floor aspect to the whole thing.
One thing he pointed out was that pseudo kerning was not possible on a typewriter of that time. Pseudo kerning (there are many types of kerning) is that slight overlap you get with typed letter for example the fr. In Word, you will see a slight overlap of the top of the f onto the r. Not possible in 1972.
Here is another test you can do that I did.
Type in the memos in MS Word using Times Roman and then again in WordPerfect 10 with same font.
Even though these are the same font, etc., they don’t match. But surprisely enough the “1972” memos are a dead certain match to MS Word.
Strange that “1972” memos can match MS Word but both do not match the same thing in the same font to WordPerfect 10.
capt joe
Well, Ivor, if you got the evidence then pony it up.
no forgeries this time, k.
capt joe
yes, Times Roman was available in typeset machines but not typewriters.
There is a considerable difference you know.
And considering that Killian did not type, expecting him to operate a typeset machine is defintely not applying occam’s razor.
don’t you think.
capt joe
So Ivor, is this what you are getting at
http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/fresh/showpics.cgi?cbs_black_eye
capt joe
And Robert W. Strong who was quoted by CBS said he doubts that the TexANG had sophisticated typewriters such as the selectric exec or composer
PhilTR
So Killin’s sectetary says he did have a CYA file and she used an Olympina typewriter that had super and subscripts. As reported by FOX, Fair and Balancecd.
capt joe
Oh you mean this secretary “Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1956 to 1979”
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted_Now.html
Funny, the headline says “Former secretary says she didn’t type memos”
The memos are still fake.
tsk-tsk.
And if it is a personal file then how come the family does not know about it. Ahhh, must be part of the VRWC.
PhilTR
Joe, thanks for the link.
PhilTR
Well one thing seems to be settled here. The ol Boy kept a CYA file and the Master Sgt who was “reached Tuesday, declined to comment.
Slartibartfast
Is it really necessary to bring those people (PhilTR, for one) who are about a week behind on developments up to date?
PhilTR, if you can’t stand to follow the many links provided by Instapundit or the many others who’ve pretty much wrapped this issue up, try Google. I hear those pigeons is mighty smart.
Mikey
Ivor:
I haven’t read the U.S. News & World Report article, so I really don’t know what it is based on. I’ll get back to that one later.
The most important document in Pres. Bush’s file is his Honorable Discharge. That says he did everything they wanted him to do and that he can go without any blemish to his honor.
No, I haven’t served active or reserve (Coast Guard Auxiliary), however, my brother is active army and I do a lot of reading. So I am not completely ignorant on the subject.
Yours, Mikey