BS: Bush AWOL revisited

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 09:55 AM

Ron Olesko makes some interesting points about DougR. I remember questioning why he was a member of this forum when I first arrived here some years ago. But I've never taken the trouble to discover that he contributes nothing to Mudcat's core business.

However I don't think Ron's suggestion that Doug is obviously well educated should go unchallenged. I have seen no evidence of that; in fact I have the impression of a man driven by self interest to the exclusion of all else - including the interest of his children's generation (to judge from his celebrating of the monstrous budget deficit and the surrender of Alaska's wilderness to short-term commercial interests). Still, I have to keep in mind the depressing thought that he might be speaking for most of his fellow Americans.

Even accepting Joe's points about the respective military service records of Bush and Kerry, there is one thing I cannot get my head around. How can most Americans, when presented with those respective records, conclude that it is Kerry who is the fraud? Can there really be that many unquestioning Americans who, like Doug, absorb all their information through partisan channels and resolutely close their minds to all else?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Peace
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 01:37 PM

"Can there really be that many unquestioning Americans who, like Doug, absorb all their information through partisan channels and resolutely close their minds to all else?"

Peter,

Many of us fear the answer to that question.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:03 PM

DougR,

You're wrong about the hypocrisy of trusting Dan Rather. The difference is that I already know a lot about him and his integrity. Indeed, americans have had countless opportunities to decide if we trust Dan Rather or "60 Minutes." He has been under intense scrutiny since he was a convention correspondent in the 1960s. The show has been at the forefront of "TV Magazine" journalism since the inception of the genre. So far, I can remember not one instance in which Rather's integrity or honesty has come into question--although some might have preceded my consciousness, as I am much younger than he. I can remember a few instances in which 60 Minutes got things wrong, and they always correct themselves promptly. In fact, they are one of the few such shows that re-run old stories and then say: since then, it has become clear that x, y and z. In other words, they take every opportunity to correct themsleves. Therefore, I can make a rational and informed decision to trust Dan Rather, regardless of his personal politics. And I can also make an informed decision that when 60 minutes says "we stand by our analysis" I can trust it, especially because I know that if they ARE wrong, they will come out and say it.

I had never heard of this Lines woman before. She is an obscure figure, not affiliated with (say) a well-known lab, police department or university. Thus, the public has had no opportunity to assess her work, and there is no paper trail that I can easily access. She works, apparently, for private clients. (Who her clients were, in this case, remains unknown).

Checking her out on the web, you find out only a few things about her: she is a document analyst, lives in Arizona, is a member of some forensic societies, and is a committed Republican donor. I found this to be interesting.   

By the way, new evidence has come to light in this as well. Lines's only justification for saying that this had to be a word-processed document was that the "th" was raised and shrunk to a smaller size, as a superscript. several problems:

(1) IBM made several typewriters in that era which could do this, which the Government often used. CBS has found IBM people and repair people to testify to this.

(2) Several unchallenged documents from Bush's records, released by the white house, also have this feature, so obviously these typewriters WERE used by various of his units.

(3) several of the documents do NOT have this feature, and some have it sometimes and don't have it other times. This sounds much more like a typewriter with a special "th" key (which the typist was unaccustomed to using) than like Word, which converts the th automatically to a superscript every time.

Given these facts, it almost seems as if this "document expert" was fully expecting to be debunked eventually.

As Bobert says, it's all about casting doubt, not about proving anything. Hopefully the doubt will last two months, or at least until the next orange alert.

Subject: Rather's response
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:07 PM

Dan Rather also responded to the allegations of forgery last night. Here's part of what he said and did, as reported in Salon:

Some people, Rather said, "including many who are partisan political operatives," contend the documents are fake. Rather was not impressed with their arguments. "These critics have focused on something called superscript that automatically makes a raised 'th.' Critics claim it didn't exist," he said. But CBS showed one document not in dispute that was released by the White House. The document is from 1968, but lo and behold, there is a raised, smaller "th."

Then there's the font question. "Some analysts outside CBS," as Rather called them, claim the font looks like Times New Roman, which they say was not available in the 1970s. CBS called the company that distributes this typing style, Rather said, and it turns out the style has been available since 1931.

And he pointed out that all of the critics of these memos -- and experts who are being quoted by news organizations are basing their judgments on copies that inevitably deteriorate with photocopying, faxing and downloading.

Putting the type-style and superscripting aside, there is the issue of Killian's signature, which is not a main focus of the debate. CBS' analyst, Marcel Matley, says the signature on the memos was the same as another document signed by Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer.

It's clear that Rather is feeling Swift Boated by the allegations that began in the right-wing blogosphere and crept into the major newspapers under headlines that warned of "serious questions" about his work. "Are you surprised these questions are coming about?" Rather asked his analyst Matley. "We're not," Rather added.

Clearly, Rather said, his piece was based not solely on the documents -- that were provided by solid sources, he said -- but on a "preponderance of evidence." As far as Rather is concerned, his work here is done. He ended tonight by saying: "If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:08 PM

Must respond to Peter K and Ron, but most respectfully.

Because you believe a certain way, you attack others who believe differently. And your attacks are highly personal. You cannot comprehend that there are those, even educated ones, that do not share your view of what you perceive would be a perfect world.

Well, if a college degree makes one educated, I have one.

My beliefs are every bit as valid, from my point of view, as yours.

Some facts: Liberals are not the only people in the world who are educated. Liberals are not the only people in the world who are well-read. Liberals are not the only people in the world who have compassion for other people. Liberals are not the only people in the world who love folk music (it is not necessary, however, to embrace the liberal philosophy that the majority of folk music fans seem to have). Liberals do not, though they think they do, do not have all the answers to all the problems of the world.

Now. I did that without attacking either of you. I didn't question your "education", didn't attempt in any way to discredit you.

You have a right to have an opinion on any subject you choose. I respect that. But so do I.

On to other things: I don't believe the Kerry campaign is responsible for the CBS report. That is CBS' responsibility. At the moment, they are standing by what they aired. That makes sense because if it turns out that the documents they presented as evidence are proven to be fake, it should destroy the credibility of Dan Rather, and the whole CBS New program. Having said that, I do not hear anyone from the Kerry campaign crying about the fact that CBS aired it, whether legitimate evidence was used or not.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 03:10 PM

Doug, You do have excellent taste in wine. But perhaps the assumptions some folks make about your educational background have to do with your tendency to comment on other people's posts, not with reasoned argument backed by facts or references (i.e., links to web sites where people can verify the information for themselves), but with little more than one line comments including the remark "horse pucky!" Calling someone's argument "horse pucky" is not something one finds in Socratic dialog.

Of the 60 Minutes report, you say, "That makes sense [that they are standing by what they aired] because if it turns out that the documents they presented as evidence are proven to be fake, it should destroy the credibility of Dan Rather."

True indeed. It would also make sense that they are standing by what they aired because they have thoroughly checked all the details, including possible allegations of forgery, and had every reason to believe that their report is accurate well before they aired it.

I do have some insight into the processes here. Although nowhere near on this high level, I have worked as a broadcast news director, and a time or two have had to go through the process of vetting stories whose veracity I knew were going to be questioned.   These stories were thoroughly checked, double-checked, and rechecked again—including details about the authenticity of documentation—before we aired them. Not to have done so could have resulted in law suits against the station I was working for. CBS has far greater facilities than I had, so I'm confident that the report has gone through at least as rigorous a truth-check as I could have put a story through.

Had 60 Minutes come out with a report, complete with similar documentation, that John O'Neill's "Swift Boat Veterans" were telling the truth about Kerry, I would have little choice but to accept the 60 Minutes report as true.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 04:38 PM

Don Firth...you are a man worthy of admiration. Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Genie
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 04:55 PM

Doug, the reason the Kerry campaign is not denouncing the 60 Minutes report on Bush is pretty clear:
1. It was a report by a respected news organization, not a political ad put out by people with questionable credibility.
2. The funding for the SBVFT ads is tied clearly and directly to Mary Spaeth and other major contributors to Republican party campaigns -- yet the ads, by using the name "...Veterans for Truth," pretend not to be politically motivated.
3. Most of the documents presented by CBS were official military documents.   The first Swift Boat ads were CHALLENGING the validity of official military documents and medals awards. (In fact, O'Neill and his cohorts in effect attempted to cast doubt on the significance of ALL veterans' medals.)
4. The primary voice behind the Swift Boat Vets' ads is KNOWN to have been carrying on a vendetta against John Kerry since 1971, mainly (or solely?) because of Kerry's anti-war activities after his discharge.   Many of the others who contributed to O'Neill's book and the ad also dislike Kerry for the same reason.
5. The issue about the appropriateness of challenging someone's character and record is whether the "report" is fair, accurate, and transparent in their origins.   Both SBVFT ads fail that test in a big way.   THAT's why those ads should have been pulled and should not have been given free air time by the media -- NOT because they were "negative" or because they used "soft money."

BTW, when moveon.org did run an ad a few weeks ago suggesting that Dubya was AWOL from the National Guard, John Kerry immediately asked them to pull it, saying he wanted to focus on current issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:59 PM

Don: you believe the 60 Minutes report because it was reported by a highly respected news organization. I would add to you statement, a highly biased to the left news organization.

A news story in the Dallas Morning News reported this morning (available on the Drudge report)that the person who supposedly wrote the memos left the National Guard a year or so before the date on the memos. Did CBS miss that little point? It would seem so. Also, I heard an interview with the son of the Lt. Col. who, supposedly, wrote the memos yesterday. He said he told the CBS producer who called that he doubted the authinticity of the memos, and that his mother shared his opinion. Did CBS report that? I don't think so. He said he also gave the producer the names of people who flew with Bush and even shared an apartment with him. Did they contact him? I don't think so. Ths son also reported that his dad thought highly of Bush as a person and as a pilot. Was that reported? I don't think so.

Also from the Drudge Report: "Retired Major General Hodges, Lt. Col. Killian's supervisor at the National Guard told ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt." Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud." Was this reported on 60 Minutes?

CBS responded to Hodges: "We believed Col. Hodges the first time we spoke with him. We believe the documents are genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 07:12 PM

Doug, you're being silly. Most of what you accuse 60 Minutes of not reporting hadn't happened yet. For example, the CO's CO NOW saying he thinks the documents are computer generated. Of course he does. Lots of people do NOW. Before the Republican operative Ms. Lines made that claim, it was not in play, and he did not think that.

Other stuff you have no evidence for.   How do you know if 60 minutes called Bush's old roommate or not? Maybe his statements were irrelevant.

Of course, once the attack dogs get moving, they'll find people to say whatever they want. Is there anything they won't try to discredit?

Finally, 60 Minutes does NOT have a reputation as being a "highly biased left-wing program," DougR. How about the Drudge Report?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 07:25 PM

"Doug your being silly." Thanks Nerd, I'm beginning to expect that type of reply from you.

If you wish me to add to my post that in my opinion, CBS News and 60 Minutes is a mouth-piece for the left-wing, I am more than willing to do so. If you were to add up the minutes on 60 Minutes this year devoted to praising and promoting Kerry, though, compared to simply reporting on the president, I think you would find they have leaned very heavily in the direction of Kerry.

As to the memos, let's wait and see, okay. Your argument that evidence found "after the fact" is not legitimate is more than silly. It's ridiculous!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 09:32 PM

Nerd, you have never answered my question: Who did Rathers and his producer donate money to? Who did his "experts" donate money to?

" Republican operative Ms. Lines " PROVE THIS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 09:36 PM

DougR - I think you misunderstood my comments and felt I was attacking you personally.

First of all, I NEVER questioned your education. For you to say that I did so is a plain LIE. I actually said the opposite. I feel that your contributions CAN be quite informative, and as I said above, your post in "Why Bush? Why Kerry?" was eloquent and you made valid points why you support Bush. I highly respect that.

I don't think you realize how you are coming across in other posts. You are attacking those that question you, and we are questioning you by your refusal to examine evidence that contradicts your stand.   First you question the report from the "liberal" news gathering of CBS. I think you confuse "liberal" with "ethical". Most newsgathering organizations do not slant the news. There are rules, such as verifying and questioning information when creating a story. Of course they make mistakes, and they are admonished for it. The media serves as a watchdog, and you are very shortsighted if you choose to forget how they kept the pressure on Bill Clinton through his presidency.   

I understand that the conservative right likes to paint the media as a bunch of "liberals", but the facts are in plain view.   Why would a website like the Drudge Report have validity and CBS have none?

I have to turn your own words on you - You cannot comprehend that there are those, even educated ones, that do not share your view of what you perceive would be a perfect world.   You summarily dismiss reports that put Bush in a bad light. You have publicly stated that you refused to watch Farenheit 9-11 and 60 Minutes. Even when evidence is presented, you simply dismiss it and point to the Drudge Report.   Drudge is not known for fact checking.   He simply prints any story that comes his way.   More often than not, his stories disappear because there is no validity.

As you said about the memos, let's wait and see. But based on your posts, it seems like your mind is already made up.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 09:56 PM

DougR:

What I was claiming was silly was your saying "Did 60 Minutes report that?" about things that happened AFTER 60 minutes had aired. Eg, the CO's superior changing his story. He could NOT have thought the documents were computer generated until that story was floated by Lines. As you say, he had not seen the documents, nor did 60 minutes imply that he had. So the idea that they were computer generated came from Lines's report, which happened AFTER 60 Minutes aired. You were blaming 60 Minutes for not reporting on the future.

That IS silly, no matter how you look at it.

beardedbruce, I DID answer your question. I said that Dan Rather has a track record of honesty going back 40 years which has never been questioned. Therefore, even if he IS liberal, which I have no way of knowing, I would not suspect his motives. The same would go for (say) Lou Dobbs at CNN, whose politics are very conservative. If Lou tells me a fact, I am inclined to believe him. If he tells me he had a document authenticated, I believe that too. Therefore, who Dan Rather or Lou Dobbs supports is irrelevant because each has proven integrity. (Full disclosure: I have met Lou Dobbs. I have never met Dan Rather)

No one has heard of Lines before. She is a steady Republican donor. She was certainly paid by SOMEBODY who has conveniently remained anonymous, to make a judgement, which happens to contradict CBS. Many of the facts she claimed were true in that judgment (eg. you couldn't do superscripts on a typewriter in 1970) are contradicted by the White House's own set of records on Bush's time in the guard, and by IBM, and by the repair experts consulted by CBS. In other words, for such a big expert she gave a piss-poor report.

So take your pick, bb. Either she's a fraud or she's lying. I can't prove that she's a Republican operative, but it seems very likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 10:09 PM

bb,

Last time I talked about the issue of believing Dan Rather even though I don't know whom he donates to, I addressed the answer to Doug by mistake. It was intended to answer you, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 10:41 PM

bb, this might be a better answer for you:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org), Dan Rather has not made any political donations to candidates. According to publicintegrity.org, he has made no contributions to 527s, either.

So my answer is: Dan Rather contributes to no candidates and no 527 soft-money organizations.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:19 AM

anybody hear that US News & World REport (NOT a "liberal" mag by any stretch) is coming out with more independant evidence next week that GWB shirked even more duty than we've seen so far? i saw a report from a story listed at the buzzflash.com site. should be interesting. gosh, how many forged documents, bitter partisan storytellers, and fraudulent news organizations could there be?
by the way, has even one person shown up yet that says they served with bushie during the time in question? how do you bushbuddies explain that away?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 08:06 AM

DougR, you don't have many compliments paid to you round here, so don't overlook the few that do come your way. I was taking Ron Olesko to task because he described you as educated. Signs of your education are not evident to me, and I don't see a college degree as having anything to do with it. (I would say that, not having one.)

Suppose a dentist close to retirement boasted that he ignored refresher courses, the professional journals and the training packages provided by the supply industry because he had passed an exam 40 years ago. Is that a dentist you'd choose to drill your teeth? Well that's about where you are when you try to discuss current affairs.

As I've said before (maybe only in PMs) I don't understand the hang-up about personal attacks. We are (and we are accountable for) our opinions. What's the point of trying to pretend your opinions are somehow an entity discrete from yourself? If you were to espouse racism, that would make you a racist in my book, not some neutral being who happened to hold racist opinions.

On the other hand you are quick to claim that those of us who don't share your views are as conditioned in our thinking as you are in yours. To have my thought processes put on a par with yours is, in my opinion, a personal attack on me. But it doesn't trouble me. I just happen to think you're wrong, because there are examples on the record in this forum where I have indeed changed or modified my thinking in the face of intelligent arguments.

I happened to agree with Ron in this thread (with that one exception mentioned above), but elsewhere I have disagreed with him on a fairly serious issue. Likewise with many other Mudcat folk, often on issues to do with Ireland. In your case, I can't remember any instance of your underpinning your position with anything approaching rational argument. So how you expect to exert any influence I don't know. "Horse pucky" is indeed about as sophisticated as your reasoning gets.

But back to superscript ordinals, and I have to say they are a revolting innovation. They look pretentious, serve no good purpose and are to my eye typographically disruptive. Why not ditch them altogether, superscript or otherwise, and this would avoid any possiblity of embarrassment for Dan Rather etc. "July 4" surely looks tidier than "September 11th." And both look better than rendering the phonetic suffix like a footnote or trademark symbol.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 08:12 AM

Nerd:

Thank you re Rathers. But how about the experts he selected? And his producers? If you call into question one expert, you should at least examine the opposing ones for the same bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 12:47 PM

bb,

Marcel Matley, the expert consulted by Rather: No Candidate Donations. For info on 527s, I need to know the state where he lives.

If you wish to find evidence about every person who works for 60 Minutes, knock yourself out. The sites are Publicintegrity.org and opensecrets.org. If you wish to claim that they are Democratic donors, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

I have shown that Lines is a Republican donor, and indeed this is now being reported in places like Salon.com

Happy searching!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:10 PM

Ron: you seem rivited to the point that there is no proof of media bias. I assume you are familiar with Bernard Goldberg's book, "BIAS, A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News,"whether or not you have read it.

Those of you who are so convinced there is no bias at CBS, or other media, might gain something from reading it.

I will pause now, so that numerious posters can attack Bernard Goldberg.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:32 PM

I will pause now, so that numerious posters can attack Bernard Goldberg.DougR LOL I didn't know you had a sense of humor, Doug.

Yes, I have read Bernard Goldberg's book. It's a good idea to read another, more factual, book alongside. In his book Goldberg utilizes innuendo, extrapolation and tremendous leaps of fancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:37 PM

I don't understand the hang-up about personal attacks. We are (and we are accountable for) our opinions.

Personal attacks aren't when you tell someone you disgree with them, or even when you say that something they have said is hateful or absurd, or that they are racist in their views.

They are when people start insulting someone they disagree with in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with their opinions, or which go beyond those opinions in an unjustifiable way.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:37 PM

Doug, I would hardly regard the Drudge Report as a reliable source for unbiased news.

And Bernard Goldberg notwithstanding, it is a bit difficult to justify the epithet "liberal news media" when you consider that about 90% of the news and entertainment outlets in the United States is owned by five mega-corporations, large conglomerates not exactly known for their espousing of liberal ideas. One can find at least some information on the ownership of CBS and other broadcasting networks here, here, and here.

Some time back, while in England, Dan Rather made the comment to a BBC reporter that there were many stories he would like to air, but his bosses would not let him. The BBC reporter reported Rather's remark to the British news media, and when Rather returned to New York, he got his hand slapped for it. So even though some may characterize Rather as "liberal," any tendencies he may have along those lines is reined in by what his employers will allow him to do.

I find it highly interesting that, in the current climate, any station that reports the unfiltered news or airs any kind of in-depth report rather than just brief sound bites or talking heads shouting at each other, is invariabley branded as "liberal." The same goes for any network or station that doesn't always act as a cheerleader for the administration. I think it's because these stations occasionally air programs or reports that the administration and/or some major corporation would rather the public not know.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:58 PM

Don: I don't think I ever said there was anything WRONG with being liberal.

I won't argue whether or not ownership of media outlets becomes involved in managing the "news" because I simply don't know if they do or not. I would think, though, that any ethical newsperson who felt that to be the case, and it was contrary to their own belief, they would find another line of work.

Ebbie: Perhaps you could supply me with your suggestion for a more factual book to read other than Bernie Goldberg's. Goldberg is a Emmy winning thirty year veteran at CBS, and I would think that he might have picked up a thing or two during those years that led him to write the book.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:16 PM

Doug, to abandon working in the news media, as you suggest, to find another line of work because one has difficulty finding outlets for honest news reporting is to abandon the temple to the philistines. An honest and dedicated news person keeps trying.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 04:08 PM

Still Don, if corporate America is truly conservative, and votes Republican as so many of you claim, and if, as you say, the owners of the networks manage the news, why wouldn't CBS kill the Bush story before it ever aired?

It would seem to me that it would be in the interest of CBS to see GWB re-elected.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 04:47 PM

back to the AWOL thing for a moment. i repeat my question...not one person has come forward to say they served with GWB during the time under scutiny... is there an explanation for this from any of the bushbuddies or any story or link you can cite to explain this? doesn't it seem odd to you at all? in fact, has anyone come forward that he worked with on the political campaign that he uses for his excuse? any links or stories on that? c'mon you loyal bushies, let us know where these stories are hiding.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 05:55 PM

Well, Doug, one would think this one story would indicate a liberal bias, but if they are that liberal, why, then, did they agree to the Bush administration's pressure to quash any talk of body counts and suppress any filming of returning coffins (e.g. note the cat-fit they had over the one photo of flag-draped coffins)? The Bush administration was fully aware that actually seeing some of the reality of war on the news media in the Sixties and early Seventies was one of the things that precipitated the anti-Vietnam war movement. The only program that ever actually personalizes the statistics (silently shows portrait photos of the most recent casualties at the end of each program) is The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. This, of course, makes PBS a bunch of "flaming liberals."

I think there is a bit of what seems like schizophrenia in the news departments of the Big Three (ABC, NBC, and CBS), at least as far as politics is concerned. But if you understand the motivation, it all becomes clear (in a murky sort of way). In the "infotainment" industry, if it's an entertaining pot-boiler, it's liable to make the six o'clock news. They did back-flips of glee when the Swift Boat bunch launched their "Trash Kerry" attack. That, and the logical follow up, airing the conflict over Bush's questionable National Guard records (maybe that's their idea of "fair and balanced news), keeps the folks glued to the screen—so they'll see the commercials in between "news" breaks. Political campaigns and the mud-slinging therein is great "reality television." But—not only is the "informed electorate" that Thomas Jefferson spoke of as necessary for sustaining democracy not on the back burner, it's not even on the stove at all.

It's called "bu$ine$$." And in thinking of the next quarterly report, it's amazing how willing they are to do things contrary to their own long-range interests, which would be to see that Bush is re-elected so that people such as Michael Powell will continue to be in charge of the FCC.

Believe me, I could tell you about some pretty hairy stuff from my own experience about how far broadcasting companies are sometimes willing to go to pander to those who buy commercial time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 06:02 PM

But actually, all of this, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (!?) attack on Kerry and the sudden emergence of documentation about Bush's National Guard service (or lack thereof) is a marvelous distraction.

It keeps people from taking a good long look at the real issues.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Genie
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 06:03 PM

Don, the corporate media didn't kill the Bush story before it ever aired because they (with the exception of Fox) need to perpetuate the illusion that they are at least "fair and balanced," if not "liberal."   Millions and decades have been spent painting the TV media as "liberal" precisely to pressure them into shifting their "balance" to the right, as well as to make their attacks on Democrats and on the left more effective. ("Gee, if the liberal media are questioning John Kerry's war record there really must be some truth to those charges!" "Gee, if the liberal media call Kerry a flip-flopper, it must be true!")

If the networks and cable channels did not air any criticisms of Bush, the independent viewers and even the more open-minded "conservatives" and Republicans would start to discount them. (How many independents and open-minded Republicans really believe they're getting true, unbiased, undistorted info from Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Oliver North, Sean Hannity, etc?)

Far more effective to let the anti-Bush news AIR while simultaneously airing the charges of "forged" documents.

(Had the SBVFT ads been shown early on by the news channels along with disclosure of John O'Neill's history, the money trail behind those ads, and challenges to the most inaccurate and misleading statements in those ads, those ads might have backfired the way they should have.   That's not the way the media handled it.)

PS
Joe Offer, I think your take on the whole issue of candidates' military service is a fair and wise one. However, since the media did not take that attitude re the attacks on Kerry, it's a bit unfair for them to suddenly adopt it now, just when the shoe's on the other foot. They let Kerry's reputation be besmirched quite unfairly -- especially the distortions of his Senate testimony -- for over a month of high-profile coverage at a crucial campaign phase. To now disallow the question of military records is a lot like a boxing referee turning a blind eye while one fighter lands a barrage of below-the-belt punches and then suddenly announcing, "OK, that's enough. From now on I'll enforce the rules strictly."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 10:52 PM

hear's a link to the US news&world report story i mentioned earlier.
href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

still waiting to hear about my previous question about the failure of a single person to testify that they served with GWB during the time under scrutiny...doug...larryk...anybody...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 10:53 PM

i'll try the link again

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 11:17 PM

Joe Offer,

I am in complete agreement with your post, even though as you know from our discussions at the Getaway, we are sometimes on different sides, as I suspect, we are now. (My recollection is that is was a discussion about Cheney failing to turn over the list of names that he consulted on energy policy, and I pointed out that Hillary had done the same thing on her consultations on health policy.) But I enjoyed your discussion as far more light that heat, unlike many of the posts (including some of my own) on the Mudcat.

As for the ensuing CBS case; as I said in another post on a different thread, we may have already seen the October Suprise of this election, though it may become known as the October Backfire.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 01:47 PM

This from Barbara O'Brien, a well-known journalist, typesetter and blogger:

I studied typography as an academic discipline (circa 1971) as part of the old journalism school curriculum at U of Missouri. I spent roughly 30 years in the book publishing business, most of which was on the production side dealing with type compositors and printers. I have worked with typography and printing processes from the end of the raised-metal-type era to current digital technology. I have designed and written complete type specifications for more books than I can remember.

As a production editor in the 1980s I became especially good at measuring the type in books to be reprinted so that corrections could be made by patching the film. To do that, I had to measure the old type and match font, body size, ledding, and letter spacing exactly. This is not a skill people need much any more, since books are stored digitally. But I still know how to do it.

I'm bouncing around the web seeing wingnuts flying off about proportional letter spacing and kerning and whatnot, and I'm telling you these people are off the wall.

Why? Because, if you need to measure type (body size, ledding, letter spacing) and match it exactly, you have to work with original documents. If you are measuring a photocopy of an original document, the measurements can be off by half a point or more. If you are measuring a photocopy of a photocopy, the distortion grows to more than a point. If you are measuring a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy scanned into a PDF file, e.g. the Killian documents, forget it. The "kerning" and letter spacing you think you see may or may not exist on the original document. Probably not, in fact.

I know this because I learned it from my old film patching days. If all I had to work with was a photocopy, my patch wouldn't match. I had to measure the original printed page.

So, let's dispense with the "proportional type" theory. I've looked at the PDF files, and IMO the quality thereof is too far removed from the original (the wavy baselines are a dead giveaway) to know what the original type proportion was. And any "kerning" one might see is probably the result of distortion that occurs in photocopies that are generations removed from an original.

Now, let's shift focus onto the capabilities of common electric typewriters, circa 1972. As I've already explained, the IBM Selectric was very common. By 1972 the offices of America had replaced old manual uprights for electric typewriters, and the Selectric II, introduced in 1971, was the best.

By the time I graduated college in 1973 it would have been shocking to walk into a business office and not see Selectric IIs or similar. It would be as unusual as using a rotary phone today.

And Selectrics produced documents in a variety of type fonts, including Greek letters and all manner of esoteric scientific/mathematical symbols. You really could type open and close quotation parks and curly apostrophes. Superscript type was easily created by shifting. Even a reduced superscript "th" was technically possible, in spite of what the wingnuts are saying now.

It's true that some whizbangs took a couple of extra steps. People ask, Why would Killian have gone to the trouble of creating a reduced superscript "th"? But we're talking about the early 1970s here. Let's be frank -- in those dear departed times, real men did not touch typewriters. Trust me on this. It's highly probable Killian scribbled a note and gave it to one of the office "girls" to type up for his signature. The office "girls" hardly ever bothered about putting their initials on such documents, in spite of what the secretarial practice books said. But the "girl" would have typed the document very nicely.

Finally, I understand the wingnuts find it astonishing that the type seen in the Killian documents can be reproduced exactly in word processing documents today. But to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of typography, this is not astonishing at all. Times Roman characters produced on a lintotype machine in 1960 will match Times Roman characters created in Microsoft Word today. If two Times Roman characters were not exactly the same, one of them would not be classic Times Roman type, but something else.

Type faces have been consistent for many generations. We still use some type faces that pre-date machine-made type, in fact; e.g., Garamond, still in use after four centuries.

I've collected a few books published and printed in the 19th century. I promise you it is possible to recreate the pages of those books digitally. You could set pages in Quark that exactly match the fonts, spacing, margins, etc.; save as PDF files; and "age" the files in PhotoShop, and I doubt any expert in the world could tell the difference by looks alone. Probably an analysis of ink and paper would reveal the difference, but that's outside my expertise.


[...]

Could the Killian documents be forgeries? Could Paul Wolfowitz be a space alien? Anything is possible.

But there is no evidence I've seen so far that has persuaded me the documents are forgeries. And I'm the best expert I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 01:57 PM

This from the Boston Globe...Forgery is looking less and less likely as experts change their mind or are shown to be wrong.


After CBS News on Wednesday trumpeted newly discovered documents that referred to a 1973 effort to ''sugar coat" President Bush's service record in the Texas Air National Guard, the network almost immediately faced charges that the documents were forgeries, with typography that was not available on typewriters used at that time.

But specialists interviewed by the Globe and some other news organizations say the specialized characters used in the documents, and the type format, were common to electric typewriters in wide use in the early 1970s, when Bush was a first lieutenant.

Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the documents in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.

Analysts who have examined the documents focus on several facets of their typography, among them the use of a curved apostrophe, a raised, or superscript, ''th," and the proportional spacing between the characters -- spacing which varies with the width of the letters. In older typewriters, each letter was alloted the same space.

Those who doubt the documents say those typographical elements would not have been commonly available at the time of Bush's service. But such characters were common features on electric typewriters of that era, the Globe determined through interviews with specialists and examination of documents from the period. In fact, one such raised ''th," used to describe a Guard unit, the 187th, appears in a document in Bush's official record that the White House made public earlier this year.

Meanwhile, ''CBS Evening News" last night explained how it sought to authenticate the documents, focusing primarily on its examiner's conclusion that two of the records were signed by Bush's guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. CBS also said it had other sources -- among Killian's friends and colleagues -- who verified that the content of the documents reflected Killian's views at the time.

One of them, Robert Strong, a Guard colleague, said the language in the documents was ''compatible with the way business was done at that time. They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being."

But William Flynn, a Phoenix document examiner cited in a Washington Post report Thursday, said he had not changed his mind because he does not believe that the proportional spacing between characters, and between lines, in the documents obtained by CBS was possible on typewriters used by the military at the time.

Flynn told the Globe he believes it is ''highly unlikely" that the documents CBS has obtained could have been produced in 1972 or 1973.

Flynn said his doubts were also based on his belief that the curved apostrophe was not available on electric typewriters at the time, although documents from the period reviewed by the Globe show it was. He acknowledged that the quality of the copies of the documents he examined was poor.

[?]

Bouffard, the Ohio document specialist, said that he had dismissed the Bush documents in an interview with The New York Times because the letters and formatting of the Bush memos did not match any of the 4,000 samples in his database. But Bouffard yesterday said that he had not considered one of the machines whose type is not logged in his database: the IBM Selectric Composer. Once he compared the Bush memos to Selectric Composer samples obtained from Interpol, the international police agency, Bouffard said his view shifted.

In the Times interview, Bouffard had also questioned whether the military would have used the Composer, a large machine. But Bouffard yesterday provided a document indicating that as early as April 1969 -- three years before the dates of the CBS memos -- the Air Force had completed service testing for the Composer, possibly in preparation for purchasing the typewriters.

As for the raised ''th" that appears in the Bush memos -- to refer, for example, to units such as the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron -- Bouffard said that custom characters on the Composer's metal typehead ball were available in the 1970s, and that the military could have ordered such custom balls from IBM.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 06:51 PM

It seems that many distinct questions are being lumped together here.

Some of those questions are:

      1) Did Georges W. Bush fulfill his duties during his National Guard years?

       2) Did 60 Minutes or the DNC resort to fabricating documents to smear Bush?

       3) Does any of this have squat to do with Bush's ability to perform the duties of president?

To question 1, Bush served AT LEAST 700 DAYS during his 6 year commitment. Almost two straight years to begin his service. Both of these figures are unusually high. As a Guardsman during the same general period, I was only required to put in about 370-390 days for my honorable discharge. Bush must have been doing something extra that the military wanted him to do. Covert operations? Train foreign pilots? One can only speculate since these activities were not part of his "official" records.

Question 2, the documents 60 Minutes used are copies. They claim that their source will not remit the "origionals" and 60 Minutes will not tell who the source is. These facts make discussions of type style absurd since the "origionals" were represented as hand written and signed. The copies are mechanically assisted in some way, photocopied, and are also (I believe) unsigned.

Question 3, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 07:44 PM

just one point of Barbara O'Briens quote above

....need to measure type (body size, ledding, letter spacing...

even though its pronounced ledding, surely she means leading.
(as it refers to lead as in lead type)

one other point, minor as well, letterpress is still around
its just used for specialized applications like, crash imprinting
numbering, foilstamping and diecutting.

a printer friend I know can set lead type and start printing an envelope in the time it takes a computer to boot up and run pagemaker.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 07:45 PM

DougR - you make a good point about Brian Goldberg. You make a very bad point when you say I am "rivited to the point that there is no proof of media bias". I never said that. I do think that CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS do a better job of being ethical.

Goldberg makes a point that this supposed "liberal" bias began during the Reagan years, when right wing conservatives began airing talk shows and people like Rush Limbaugh got their start. If anything, it was overcompensating.

I assume that if you feel that there is a liberal bias at CBS, then you must acknowledge that there is a conservative bias at Fox.   Is that what fair and balanced is supposed to be?

In my years at CNBC there were many conservatives in the newsroom. I do think they did their best to keep it balanced at the time.   With the advent of Fox, I think most news has become a circus.

Again to my point, I think you are only focusing on one source - or several sources from the same viewpoint. Fair and balanced means gathering thought from a variety of sources and then YOU make the decision.   Since you have said that you won't watch 60 minutes or watch Michael Moore, and the only sources you've quoted are conservative in nature, I have to assume that you are simply following party line when you make these statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 07:48 PM

You can bet that a National Guard outfit during an active war in the 70s would not have access to the best equipment at any level. Upon my completion of my active service in the Nam in 69 I was in a Marine Corps reseve outfit in Washington DC (4th CAG) operating out the the Navy Yard. We had crap to work with, and I suspect that no Reserve unit had the "modern" gear spoken to above. And to break someones heart, there were no "girls", there were clerk typists, who pounded on manuals.

This one will be easy since some of the units other documents will display the same characteristics, as the Killian memos, or is CBS/Democrat group going to tell us there was a special typewriter, purchased just to do the Bush memos? Also the units TO&E (no I'm not going to tell you what it stands for) will deliniate all items with serial numbers, and I suspect someone is already on that track as I write.

BTW I write as an ex-cop, who used and then disgarded Questioned Document Examiners, when easier more determnative information was available.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 07:57 PM

Can you explain why the documents that Bush himself released have the same typeface issues, including the subscript "th"?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 08:08 PM

Sorry, Claymore.

Documents claimed by Bush himself have the same feature, so obviously it WAS in use in at least some of his units.

The argument that goes "I was once in a Guard unit in New hampshire, so I can definitively what one in San Diego was like...you weren't in the guard so you don't know," won't work here. You were not in Bush's unit. Bush's unit obviously, by his own admission, by his own documents, had such a typewriter. There is no question about the specialized character.

The only question that remains is proportional spacing, which many of the same typewriters, including the Selectric Composers, had.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 09:15 PM

Unless origional documents are produced, including signatures, these 60 Minutes copies are phoney.

The burden of proof is on 60 Minutes. Period.

All talk of type style, font size, Selectric II balls, etc. (ad nauseum) can be considered intentional obfuscation.

The phoney copies have been rejected by Killian's son, his wife and his commanding officer. Only 60 Minutes like them.

If authentic, the documents must have been stolen from Killian's wife's house. They are personal and were never part of Bush's official records, most of which were recently released.

If this plays out as many people suspect it will, this story will eclipse Watergate, since it shows both political corruption and collusion by members of the major mews media.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 09:51 PM

PDQ. You have no proof either PDQ. Wishful thinking perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:01 PM

Ron:

What part of the concept "burden of proof" don't you understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:02 PM

The same one that you aren't grasping.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:25 PM

Ron:

You said "as a Kerry supporter I would be outraged if this were a forgery AND it was traced back to the Kerry campaign. Dirty tricks are wrong, but so is jumping to conclusions."

What will you do to back up this statement? Vote for Bush?!!

I have an idea. We don't have too many crows in Buzzard's Roost, Nevada, but our favorite bird here is big, black and homely. I'm quite sure that, once baked into a pie, that you could not tell the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:35 PM

Uh, pdq, what Ron is saying is that your statement

"If authentic, the documents must have been stolen from Killian's wife's house. They are personal and were never part of Bush's official records, most of which were recently released."

Would also require proof. Remember, these were memos written BY Killian, not TO him. Thus we know that, if they are genuine, he did NOT have the only copy; the recipient must have had one, too.

There are plenty of ways for a copy to have gotten to CBS, and none of them require robbing Killian's house.

Second, just because Bush didn't release them doesn't mean they're private. They are NOT personal, in fact. They are, in fact, memos written on Guard stationary from one officer to another. That means that, if genuine, they ARE part of the official record. Just not of the "most" that Bush released.

Wonder why that would be, PDQ?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:37 PM

What bug got into you PDQ?? I hope you are taking something for it.

Frankly, I would not vote for Kerry is this is true. I would not vote for Bush either.   Unlike you, I did not drink the Kool-aid. I hold my elected officials feet to the fire. I do not believe in blind faith.

I do not have a clue as to what you were trying to say in that last paragraph, except for the possiblity that you were trying to say something about "eating crow".   If you truly read my comments, you would see that I have nothing to "eat crow" about, no matter how this turns out. Unlike you, I do not jump to conclusions. However, I do try to use logic.

"Burden of Proof" is a concept for the courts by the way. Journalism relies on ethics. One of the rules is that you verify facts. That does not mean using the Drudge Report as one source and three other media outlets that quote Drudge as "confirmation". It means you are given a fact and you verify it. Based on what CBS said, they had several analysis done on the documents. More than one person verified the information they contained.

Could they be forgeries?   Of course they could. That would be the downfall of CBS and Dan Rather in particular.   While I can't say for certain that Rather was above the board, I find it highly unlikely that he would jeopardize his career for something like this. He does not stand to gain but has everything to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:54 PM

After the ambulance wrecked and the coffin spilled out into the street, someone remarked "remains to be seen".