Friday, September 10, 2004

 

Dan "Clinton" Rather, a.k.a. CBS News Has Lost It.

Go read Drudge to see the Dan Rather transcript. Visit Ace for all the latest news.

Now, I don't do news. I do analysis. I'm like BASF that way; I don't make news, I make it better.

Folks, I'm not going to pull punches here: they're lying. They know they're lying. How? Let's go through their "arguments" "proving" that the records are "true." "Ok?"

IN FACT, OTHER BUSH MILITARY RECORDS ALREADY OFFICIALLY RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF SHOW THE SAME SUPERSCRIPT. HERE'S ONE..... FROM 1968.

Yup, that's right-- see here. Page 3, line 2. That's a superscript alright. A superscript that's barely legible as a superscript. One that's not repeated later in the document when "111th" is typed again-- twice. That's their proof, which is no proof at all.

SOME ANALYSTS OUTSIDE CBS SAY THEY BELIEVE THE TYPEFACE ON THESE MEMOS IS NEW TIMES ROMAN.... WHICH THEY CLAIM WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE 1970S.

CBS attacks a claim already debunked in the blogosphere. It's like defending Bill Clinton from wifebeating after he's accused of cheating on his wife-- it's a response to the wrong charge. Were there mechanical printing devices available in the late 1960's and early 1970's that did Times New Roman? Yes. They were for professional typesetters, or people with way too much time on their hands. It's not outside of the realm of possibility that LtCol Killian had one-- but at a backwater Air National Guard base at the shit end of the Vietnam War, I significantly doubt that he did. Plain ol' Occam's Razor, folks.

Oh, and if that base did-- they didn't use it consistently, not even in the same documents.

And that still doesn't explain how a typewriter in 1973 kerns Times New Roman.

Wait-- this is my favorite part. It's only really fun when you read it in the transcript vice watching it on TV:

HE SAYS HE BELIEVES THEY ARE REAL...BUT IS CONCERNED ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING EXAMINED BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE QUESTIONING THE DOCUMENTS....BECAUSE DETIORATION OCCURS EACH TIME A DOCUMENT IS REPRODUCED.....AND THE DOCUMENTS BEING ANALYZED OUTSIDE OF CBS HAVE BEEN PHOTOCOPIED, FAXED, SCANNED AND DOWNLOADED.... AND ARE FAR REMOVED FROM THE DOCUMENTS CBS STARTED WITH WHICH WERE ALSO PHOTOCOPIES.

Remember that please.

DOCUMENT AND HANDWRITING EXAMINER MARCEL MATLEY DID THIS INTERVIEW WITH US PRIOR TO THE 60 MINUTES BROADCAST.

HE LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENTS AND THE SIGNATURES OF COLONEL JERRY KILLIAN.... COMPARING KNOWN DOCUMENTS WITH THE COLONEL'S SIGNATURE ON THE NEWSLY DISCOVERED ONES.

Matley: "WE LOOK BASICALLY AT WHAT'S CALLED SIGNIFICANT OR INSIGNIFICANT FEATURES TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S THE SAME PERSON OR NOT. I HAVE NO PROBLEM IDENTIFYING THEM.

Rather: MATLEY FINDS THE SIGNAT'URES TO BE SOME OF THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE...WE TALKED TO HIM AGAIN TODAY BY SATELLITE.

Matley "SINCE IT IS REPRESENTED THAT SOME OF THEM ARE DEFINITELY HIS... THEN WE CAN CONCLUDE THEY ARE HIS SIGNATURES."
----------
Why is it important to have these two sections back to back?

Because the "expert" on fonts says it's hard to read these documents, as they've been photocopied numerous times.

Then the handwriting "expert" says this is definitely Killian's signature.

Excuse me for mentioning the obvious, but even if the handwriting signature expert is right-- some experts disagree-- forging a signature on a photocopy is as easy as cutting and pasting another signature onto the page. And our handwriting "expert" would be none the wiser, because yes, it's an actual signature from Killian.

If it is an actual signature, which I suspect. Because these documents are, after all, forgeries.

Rather: IT IS THE INFORMATION IN THE NEW DOCUMENTS THAT IS MOST COMPELLING FOR PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORD IN THE NATIONAL GUARD. AUTHOR JIM MORE HAS WRITTEN TWO BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT.

Rather: "YOU'VE STUDIED PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORDS FOR 10 YEARS.. ARE THESE DOCUMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE RECORD AS YOU KNOW IT?"

Moore: "THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT WITH THE RECORDS AS I KNOW IT."


That would be the same Jim Moore who wrote Bush's War for Reelection, and Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential.

Christ, Michael Moore is pretty "familiar with President Bush." Why didn't Dan ask Mike for unbiased, newsworthy commentary on this important story.

Folks, here are the facts, available all over the web for anyone with Google and patience:
-- You can't kern Times New Roman on a common typewriter. You can in a modern word processing program.
-- No definitive proof of small-font superscripted "TH" exists. It's used repeatedly in this one memo, however.
-- When typed out in MS Word, the experimental document and the memo line up.
-- Signatures are the easiest part to forge.

Sorry Dan, I think it's off to Hurricane Ivan for you.
-------------
UPDATE: Damn, that crafty Ace beat me to the punch. He says what I say, only better.

He also hammers Rather on a point I skirted by: Danny Boy responds to only the questions he feels are pertinent, when in fact, they are not the pertinent questions at all. Even then, his response is pretty half-assed, but hey, he doesn't have all day to talk about it on TV.

Sigh. I wish I were shocked, but I'm not. Saddened, really. I can think of few things potentially more honorable than being an honest reporter of facts to the public. I can think of few things more dishonorable than abusing that authority.

Rather's destroying what's left of his good name, and for what? To score a point that won't matter in November? Nobody cares about this issue, except the people who've already made up their minds. But what CBS News is doing by playing us all for illiterate fools is driving a mighty big nail into the coffin of their credibility.

They won't get that credibility back-- CNN never did after Tailwind. NBC Dateline wanted to be a "hard" news program but was forced to go to "All Laci, All the Time" because they felt it'd be cooler to blow up a truck on purpose. Oh, wait, that is kinda cool. . . but still dishonest. Primetime: Live bashed Food Lion so badly that you don't even see undercover reporting done anymore on the big networks.

And don't get me started about how everybody played nice with the Baath regime so they could film Tariq Aziz from what the Dagos call his "sensitive size."

Sigh. Again. Just be honest with us, folks. Please. For once?

-------------
CRITICAL UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: Please note, full disclosure-- I did not see the video of this. I went just on the transcript provided by Drudge. That means I do not know whether Rather used the PDF file linked above as his evidence of small-font superscript; he could have used another document. However, I do know that Ace was not convinced of Rather's evidence, so until I can see for myself, I'll assume Ace is correct.

Anyways, my larger point still stands: if most of the documents do not use small-font superscripted TH in Times New Roman that matches the margins of the modern era, why are we to assume that this memo was the "magic memo" that did?

Must've been typewritten in the Grassy Knoll.

And I will stand by to stand by.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?