OT-OK, let's play Who Wants to Drum Up a Controversy!

[Slumberland]

By the way, does anyone have the skinny on where these "opportunity zones" are going to be? I want to stake my claim on some of that hot property.

[blueduke]

-Bush: Conned his way into the Guard, where it is documented (60 Mins, last night) that he was "absent" a good portion of the time.

-Kerry: VOLUNTEERED to serve his country and was is actual combat.

60 Minutes has some explaining to do......................

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.as ... 0909d.html
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php


Kerry didn't "volunteer". He tried to get a deferment but couldn't. Then joined the Naval Reserves. Then went to Vietnam where some of his claims has more than a few holes in them. Then came home and slandered the fellas still over there, caused the torture meter to be turned up on our POW's, and then went to Paris to meet with the Viet Cong. Now there's a formal investigation by the Navy regarding his medals. You're right. There is no comarpisan.

[Brando70]

By the way, does anyone have the skinny on where these "opportunity zones" are going to be? I want to stake my claim on some of that hot property.

Hope you like western Kansas. They wouldn't be opportunity zones if there was already opportunity there.

Good point about policy, Slumber. Both candidates talk about their policies repeatedly, it's just not the stuff that makes the news.

[Brando70]

While I could give a rat's behind about the Vietnam thing, the slumbering media has finally, after five years, caught on to the most interesting part of the Bush story: why Bush wouldn't take a physical. Given his past and the military's drug testing policy -- as well as his own dancing around the subject of drug use in his youth -- it's not hard to forumulate some interesting hypotheses. Not that I would hold that against his ability to be president, I'd just find it interesting.

[pk500]

Told myself after the never-ending Swifties thread that I'm done with political threads in here, and I'm sticking to it.

Plus I'm voting proudly for Michael Badnarik, so Bush and Kerry are moot points to me anyways.

Take care,
PK

[Slumberland]

I heard that Michael Badnarik co-authored a cookbook called "How To Eat Infant" in 1973.

[pk500]

I heard that Michael Badnarik co-authored a cookbook called "How To Eat Infant" in 1973.

And it was a best-seller among the Viet Cong and Texas National Guard. It also was required reading, along with that month's issue of Playboy, on all Swift Boats on patrol in the Mekong Delta.

Take care,
PK

[Jared]

60 Minutes has some explaining to do......................

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.as ... 0909d.html
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

Blue,

Two minutes of research would bring this up:

http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html

IBM announces the Electromatic Model 04 electric typewriter, featuring the revolutionary concept of proportional spacing. By assigning varied rather than uniform spacing to different sized characters, the Type 4 recreated the appearance of a printed page, an effect that was further enhanced by a typewriter ribbon innovation that produced clearer, sharper words on the page. The <b>proportional spacing</b> feature became a staple of the IBM Executive series typewriters.

Can't wait to see the sites you linked to put up retractions.

And for those that don't know, these sites claim that one of the documents on 60 Minutes could be a forgery because it's uses proportional spacing fonts (which they claim weren't available in 1972) and a superscript font. This link clearly shows that these fonts were used by tpewriters in the IBM Executive series and that this started in 1941. Haven't bothered to look up the claim about superscripts yet....but my guess is that typewriters back in the day had this ability as well.

It's a great way to try and ignore the evidence here...but it's a pretty pathetic, easily debunkable claim.

[blueduke]

Somebody needs a little reading and comprehension work............

UPDATE: Thanks to all the readers who have written regarding this post. Several have pointed out that the Executive line of IBM typewriters did have proportionally spaced fonts, although no reader has found the font used in the memos to be a familiar one or thought that the an IBM Executive was likely to have been used by the National Guard in the early 1970's. Reader Monty Walls has also cited the IBM Selectric Composer. However, reader Eric Courtney adds this wrinkle:

The "Memo To File" of August 18, 1973 also used specialized typesetting characters not used on typewriters. These include the superscript "th" in 187th, and consistent ’ (right single quote) used instead of a typewriter's generic ' (apostrophe). These are the sorts of things that typesetters did manually until the advent of smart correction in things like Microsoft Word.

UPDATE 2: Reader John Risko adds:

I was a clerk/typist for the US Navy at the Naval Underwater Systems Center (NUSC) in Newport RI for my summer job in 1971 when I was in college. I note the following with regard to the Killian memos:

1) Tom Mortensen is absolutely correct. Variable type was used only for special printing jobs, like official pamphlets. These documents are forgeries, and not even good ones. Someone could have at least found an old pre-Selectric IBM (introduced around 1962). Actually, I believe we were using IBM Model C's at the time, which was the precursor to the Selectric.

2) I also used a Variype machine in 1971. I fooled around with it in my spare time. It was incredibly difficult to set up and use. It was also extremely hard to correct mistakes on the machine. Most small letters used two spaces. Capital letters generally used three spaces. I think letters like "i" may have used one space. Anyway, you can see that this type of machine was piloted by an expert, and it would NEVER be used for a routine memo. A Lt. Colonel would not be able to identify a Varitype machine, let alone use it.

3) US Navy paper at the time was not 8 1/2 x 11. It was 8 x 10 1/2. I believe this was the same throughout the military, but someone will have to check on that. This should show up in the Xeroxing, which should have lines running along the sides of the Xerox copy.

4) I am amused by the way "147 th Ftr.Intrcp Gp." appears in the August 1, 1972 document. It may have been written that way in non-forged documents, but as somone who worked for ComCruDesLant, I know the military liked to bunch things together. I find "147 th" suspicious looking. 147th looks better to me, but the problem with Microsoft Word is that it keeps turning the "th" tiny if it is connected to a number like 147. And finally......

5) MORE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF FORGERY: I had neglected even to look at the August 18, 1973 memo to file. This forger was a fool. This fake document actually does have the tiny "th" in "187th" and there is simply no way this could have occurred in 1973. There are no keys on any typewriter in common use in 1973 which could produce a tiny "th." The forger got careless after creating the August 1, 1972 document and slipped up big-time.

In summary, the variable type reveals the Killian memos to be crude forgeries, the tiny "th" confirms it in the 8/18/73 memo, and I offer my other points as icing on the cake.

Memo to Jared.............You're hanging your hat on a typewriter and you're not even sure the armed services used it. LOL Hello? Anybody home?

Whether it's a genuine forgery means nothing to me. Kerry's slandering of his fellow officers and soldiers and his trip to meet with the Viet cong tells me all I need to know about that lout........
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 4130.shtml

Whining about the media investigating Kerry is laughable too. where have you been for the last two years? Bush has been attacked for at least that long. and show me one time where an AP reporter printed a total lie in an attempt to smear Kerry like they did Bush last week.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/247/reg ... s_bP.shtml

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1207644/posts

"Debunk" that

[FatPitcher]

The Cheney thing was ridiculous. That guy is the biggest a--hole in politics I have seen in my lifetime. It's not like Kerry's going to send Osama bin Laden a shiny new passport to come into the U.S. Cheney's like Spiro Agnew, but with a pole up his butt that keeps him in a constant state of irritation.

I do agree all the Vietnam stuff on both sides is pretty irrelevant on whether these two men can do the job as president today. Unfortunately, it seems like this is a smear election rather than an issue election. Both sides want to attack character rather than policies, and it appears they do that because, frankly, it works. It's been shown time and time again that negative campaigning is often more effective than campaigning on the issues.

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/006678.shtml#006678

Kerry had a reasonably stable (but confusing) position on Iraq until recently with his "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" comment. Last year, he said we needed to spend as much as it took to win. Now he's complaining about how much money isn't being spent at home (when in fact it would not be spent at home anyway; the deficit would be less).

Barnes may be telling the truth, but he has no credibility.. If you can't understand why one of Kerry's primary fundraisers ($500,000) isn't to be believed, you're probably dougb.

The reason I am more concerned about Kerry's Vietnam-era actions than Bush's is that 1) Kerry exhibits the same character flaws now that he did then, showing a consistent pattern of unprincipled opportunism and 2) Kerry's actions after he returned caused a lot of damage to other people (Vets, POWs, Cambodians, Vietnamese).

Personally, I think the documents the CBS has are a Rove plant. The election is pretty much sewn up, and if the media's credibility continues to crumble because of stuff like this, the "Swift Boat flyer", the NYT last-gasp defense of Kerry, etc., Bush will have free reign in his second term. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[Brando70]

Somebody needs a little reading and comprehension work............

UPDATE: Thanks to all the readers who have written regarding this post. Several have pointed out that the Executive line of IBM typewriters did have proportionally spaced fonts, although no reader has found the font used in the memos to be a familiar one or thought that the an IBM Executive was likely to have been used by the National Guard in the early 1970's. Reader Monty Walls has also cited the IBM Selectric Composer. However, reader Eric Courtney adds this wrinkle:

The "Memo To File" of August 18, 1973 also used specialized typesetting characters not used on typewriters. These include the superscript "th" in 187th, and consistent ’ (right single quote) used instead of a typewriter's generic ' (apostrophe). These are the sorts of things that typesetters did manually until the advent of smart correction in things like Microsoft Word.

UPDATE 2: Reader John Risko adds:

I was a clerk/typist for the US Navy at the Naval Underwater Systems Center (NUSC) in Newport RI for my summer job in 1971 when I was in college. I note the following with regard to the Killian memos:

1) Tom Mortensen is absolutely correct. Variable type was used only for special printing jobs, like official pamphlets. These documents are forgeries, and not even good ones. Someone could have at least found an old pre-Selectric IBM (introduced around 1962). Actually, I believe we were using IBM Model C's at the time, which was the precursor to the Selectric.

2) I also used a Variype machine in 1971. I fooled around with it in my spare time. It was incredibly difficult to set up and use. It was also extremely hard to correct mistakes on the machine. Most small letters used two spaces. Capital letters generally used three spaces. I think letters like "i" may have used one space. Anyway, you can see that this type of machine was piloted by an expert, and it would NEVER be used for a routine memo. A Lt. Colonel would not be able to identify a Varitype machine, let alone use it.

3) US Navy paper at the time was not 8 1/2 x 11. It was 8 x 10 1/2. I believe this was the same throughout the military, but someone will have to check on that. This should show up in the Xeroxing, which should have lines running along the sides of the Xerox copy.

4) I am amused by the way "147 th Ftr.Intrcp Gp." appears in the August 1, 1972 document. It may have been written that way in non-forged documents, but as somone who worked for ComCruDesLant, I know the military liked to bunch things together. I find "147 th" suspicious looking. 147th looks better to me, but the problem with Microsoft Word is that it keeps turning the "th" tiny if it is connected to a number like 147. And finally......

5) MORE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF FORGERY: I had neglected even to look at the August 18, 1973 memo to file. This forger was a fool. This fake document actually does have the tiny "th" in "187th" and there is simply no way this could have occurred in 1973. There are no keys on any typewriter in common use in 1973 which could produce a tiny "th." The forger got careless after creating the August 1, 1972 document and slipped up big-time.

In summary, the variable type reveals the Killian memos to be crude forgeries, the tiny "th" confirms it in the 8/18/73 memo, and I offer my other points as icing on the cake.

Memo to Jared.............You're hanging your hat on a typewriter and you're not even sure the armed services used it. LOL Hello? Anybody home?

Whether it's a genuine forgery means nothing to me. Kerry's slandering of his fellow officers and soldiers and his trip to meet with the Viet cong tells me all I need to know about that lout........
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 4130.shtml

Whining about the media investigating Kerry is laughable too. where have you been for the last two years? Bush has been attacked for at least that long. and show me one time where an AP reporter printed a total lie in an attempt to smear Kerry like they did Bush last week.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/247/reg ... s_bP.shtml

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1207644/posts

"Debunk" that

Ah, Free Republic, where anonymous angry white guys can hang out and chat and claim to be experts on everything from AP story innaccuracies to 1970s typefaces.

I'm not saying the documents couldn't be fake -- hell, people thought the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were legit for centuries. The media can be fooled pretty easily. I just need more proof than Brent "Bozo" Bozell's Scaife-funded screeching and some member of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders who can recall typefaces and paper sizes from 30+ years ago from memory.

[blueduke]

Ah, Free Republic, where anonymous angry white guys can hang out and chat and claim to be experts on everything from AP story innaccuracies to 1970s typefaces.

First off your boy Jared linked stories from their site and I notice you had no problem with those. What a surprise LOL, Second the AP shenanigans are fact.

If this little deal (phoney document) is soooooo easily "debunked", explain to us why even CBS News is launching an investigation? it's big news now Jack. But let's not let facts get in the way of our little rant

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Sep9.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics ... 909-1.html
http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsd.htm

Dan Rather is described to be "shellshocked". Why is it every single story that is negative against Kerry backers of the coward, fraud, and liar attack the source as opposed to answering the charges with proof they're b.s.? Moveon.org has spent over 100 million dollars in negative ads and stories against Bush (who personally wouldn't be worth my time if McCain, Keyes, Buchanan, or even Zell Miller were running). Why is it that our sworn enemies (North Korea, Iran, China, Al queda) back John Kerry? There's a reason for that and it's not because they think he's a patriot. But that's okay Jack. Just come back with "angry white guys" nonsense. You may want to rethink that stategy . Jared apparently likes the site too.

When the substance is gone the name calling starts on the left and it always starts with racism references. Bozell brings one example after another of media bias and names names and quotes their own bile when doing so. Looks to me like Brokaw, Rather, or any of the other leftist morons would challange this man or at the least sue him for libel. Prove to us where Bozell is in error other than the usual leftist psycho babble. A little "proof" would help every now and then. Try it

Oh, and next time, don't run a Massachusetts liberal who badmouthed his fellow soldiers, made wild claims about atrocities, threw his medals onto the White House lawn, RE-ENACTED battles he was involved in, LIED to get said medals, voted against every weapon system put before him, voted against increases in intelligence spending, and to top it all off....

is running as a STRONG ON DEFENSE, LOOK AT MY FOUR MONTHS IN VIETNAM, candidate

You want to back a man who should be kicked out of office for his treasonous activities go ahead. Knock yourself out. But if you're going to make a feeble attempt of questioning a poster's skin color or anything else come back with something besides that weak sister swing you took at those you happen to disagree with.

[Jared]

Ah, Free Republic, where anonymous angry white guys can hang out and chat and claim to be experts on everything from AP story innaccuracies to 1970s typefaces.

First off your boy Jared linked stories from their site and I notice you had no problem with those. What a surprise LOL, Second the AP shenanigans are fact.

The AP thing is fact...and it was retracted within 12-24 hours of it going out, because it was wrong. They made a mistake, and they retracted it. Sloppy reporting? Hell yes. But they quickly corrected it once they figure out it was wrong.

If this little deal (phoney document) is soooooo easily "debunked", explain to us why even CBS News is launching an investigation? it's big news now Jack. But let's not let facts get in the way of our little rant

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Sep9.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics ... 0909-1.htm
http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsd.htm

You might be right about this being a forgery. Though I think it should be given a few days. The skepticism from our posts was because some of the original articles you mentioned were stating things that were clearly not true in their original posts (that there weren't common typewriters that could do proportional spacing and superscripts, when the Selectric could). It seemed like people jumping on something little to cast doubt on the whole thing. But now, I'm not so sure. People need to find some old typewriters from back in the day and see if this could be replicated on it. I'll give the story a few days before making an opinion on it. But you might be right, Blue. This one could be a forgery.

Dan Rather is described to be "shellshocked". Why is it every single story that is negative against Kerry backers of the coward, fraud, and liar attack the source as opposed to answering the charges with proof they're b.s.?

Ummm...didn't the Swift Vets attack the source of the after action reports as fraudulent?

Moveon.org has spent over 100 million dollars in negative ads and stories against Bush (who personally wouldn't be worth my time if McCain, Keyes, Buchanan, or even Zell Miller were running). Why is it that our sworn enemies (North Korea, Iran, China, Al queda) back John Kerry? There's a reason for that and it's not because they think he's a patriot. But that's okay Jack. Just come back with "angry white guys" nonsense. You may want to rethink that stategy . Jared apparently likes the site too.

I don't particularly "like" Free Republic. There's lots of crap posted there. But they were popped up on the google search, and they had reprinted an article there. That wasn't an endorsement of it.

And anyways, now you're going off into the deep end with this "our sworn enemies back John Kerry" stuff.

When the substance is gone the name calling starts on the left and it always starts with racism references. Bozell brings one example after another of media bias and names names and quotes their own bile when doing so. Looks to me like Brokaw, Rather, or any of the other leftist morons would challange this man or at the least sue him for libel. Prove to us where Bozell is in error other than the usual leftist psycho babble. A little "proof" would help every now and then. Try it

Bozell has been "in error" lots of other times. If you'd like, I can document it.

Oh, and next time, don't run a Massachusetts liberal who badmouthed his fellow soldiers, made wild claims about atrocities, threw his medals onto the White House lawn, RE-ENACTED battles he was involved in, LIED to get said medals, voted against every weapon system put before him, voted against increases in intelligence spending, and to top it all off....

is running as a STRONG ON DEFENSE, LOOK AT MY FOUR MONTHS IN VIETNAM, candidate

You want to back a man who should be kicked out of office for his treasonous activities go ahead. Knock yourself out. But if you're going to make a feeble attempt of questioning a poster's skin color or anything else come back with something besides that weak sister swing you took at those you happen to disagree with.

Wow. That's got just about every single stereotype/falsehood about Kerry in there. Don't have the time to respond to all of them...but if you look, there are sensible responses to nearly all of these claims on the Internet.

Anyways, you might be right about the documents Blue. Let's see how it plays out.

[Andy76]

If these documents are fake, it's extremely poor journalism. To be honest, they do look suspicious, but I'm far from an expert.

Blue, not sure if you read everything you linked to, but CBS is currently standing behind the story and documents. Supposedly they talked to Killian's CO. Also, I think both sides here could stand to tone down the rhetoric and have more civilized discussions.

[blueduke]

Wow. That's got just about every single stereotype/falsehood about Kerry in there. Don't have the time to respond to all of them...but if you look, there are sensible responses to nearly all of these claims on the Internet.

First off Jared let me commend you for being a stand-up guy regarding the suspected forgery. Not many people would do that. Props to you. Now on to the other............

Is anyone saying Kerry did not bad mouth his fellow soldiers? it's clearly on the record he did. it's also on the record while still enlisted in the service he met with the Viet Cong in Paris......during wartime. That is a crime in itself. He also helped stage anti-war protests while still enlisted. Another crime. He made claims that could not be documented and those claims were cause for POW's to be tortured even more. I don't sdee how or why anyone would want to defend this.

For the record..............

On Feb. 18, 1966, John Kerry signed a six-year enlistment contract with the Navy (plus a six-month extension during wartime). He also signed an Officer Candidate contract for six years – five years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and one year of inactive standby reserves.

Since Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY after only three years and 18 days, on Jan. 3, 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year and not more than 17 days of active duty for training. Most significant, however, is that Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

That means as a commissioned officer Kerry was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war.

Another one of those interesting ‘clerical errors’ is that Kerry did not obtain an honorable discharge until March 12, 2001, even though his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972.

On Jan. 3, 1970, Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainbridge, Md. Therefore, there should be Performance Records for two years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves. Have these records been released?

Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's commanding officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled?

Kerry’s conduct as a Ready Reservist participating as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War was criminal, some veterans now argue:

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the U.S. Senate.
3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the U.S. Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.
4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.
5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry, by his own words and actions, violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Failing a REAL good explanation, Lt. Kerry is in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 & U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

The Constitution's 14th Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Senator Kerry, having established his ‘service’ as the foundation for his campaign, has some explaining to do. The only way to chill the barrage of questions is to sign off on a Standard Form (SF) 180 and let the media examine John Kerry’s FULL military record.

It's also a fact he has voted against every major weapon system proposal since the Reagan Administration, voted against increases in veteran's pay and health insurance, voted against more funding for intelligence, and is now claiming to do better job with our nation's security. North Korea, Iran, and the others are all backing Kerry btw. Now someone point me to any falsehoods.

[Andy76]

Here's one falsehood. From factcheck.org:

Kerry the Senator

Once elected, however, Kerry's voting record evolved. He did cast votes more than a decade ago against the B-2 Stealth Bomber in 1989, 1991 and 1992. But by 1992 even President Bush (the current incumbent's father) was calling for cancellation of the B-2 and promising to cut military spending by 30% in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was no secret -- Bush did that in his 1992 State of the Union address. But Miller left out that little detail.

Miller did avoid some earlier Republican excesses, as when Miller's fellow Georgia senator, Republican Saxby Chambliss, told reporters on Feb. 21 in a Bush campaign conference call with reporters that Kerry had a "a 32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems." Since Kerry has only been in Congress for just under 20 years, the Chambliss statement was an impossibility. Republicans have also accused Kerry of voting against more mainstream weapons including the M-1 Abrams tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, but have been unable to cite any specific votes against those weapons. The best they can do is point to occasional votes Kerry cast against the entire Pentagon budget, which hardly constitutes opposition to any specific weapon.

Kerry voted against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995. Kerry also voted against the Pentagon authorization bills (which provide authority to spend but not the actual money) in those years and also in 1996 . However, he hasn't opposed an annual Pentagon appropriation since then, nor did he do so in 16 of his 19 years in office. So by the Republicans' own measuring stick, Kerry voted for the weapons they list far more often than he voted against them.

[blueduke]

Blue, not sure if you read everything you linked to, but CBS is currently standing behind the story and documents. Supposedly they talked to Killian's CO.

considering the repurcussions they have no choice do they?

[Andy76]

No, I fully expect them to recant and apologize if their internal investigation proves the docs to be forgeries. So, we'll wait and see.

[Teal]

UPDATE:


Check out this site:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/


This guy did one of the memos in MSWord and overlaid it on the CBS doc. The results? See for yourself...

[Teal]

Check this out:




Killian's Secretary: "These Are Not Real"

Lt. Col. Jerry Killian’s secretary says she did not type the CBS documents.

HOUSTON — The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.

Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1956 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.

“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”

Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”

“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said.

But, she said, telltale signs of forgery abounded in the four memos, which contained the supposed writings of her ex-boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

She said the typeface on the documents did not match either of the two typewriters that she used during her time at the Guard. She identified those machines as a mechanical Olympia, which was replaced by an IBM Selectric in the early 1970s.

She spoke fondly of the Olympia machine, which she said had a key with the “th” superscript character that was the focus of much debate in the CBS memos. Experts have said that the Selectric, and mechanical typewriters such as the Olympia, could not produce proportional spacing, found in the disputed documents.

[Brando70]

I don't know if the memos are real. After looking at them, I can certainly see why they are suspicious.

But after doing some reading on this, a lot of the technical arguments fall flat. IBM typewriters could do a lot of the stuff that initial forgery advocates said they couldn't -- proportional spacing, TH superscripts, Times New Roman fonts. Now that doesn't mean that the typewriters used in Killian's offices could do these things. It just means that technically, you could produce these memos on 1970s typewriters.

I also think, if this secretary says she didn't type them, you have to take that pretty seriously. However, she's 86, and she's claiming to remember typeface fonts from 30 years ago. Sorry, but that's a little hard to believe.

I think this needs to continue to be investigated, as I don't think it's been conclusive one way or the other. I am totally open to them being forged, as a lot of smart people have been fooled by forgeries before (remember the Hitler Diaries?).

[Slumberland]

What a distraction this all is. Neither side needs this. The man's got a record to run on. The dems should just be attacking that.

[Brando70]

I agree, Slumber. I can understand why people don't like Kerry because he came back and protested against the war and the men who fought it. Or who think Bush took the easy way out. But they were young men then and it was 30 years ago. I think you should judge them on what they've been doing as politicians more than anything else. Their service is really a non-issue for me on either side.

I do think this issue regarding the memos needs to be resolved quickly, however. If these are forgeries, that's a pretty serious bit of political medling by whoever created them.

[Jared]

Check this out:
Killian's Secretary: "These Are Not Real"

Lt. Col. Jerry Killian’s secretary says she did not type the CBS documents.

It's interesting what this article omits:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/14/184121/754

(Link to pasted Dallas Morning News article, to avoid having to register to read the whole article.)

She said she did not recall typing the memos reported by CBS News, though she said they accurately reflect the viewpoints of Lt. Col. Killian and documents that would have been in the personal file. Also, she could not say whether the CBS documents corresponded memo for memo with that file.

"The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones," she said.

She says it's a forgery, bad for whoever made the memo. However, she also said that the views in the memo were consistent with the views of Lt. Col. Killian. Bad for Bush, since it's consistent with the CBS story (that Kilian was getting pressure from above to give Bush good evals, etc. etc.).

As for the overlay of the memo in a word memo, they don't exactly match.



A closer look shows that the th doesn't exactly line up on both AND that the letters in the Word document are exactly lined up, while the letters in the purported memo aren't (they're all a little off, consistent with a typewriter).

These memos are still somewhat suspicious...but there are still some points that are inconsistent with the forgery story.

[Teal]

Jared:

Good Lord, they've really gotten down to nitpicking, haven't they? Besides, the most important thing to me is that the people closest to Killian debunked this stuff as patently untrue before CBS decided to run it anyway. His son, his widow, Barnes own daughter, for crying out loud, called her dad a liar. This is really fishy, and CBS is insane to continue to stand by this... it's going to bury them if they're not careful. I don't think Dan knew it was a forgery. I'm not silly enought to accuse him of that. I just think he REAALLLY wanted it to be true, and got so giddy about the possibility of having a "smoking gun" that he forgot one of the most basic requirements of a good journalist: CHECK YOUR SOURCES. He's an elitist, arrogant old dinosaur, and he's far too proud to say "oops". But he'd better eat his crow like a good little boy, or he'll get a boatload of humble pie shoved down his throat...