Bush Texas Air National Guard Memos are Forgeries

[Giordano]

That is false. None were on his boat, but some of his accusers were on other boats at the time and place of some of the incidents.



That is utterly ridiculous. Are you even trying to make reasonable arguments any more or have you just given up?

1. Depends on what you mean by "there." It would appear to me that the crew on the same boat, many of who have testified to Kerry's account of his actions and actively campaigned for him, would know the detailed events best. I do not know the identity, distance or placing of any of these other "witnesses." Do you have a citation?

2. My statement as to the Demonic Child Care accusations was meant as a humorous, but appropriate analogy. If you do not believe it is either, okay. But it was not meant to be an argument to directly address Kerry's veracity nor to generate an actual response. My arguments are in the rest of my threads.

In fact, I note that the title of this thread is about Bush, not Kerry. So perhaps we went off topic before my feeble attempt at humor.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Oh by the way... the leader of the SBVs wasn't even in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry.

In fact, none of his accusers were there during the actions that led to his medals. Only one of his accusers even served under him ever. I wonder how many had any knowledge of his service career first hand, rather than simply believing and reiterating talking points created by politically motivated operatives?

It makes the Satanic Day Care scandals seem evidence-rich in comparison. At least many of the accusers in the latter had been to the Day Care centers in question when they dropped off their kids.

I'm pretty sure Hoffman was there but O'Neill was the one who arrived after Kerry left. O'Neill and Hoffman were the co-founders. Part of the SBV original spin was to word things so it sounded like Hoffman was an admiral at the time of the events. He wasn't. He was a captain but they served, albeit not in the same unit on the same boat, at the same time.

@Sunmaster - it's rather tragic when you allow your partisanship to make you amoral. Regardless of your memory of events from forty years earlier (both Kerry's record and Dubya's record), you seem either totally ignorant of one set of events from 2004, while considering another set to be worthy of a hissy-fit thread as to why the imaginary liberal forum management has stifled all discussion.

Rather's episode is disgraceful. Whether it is more or less disgraceful than the Swift Boat liars might be up for discussion, but the a priori consideration is that both are disgraceful hatchet jobs and SBVT has been clearly proved to be that, but Rather and Mapes are still trying (sort of unsuccessfully, I'd say) to defend their motivations and rationales.

Oh, and to satisfy the McCain Requirement (honor those who've done honorable service) one should examine the way the affidavits, which was their only evidence, were put together. O'Neill sent out a private investigator to get statements. They then winnowed those down to the ones that were critical, edited them to leave out key facts, and sent them back to the service men for their signatures. It wasn't the vets, in general, who cooked their statements. It was the political hacks.

And there is no doubt that the organization was political. O'Neill was an anti-Kerry hack back from his days with that beacon of honesty and fairness, Charles Colson. Hoffman, IMHO, was just a goof looking for a job. Look towards O'Neill and his cronies in the GOP and conservative hatchet groups for the founding fathers of SBVT. The paper trail doesn't show a grassroots organization at all. It's registered address was that of a consulting/accounting firm that specialized in setting up PACs and other organizations so they complied with FEC rules. It was a political organization from the get-go, set-up by a hatchet man (O"Neill).

(For those who don't recognize O'Neill.... he's Jerome Corsi's co-author. Say no more.)

The profit-motive is not insignificant if your entire career depends upon successfully slandering opponents. This applies to O'Neill, clearly. Oh, and the number one contributor? Why GWB made him the ambassador to Belgium, didn't he? To billionaires, that sort of status is just as important as profit.

ETA: Fixed the struck over part to the hilited part.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm pretty sure Hoffman was there but O'Neill was the one who arrived after Kerry left. O'Neill and Hoffman were the co-founders. Part of the SBV original spin was to word things so it sounded like Hoffman was an admiral at the time of the events. He wasn't. He was a captain but they served, albeit not in the same unit on the same boat, at the same time.

@Sunmaster - it's rather tragic when you allow your partisanship to make you amoral. Regardless of your memory of events from forty years earlier (both Kerry's record and Dubya's record), you seem either totally ignorant of one set of events from 2004, while considering another set to be worthy of a hissy-fit thread as to why the imaginary liberal forum management has stifled all discussion.

Rather's episode is disgraceful. Whether it is more or less disgraceful than the Swift Boat liars might be up for discussion, but the a priori consideration is that both are disgraceful hatchet jobs and SBVT has been clearly proved to be that, but Rather and Mapes are still trying (sort of unsuccessfully, I'd say) to defend their motivations and rationales.

Oh, and to satisfy the McCain Requirement (honor those who've done honorable service) one should examine the way the affidavits, which was their only evidence, were put together. O'Neill sent out a private investigator to get statements. They then winnowed those down to the ones that were critical, edited them to leave out key facts, and sent them back to the service men for their signatures. It wasn't the vets, in general, who cooked their statements. It was the political hacks.

And there is no doubt that the organization was political. O'Neill was an anti-Kerry hack back from his days with that beacon of honesty and fairness, Charles Colson. Hoffman, IMHO, was just a goof looking for a job. Look towards O'Neill and his cronies in the GOP and conservative hatchet groups for the founding fathers of SBVT. The paper trail doesn't show a grassroots organization at all. It's registered address was that of a consulting/accounting firm that specialized in setting up PACs and other organizations so they complied with FEC rules. It was a political organization from the get-go, set-up by a hatchet man (O"Neill).

(For those who don't recognize O'Neill.... he's Jerome Corsi's co-author. Say no more.)

The profit-motive is not insignificant if your entire career depends upon successfully slandering opponents. This applies to O'Neill, clearly. Oh, and the number one contributor? Why GWB made him the ambassador to Belgium, didn't he? To billionaires, that sort of status is just as important as profit.

ETA: Fixed the struck over part to the hilited part.

I'm not going to take issue with anything you said except for the implication that my position is amoral. If you read back over the thread, you'll see that both you and others here have been moving my own goalposts forward.

My only claim with respect to the Swift Boat Vet episode is that it was unreasonable to denounce them as disgusting liars, which unfortunately has become something of an accepted "fact" in the liberal version of political history. If you want to show that O'Neill is a disgusting liar, fine. Maybe there are a handful of others whom you can show are disgusting liars too, or can show have been duped (although I think it's really up to them to claim that they were duped). But there were something like 250 signatures on that public letter to Kerry that I posted above, which represented far more than 10% of the surviving population of Swift Boat Vets. That's impressive to me, and I don't think something like that can be accomplished by Karl Rove as a political stunt. The disgust with Kerry was heartfelt and sincere I believe, and it was rooted in his anti-war activism.

Put yourself in the shoes of some of his comrades (the ones that didn't become his friends and sign on early as one of his "band of brothers"). They see a guy who besmirched their reputation, hurt the war effort (possibly increasing their chances of being wounded or killed), and threw his medals away in a symbolic statement of his disrespect for the war and the military which awarded him those medals. Then, 30 years later, that same guy is making his heroic war-time service (all of 4 months by the way, when most everybody else had to serve 12) a centerpiece of his campaign for President.

So these guys come forward because the hypocrisy is too much for them, and they are immediately denounced by Kerry's supporters as disgusting liars. As I've pointed out repeatedly, the tactic of trying to put Kerry's military record beyond reproach is brazenly hypocritical (and illogical to boot). Not only did the same people who wielded this tactic go after George Bush's military record with gusto, but they went after the military records and reputations of Swift Boat Vets themselves.

Note also that there is a huge, huge difference between the episode with the CBS memos and the Swift Boat Vet campaign. Aside from the fact that in the former case, there is incontrovertible evidence of a fraud, and in the latter case it's mostly a clash of recollections and spin of events viewed through different prisms, there is the nature of the groups behind the episodes. In the latter case, it's a group of Vietnam War veterans who acted on their own volition (whether or not many of them were duped by the co-founders). In the former case, it is effectively two people backed by an enormous media empire, which had the presumption of neutrality and objectivity, who used fraudulent documents to try to bring down a Presidential candidate less than two months before the election. And even more galling, Hollywood is trying to rehabilitate the reputation of these two political hacks masquerading as journalists and rewrite history through a movie that is being released today.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm not going to put up with this thread not being in USA Politics much longer, but I just thought I'd post a link to the NY Times review of the movie "Truth," along with this excerpt:

Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush’s reputation.

Yup, us conspiracy theorists who believe Rather and Mapes committed journalist fraud for political purposes are just like JFK truthers. That's the NY Times for you.

 

[dudalb]

What? Politicians will make charges against their opponents that are based on thin or bad evidence????
I am shocked to hear that....SHOCKED I tell you.


Back in 2004 I felt the same way about both the Swift Boat affair and this....typical poltical crap of the "throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks" variety.
And, of course, it is always the OTHER side that does this. My own side would never stoop that low......

 

[Giordano]

What? Politicians will make charges against their opponents that are based on thin or bad evidence????
I am shocked to hear that....SHOCKED I tell you.


Back in 2004 I felt the same way about both the Swift Boat affair and this....typical poltical crap of the "throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks" variety.
And, of course, it is always the OTHER side that does this. My own side would never stoop that low......

Well, your side would but my side wouldn't! Which is your side again?

 

[Meadmaker]

They see a guy who besmirched their reputation, hurt the war effort (possibly increasing their chances of being wounded or killed), and threw his medals away in a symbolic statement of his disrespect for the war and the military which awarded him those medals.

In other words, he expressed political opinions.

It's a democracy. It's ok to say that a war is bad, and saying a war is bad doesn't get anyone killed. Politicians who fight bad wars get people killed. Politicians (or activists, or whatever) who oppose wars do not get people killed.

I am really sick of people in the United States who say that if you are opposed to a war, that somehow means it is your fault that soldiers are getting killed. The sheer illogic of the concept seems to be lost on the people spouting it.

Then, 30 years later, that same guy is making his heroic war-time service (all of 4 months by the way, when most everybody else had to serve 12) a centerpiece of his campaign for President.

In other words, he used his military service, which was admirable, as a political issue. Yes, it's kind of weird that he would do that. After all, military service and political service are so very different that the skills for one don't really transfer to the other very well, but somehow, it works with voters.

And there you, personally, go disparaging a veteran. I don't recall if you mentioned whether or not you have ever served in the military. I know I haven't. John Kerry spent four months longer than me under enemy fire, killed a lot more enemy soldiers than I ever have, and got one more combat wound that I ever did. Based on that, you'll never hear me criticize his record in the military. Maybe yours is more illustrious?

So these guys come forward because the hypocrisy is too much for them, and they are immediately denounced by Kerry's supporters as disgusting liars.

Wait. Hypocrisy? Where? I don't see it. He served in the war. He opposed the war after that service. His political stance against the war doesn't change the fact that he fought honorably during the war. The two aren't connected.

John Kerry served honorably, and anyone who says he didn't is a disgusting liar. To be honest, I don't remember exactly what the swifties said, but if they said that he didn't serve honorably, then they are disgusting liars.


All I remember specifically from them was that he didn't really deserve the medals he got. Well la-dee-dah. Guess what. A lot of people who get medals don't deserve them, and a lot of people who deserve medals don't get them. This didn't start in 1968.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, the tactic of trying to put Kerry's military record beyond reproach is brazenly hypocritical (and illogical to boot).
Not only did the same people who wielded this tactic go after George Bush's military record with gusto, but they went after the military records and reputations of Swift Boat Vets themselves.

Maybe you remember something I don't. I don't recall anyone going after the military records of the swift boat vets. I remember people saying that they didn't serve with John Kerry, or didn't know about Kerry's actual battle experience, but I don't recall anyone questioning their military service.

As for Bush, yeah, that's true. I don't think they should have attacked the record. However, I do see somewhat of a qualitative difference attacking a guy's combat experience versus attacking someone's lack of experience, during a time when combat experience was pretty easy to come by if you wanted it.

Note also that there is a huge, huge difference between the episode with the CBS memos and the Swift Boat Vet campaign. Aside from the fact that in the former case, there is incontrovertible evidence of a fraud, and in the latter case it's mostly a clash of recollections and spin of events viewed through different prisms, there is the nature of the groups behind the episodes. In the latter case, it's a group of Vietnam War veterans who acted on their own volition (whether or not many of them were duped by the co-founders). In the former case, it is effectively two people backed by an enormous media empire, which had the presumption of neutrality and objectivity, who used fraudulent documents to try to bring down a Presidential candidate less than two months before the election. And even more galling, Hollywood is trying to rehabilitate the reputation of these two political hacks masquerading as journalists and rewrite history through a movie that is being released today.

Indeed, there is a huge difference, so much so that the two incidents aren't really comparable.

 

[SezMe]

....And even more galling, Hollywood is trying to rehabilitate the reputation of these two political hacks masquerading as journalists and rewrite history through a movie that is being released today.

Your bias is showing. Hollywood has no interest in rewriting history or rehabilitating reputations, they have an interest in making money. They are using a controversial issue to do so. BFD.

And do you really think sme movie that a very tiny percent of the population will see is "rewriting history". That's the stuff of a drama queen. It's probably a crappy movie that will soon be lost in the wake of the next big box office promotion. Get over it.

 

[Giordano]

In other words, he expressed political opinions.

It's a democracy. It's ok to say that a war is bad, and saying a war is bad doesn't get anyone killed. Politicians who fight bad wars get people killed. Politicians (or activists, or whatever) who oppose wars do not get people killed.

I am really sick of people in the United States who say that if you are opposed to a war, that somehow means it is your fault that soldiers are getting killed. The sheer illogic of the concept seems to be lost on the people spouting it.





In other words, he used his military service, which was admirable, as a political issue. Yes, it's kind of weird that he would do that. After all, military service and political service are so very different that the skills for one don't really transfer to the other very well, but somehow, it works with voters.

And there you, personally, go disparaging a veteran. I don't recall if you mentioned whether or not you have ever served in the military. I know I haven't. John Kerry spent four months longer than me under enemy fire, killed a lot more enemy soldiers than I ever have, and got one more combat wound that I ever did. Based on that, you'll never hear me criticize his record in the military. Maybe yours is more illustrious?



Wait. Hypocrisy? Where? I don't see it. He served in the war. He opposed the war after that service. His political stance against the war doesn't change the fact that he fought honorably during the war. The two aren't connected.

John Kerry served honorably, and anyone who says he didn't is a disgusting liar. To be honest, I don't remember exactly what the swifties said, but if they said that he didn't serve honorably, then they are disgusting liars.


All I remember specifically from them was that he didn't really deserve the medals he got. Well la-dee-dah. Guess what. A lot of people who get medals don't deserve them, and a lot of people who deserve medals don't get them. This didn't start in 1968.



Maybe you remember something I don't. I don't recall anyone going after the military records of the swift boat vets. I remember people saying that they didn't serve with John Kerry, or didn't know about Kerry's actual battle experience, but I don't recall anyone questioning their military service.

As for Bush, yeah, that's true. I don't think they should have attacked the record. However, I do see somewhat of a qualitative difference attacking a guy's combat experience versus attacking someone's lack of experience, during a time when combat experience was pretty easy to come by if you wanted it.






Indeed, there is a huge difference, so much so that the two incidents aren't really comparable.

Nicely stated!

 

[novaphile]

Ho hum, just popping in to this topic to do the skeptic thing.

No, the memos were not debunked. Many people made assertions about things that typewriters could and could not do, which were simply not true.

When I worked for the Department of Defence (Australia) in 1989, we still used the kind of typewriter, that was most likely used for the memos in question.

It included superscript characters for st, nd, and rd (Type writers used by the military have been able to things like that for a long time). It also did some interesting font kerning. It also was able to produce en and em spaces and dashes.

From memory, the typewriter had a name like IBM Golfball Executive.

There were typewriter experts and museums, that posted this information at the time, but they were shouted down by all of the noise-makers.

Just by the way, that concept of superscript characters and funny keys is very old. My brother owned an ex General Post Office manual typewriter, that also had superscript st, nd and rd keys. (It also had the fractions 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 as individual keys).

As per usual ignorance is held to counter knowledge.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm not going to take issue with anything you said except for the implication that my position is amoral. If you read back over the thread, you'll see that both you and others here have been moving my own goalposts forward.

My only claim with respect to the Swift Boat Vet episode is that it was unreasonable to denounce them as disgusting liars, which unfortunately has become something of an accepted "fact" in the liberal version of political history. If you want to show that O'Neill is a disgusting liar, fine. Maybe there are a handful of others whom you can show are disgusting liars too, or can show have been duped (although I think it's really up to them to claim that they were duped). But there were something like 250 signatures on that public letter to Kerry that I posted above, which represented far more than 10% of the surviving population of Swift Boat Vets. That's impressive to me, and I don't think something like that can be accomplished by Karl Rove as a political stunt. The disgust with Kerry was heartfelt and sincere I believe, and it was rooted in his anti-war activism.

Put yourself in the shoes of some of his comrades (the ones that didn't become his friends and sign on early as one of his "band of brothers"). They see a guy who besmirched their reputation, hurt the war effort (possibly increasing their chances of being wounded or killed), and threw his medals away in a symbolic statement of his disrespect for the war and the military which awarded him those medals. Then, 30 years later, that same guy is making his heroic war-time service (all of 4 months by the way, when most everybody else had to serve 12) a centerpiece of his campaign for President.

So these guys come forward because the hypocrisy is too much for them, and they are immediately denounced by Kerry's supporters as disgusting liars. As I've pointed out repeatedly, the tactic of trying to put Kerry's military record beyond reproach is brazenly hypocritical (and illogical to boot). Not only did the same people who wielded this tactic go after George Bush's military record with gusto, but they went after the military records and reputations of Swift Boat Vets themselves.

Note also that there is a huge, huge difference between the episode with the CBS memos and the Swift Boat Vet campaign. Aside from the fact that in the former case, there is incontrovertible evidence of a fraud, and in the latter case it's mostly a clash of recollections and spin of events viewed through different prisms, there is the nature of the groups behind the episodes. In the latter case, it's a group of Vietnam War veterans who acted on their own volition (whether or not many of them were duped by the co-founders). In the former case, it is effectively two people backed by an enormous media empire, which had the presumption of neutrality and objectivity, who used fraudulent documents to try to bring down a Presidential candidate less than two months before the election. And even more galling, Hollywood is trying to rehabilitate the reputation of these two political hacks masquerading as journalists and rewrite history through a movie that is being released today.

Partisan-Amorality. You see the affidavits as a group of concerned vets. But that's not what started Swift Boats. This wasn't a group of vets who were clamoring to be heard. This was one party hack and documented liar with an axe to grind, who got a figure-head to co-chair a group that went out in search of statements that they edited. You're still willing to believe their hype that they created a magnet for vets with complaints who came flocking to the cause. The reality is that they went looking for vets and chose only the ones with complaints/insinuations, ignored the others, and then edited the statements. All this was done by a private detective/political operative.

I presume you also still think the Tea Party wasn't astro-turfing? You're not interested in finding out the truth of the behavior of people who are seeking results similar to those you hope for. Yet you're very interested in figuring out the motives of those who you're against. How do you define that, other than "amoral"? If you're arguing with the severity of the term, consider it hyperbole, but what is strict partisanship other than amoral when you get down to it. The GOP House has that specific problem.

 

[novaphile]

Some more typing bits and pieces

By the way, IBM typewriters had font kerning from the 1940's and beyond.

There were at least some that would centre text, but it's so long ago now, I couldn't tell you how old. The method was something like this...

1. Invoke centring. (The platten would move to the centre of the page)
2. Enter the text. (The platten would move one space to the left for each two characters struck)
3. Hit return (The typewriter would then type out the whole line - beautifully centred)

Even on manual typewriters, centred headings were common. We'd fold one page in half long ways, unfold it again, and load two pages into the typewriter. The centreline would be quite visible below the top sheet. To centre a heading, you'd start the typewriter on the centre line, and back space half the number of characters you're intending to type.

Many typewriters included an indicator that showed exactly where you were on the page (either on the bar that held the small rollers against the page, or on the face of the typewriter) and you could easily pick the centre, or specific places on the page from that indicator.

I was taught that kind of typing basics in high-school. But the Department of Defence taught me how to touch type way beyond the basics.

The ruler in Microsoft word, is just mimicing what typewriters used to do. (Including tab-stops)

 

[varwoche]

It is a lot less work and hassle to praise somebody under your command than to criticize him, especially with respect to official evaluations. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a strong temptation for commanding officers to do the equivalent of the "social promotion" that teachers do for their lagging students. Bush got lots of official praise from his commanding officers in the Texas ANG too.

If those commanding officers made politically motivated, contradictory claims a generation later, I wouldn't believe them just as I don't believe the SBVs.

It was hardly an October surprise. Here's the public letter that was signed by the SBVT members in May 2004. I think it is worth quoting in full to show that there was a lot more to their criticism of Kerry than claims of undeserved medals:

You're being too literal. My point stands.

 

[varwoche]

I'm pretty sure Hoffman was there but O'Neill was the one who arrived after Kerry left. O'Neill and Hoffman were the co-founders.

Yes. Although Hoffman was there, when pressed in 2004, he admitted that he had no first hand knowledge about Kerry's actions. But that didn't stop him from signing the affidavit smearing Kerry.

 

[icerat]

Ho hum, just popping in to this topic to do the skeptic thing.

No, the memos were not debunked. Many people made assertions about things that typewriters could and could not do, which were simply not true.

When I worked for the Department of Defence (Australia) in 1989, we still used the kind of typewriter, that was most likely used for the memos in question.

It included superscript characters for st, nd, and rd (Type writers used by the military have been able to things like that for a long time). It also did some interesting font kerning. It also was able to produce en and em spaces and dashes.

From memory, the typewriter had a name like IBM Golfball Executive.

There were typewriter experts and museums, that posted this information at the time, but they were shouted down by all of the noise-makers.

Just by the way, that concept of superscript characters and funny keys is very old. My brother owned an ex General Post Office manual typewriter, that also had superscript st, nd and rd keys. (It also had the fractions 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 as individual keys).

As per usual ignorance is held to counter knowledge.

When I was a kid in the 70s we had a pre-golfball manual typewriter that produced type exactly like these memos. It did kerning and superscript and "monospaced font and a ligature". They absolutely did exist, so it annoyed the hell out of me that it became accepted wisdom they'd been proven fake primarily (I believe) on this basis.

 

[Giordano]

By the way, IBM typewriters had font kerning from the 1940's and beyond.

There were at least some that would centre text, but it's so long ago now, I couldn't tell you how old. The method was something like this...

1. Invoke centring. (The platten would move to the centre of the page)
2. Enter the text. (The platten would move one space to the left for each two characters struck)
3. Hit return (The typewriter would then type out the whole line - beautifully centred)

Even on manual typewriters, centred headings were common. We'd fold one page in half long ways, unfold it again, and load two pages into the typewriter. The centreline would be quite visible below the top sheet. To centre a heading, you'd start the typewriter on the centre line, and back space half the number of characters you're intending to type.

Many typewriters included an indicator that showed exactly where you were on the page (either on the bar that held the small rollers against the page, or on the face of the typewriter) and you could easily pick the centre, or specific places on the page from that indicator.

I was taught that kind of typing basics in high-school. But the Department of Defence taught me how to touch type way beyond the basics.

The ruler in Microsoft word, is just mimicing what typewriters used to do. (Including tab-stops)

I used these to. They were fairly common in academia and in many businesses. I forgot about how we used to do centered type lines- exactly the way you state. I always found watching the type balls move around during typing amazingly fast and precise. Very clever concept.

 

[sloinker]

Bush was a shirking coward along with Cheney. Chicken-hawks through and through.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/17/geo...the_undeniable_service_gaps_he_got_away_with/

 

[sunmaster14]

Bush was a shirking coward along with Cheney. Chicken-hawks through and through.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/17/geo...the_undeniable_service_gaps_he_got_away_with/

Pretty funny that the liberal narrative has gone from "fake but accurate" to "unproven but accurate." The memos were proven to be fraudulent at the 99.999% confidence level. It is preposterous to believe that one can just open up MS Word 2003 with the default settings and start typing and get an exact match to something produced by a typewriter in the 1970s that didn't even exist. Even if advanced typewriters of the age could reproduce one or two elements of the type (e.g. proportional spacing, line-centering, pseudo-kerning, superscripting), although not exactly, none could do it all without a considerable amount of futzing around by a professional. And it wouldn't have matched the memos as closely as MS Word 2003 did with the default settings. There is even an instance of a non-superscripted ligature which indicates MS Word 2003, since if you put a space after the number, Word won't superscript the "th" or the "nd" or the "st" for you. This happened. If all of that wasn't enough, the memos use Army lingo in places where Air National Guard lingo would be expected, and one memo refers to a superior officer as active when he had been retired for over a year already as of the date of the memo.

The memos are fake. I would stake my life on it. I would gladly offer to die in excruciating agony if they were somehow proven to be real. Anybody who claims that they are simply unsubstantiated and could be real is either completely ignorant, or lying. If you want to claim "fake but accurate," go ahead. If you want to claim that Rather and Mapes were duped, willfully or not, and this turned out to be an unintended benefit to George Bush, go ahead. But this "unproven but accurate" claim is absolute *********.

 

[Giordano]

Pretty funny that the liberal narrative has gone from "fake but accurate" to "unproven but accurate." The memos were proven to be fraudulent at the 99.999% confidence level. It is preposterous to believe that one can just open up MS Word 2003 with the default settings and start typing and get an exact match to something produced by a typewriter in the 1970s that didn't even exist. Even if advanced typewriters of the age could reproduce one or two elements of the type (e.g. proportional spacing, line-centering, pseudo-kerning, superscripting), although not exactly, none could do it all without a considerable amount of futzing around by a professional. And it wouldn't have matched the memos as closely as MS Word 2003 did with the default settings. There is even an instance of a non-superscripted ligature which indicates MS Word 2003, since if you put a space after the number, Word won't superscript the "th" or the "nd" or the "st" for you. This happened. If all of that wasn't enough, the memos use Army lingo in places where Air National Guard lingo would be expected, and one memo refers to a superior officer as active when he had been retired for over a year already as of the date of the memo.

The memos are fake. I would stake my life on it. I would gladly offer to die in excruciating agony if they were somehow proven to be real. Anybody who claims that they are simply unsubstantiated and could be real is either completely ignorant, or lying. If you want to claim "fake but accurate," go ahead. If you want to claim that Rather and Mapes were duped, willfully or not, and this turned out to be an unintended benefit to George Bush, go ahead. But this "unproven but accurate" claim is absolute *********.

I am glad that you are so certain that you would give your life or die in agony due to your conviction- it must mean that you are really, really, really convinced. That itself isn't really a great way, alone to decide fact from fantasy, but it is good to know. I do appreciate the resembles you note to Microsoft 2003, which you did bring in as evidence- you have made me curious-do you have a link so that I can look at the actual documents?

In fact, I tend to agree that from what we know the documents may well be forgeries, although my understanding is that a number of document experts at the time thought the available copies were too poor to make any accurate judgements. But I am not willing to commit to quite your level. I am not an expert on documents and the typography resources available at the time, and look forward to if the movie addresses this question or not.

I do find it interesting that you are willing to speculate on most other issues, but are absolutely certain on this one. And your use of "liberal" as if we are all one kind (I personally think I am to the left of liberal); I enjoy the the feelings of comradery and solidarity it engenders.

 

[applecorped]

There will be blood.