Posted on 09/12/2004 10:16:01 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
By my reckoning, there are only two "witnesses" relied on by CBS News to support its forgery scam who have not already repudiated the statements attributed to them by CBS: Marcel Matley, according to our sources a virulent and obsessive Bush-hater, who has purported to authenticate only a single signature on a forged document (contrary to what he himself has described as proper practice), and Robert Strong. Mr. Strong is something of a mystery man; several candidates for the role have been suggested. It is unclear exactly what support for CBS's story Mr. Strong actually supplies. CBS's description of his role is vague, at best:
Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real.
"They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved."
This "endorsement" of CBS's hoax--the forged documents are "compatible with the way business was done at that time"--is so weak that Mr. Strong is, perhaps, not worth pursuing.
As it happens, though, we have not only identified the real Robert Strong, but have, through one of our readers, interviewed him.
Robert Strong is a professor of English who lives in a rural area west of Austin, Texas. One of his neighbors happens to be a Power Line reader. Last Wednesday afternoon, shortly before CBS broke the fake document story, our reader encountered Strong on the road that passes by their homes. Strong noted that the sign leading to their road had been knocked down, and asked our correspondent not to put it back up for a while because "I have things going on in my life...reporters are trying to talk to me."
Our correspondent asked, About what? Strong answered, About Bush's National Guard service. Strong said that in his opinion, President Bush hadn't properly completed his service. Strong told our correspondent that "some new documents have turned up." These new documents turned up "because of the Swift Boat Vets' ads. Bush's people shouldn't have gotten involved in them. Those Swift Boat Vet ads made people mad, and as a result these new documents came up." Strong expressed the opinion that "Bush is getting what is coming to him because of his people's involvement in the Swift Boat Vets' ads."
Strong said that he had served with President Bush in the Texas Air National Guard, which was news to our correspondent, who had never heard Strong mention such National Guard service.
In a follow-up conversation, Robert Strong told our correspondent that he worked with Jerry Killian in the Air National Guard from 1968 to the early 1970’s. He said that he believed that the CBS documents were genuine, but admitted that he “cannot vouch for the documents’ authenticity.” Further, Strong said that he doesn’t think it matters whether the documents are genuine are not.
Like many English professors, Strong has always been anti-Bush, and he and his wife made anti-Bush comments to our correspondent during this conversation. At the same time, notwithstanding his claim to have served in the Texas Air National Guard, Strong admitted that he had never served with or even met Lt. Bush. He admitted further that Jerry Killlian had never discussed Lt. Bush with him. Strong acknowledged that he had “no personal knowledge about Bush’s service.”
Even though he admittedly could not vouch for the authenticity of the memos, Strong said he thought that they “seemed to fit the time and the man that Killian was.”
Strong added that the controversy over fonts was “ridiculous.” He said that the National Guard had Selectric typewriters, and the Selectric had a ball that could be changed out to type superscripts. He had nothing to offer on whether the Selectric balls duplicated the superscripts found on Word, or whether the Selectric balls could produce proportional fonts, kerning, or centered titles.
Strong said that he had no idea who “found” the documents, or where they came from.
Strong said further that he had just given an interview to USA Today. Watch for it in the morning, and ask yourself whether the USA Today reporter questioned Strong as intelligently as his neighbor did.
Bottom line: Robert Strong is an inoffensive English professor who dislikes, but has never met, President Bush; he has no idea whether the CBS documents are authentic; he never discussed Lt. Bush with Jerry Killian; and he has “no personal knowledge” about President Bush’s National Guard service. The only information Strong actually brings to the table is his confirmation that the CBS documents “turned up” as retribution for the Swift Boat Vets’ attacks on John Kerry.
And this is the best witness CBS News can bring forward in support of its smear of President Bush.
Amazing. Once again, not a single main stream newspaper or network is able to interview or identify "Professor" Strong, except for the distorted info provided by CBS itself. And the blogosphere comes through with the info.
Here's a new voice in all of this from a Fox News online article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132157,00.html
Retired Col. Maurice Udell, the unit's instructor pilot who helped train Bush, said Friday he thought the documents were fake.
"I completely am disgusted with this [report] I saw on '60 Minutes,'" Udell said. "That's not true. I was there. I knew Jerry Killian. I went to Vietnam with Jerry Killian in 1968."
Here's someone who knew Killian and worked with him, as opposed to Strong who didn't. Who has more credibility?
USA Today tracked him down and interviewed him. I think his home phone number is listed.
Mr Matley wrote a paper in 1999 stating that one could not prove the authenticity of copied documents, but in some cases copied documents could be proven to be forgeries.
By Mr Mately's own words, be admits he really can't prove Dan Rather's documents are real.
Uh oh.
Amazing information bump.
If he got a degree in 1973, then he must have left the TANG in 69 or 68 or before. He was 26 in 1968.
Ping!
Then again he may have got a Batchelors in 1964 at age 22, entered the Guard in the early years of the VN War, and got a Masters in 73. But that still means that he had to leave the Guard in 1970 (after 6 years) and so he did not know that Staudt had retired etc.
It is the National Guard. He could have been a student while attending college.
Post docs are usually young folks....mainly because this is the equivalent of an internship after one has finished your PhD...most folks who would have been old enough to serve in 1968 to 1970 are of an age that being in a post doc position would be A) economically stupid and B) the most unlikely thing I have heard since...ummm I don't know, maybe , Dan Rather "defending" his position....Look this is probabaly NOT the guy you are looking for
Yeah but he wouldn't be a post doc NOW as the first poster suggested...ANyone who is a postdoc 30 years after their PhD is so totally pathetic we should just pray for them
Could he have attended college and been an administrative officer at the same time?
No, but a FReeper with real journalism skills could call and try to get an interview.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.