Skip to comments.USA Today acknowledges that it independently received the documents
Posted on 09/12/2004 10:18:12 PM PDT by ambrose
USA Today acknowledges that it indepedently received the documents
Here are the Docs we spoke about at the fundraiser. By the way, thanks again for the generous donation. -F
It is being reported that a possible source for the docs was a TANG member named Burkett. Apparently, he has had two nervous breakdowns and has applied, unsuccessfully for monetary damages from the Guard and is "disgruntled". Like I said before, even if the docs came from this guy, somebody helped push them. It will be interesting to see what happens this week!
Watergate WAS amateur hour....
"You know, this is very odd because the USAToday memos I seen the other day on their site was such poor quality as though they been faxed around leading me to assume they came from the WH batch that CBS had faxed."
The USA Today reduced their quality. Yesterday the documents were 484K, today they are about 80K. I have posted the orignal higher quality docs on my website temporarily at challengerdisaster.info I apologize for the site it is under development.
ROFLMAO the DUmmies are going crazy saying these two docs are the smoking gun going to do in Bush..they still don't realize they are forgeries..LOL...are people really that stupid and can vote?
I don't care what revelation they come out with next they have lost all credibility.
I say three because I believe the Boston Globe also received them as well.
And The Boston Globe and cBS says the timing is NOW beacuse they've been working on this for years.
have you compared the CBS and USA Today sets to any extent?
You are hired to do rewrite and fact checking....oh wait a moment...you are too qualified you actually understand the issue....BWAHAHAHHAHA well done excellent blue pencil work
The two memos that CBS didn't show are so over the top that even CBS wouldn't put them on.
Watergate was amateur hour.
Also ... the first memo from USA Today .. only has Killian's name ... no mention of his rank
It is remarkable to me that USA Today and CBS continue to protray this story as one where equally qualified experts are of different opinions on whether these documents are forgeries.
As far as I have been able to tell EVERY qualified expert has ruled them to be forgeries, albeit some with rather esoteric and unlikely caveats.
CBS seems to have validated ONE of the memos - but only the signature, by all reports, and they have muzzled their "expert" and told him not to talk to the press.
Time magazine seems to have turned to a typewriter repairman for their "authentication."
It looks to me like this debate is becoming more Clintonesque by the hour, rapidly descending to the level of "I did not inhale that woman, Arial Verdana".
First, isn't it obvious that a reputable news organization (and I'm not saying CBS or USA Today qualify as such) would verify the authenticity of these documents first, before slandering a sitting President of the United States? And if there were any doubt, wouldn't they sit on the story?
And next, when finally confronted with the reality of the situation, which is now incontrovertably conclusive on the side of fraud and forgery, would not one think that a reputable news organzation (and I'm not saying CBS or USA Today qualify as such) would come clean to protect their reputation?
And finally, when confronted with the fact that they have been used to perpetrate an undeniable fraud on the public by disseminating forged and fabricated documents purported to be the work of a military officer, would not one think that a reputable news organization would come forward with the name(s) of the criminals who have used and duped them so that law enforcement can do their job? Or at least to avoid making themselves into accessories after the fact?
Or is it simply that I am living in a country that is no longer what it once was?
Only problem is that he had an interview with Kevin Drum in Feb., and the only documents he claimed to see in the trash can pertained to payroll issues, and he didn't keep any.
It would be my guess that the third is the Boston Globe as their articles that almost mimicked the CBS documentary came out first.
Yes I have compared them. There was some good discussion on them on the thread "Two More 'Killian' Documents" and another one with "USA Today" in the title yesterday. Beldar blog has some great info on the issue at:
The main differences seem to revolve around changes made by CBS like blacking out an old address of the POTUS and underlining here and there.
In fact, with regard to the address on 5000 Longmont, I think he (the President) had long since moved into an apartment at the time he was supposedly at the address in the memo so it just doesn't add up.
More questions: What media did CBS/USA TODAY receive their copy in? Fax, printed, or digital? . . . and who's computer has the original Microsoft Word files?
Clue into reality, they ARE fakes. To be real, Killian had to "somehow" type memos in 1972 that "happened" to EXACTLY mimic the default settings of MS Word.... thirty years earlier. These are the same odds that a parrot could peck out the Gettysburg Address on a typewriter in one hour. Or a monkey could type a Shakespeare sonnet, perfectly. IOW, beyond astronomical. They ARE forgeries. Period.
There are no originals.
See my last. They ARE fake, and anybody with a three digit IQ who is honest will admit it.
(Unless one believes that a monkey COULD type out a Shakespeare sonnet as well as Killian typed out the MS Word default settings in 1972.)
Please let me know if you see the same thing I observed:
In addition to missing the underlines in the CBS documents, the USA Today and CBS documents seem to have different markings or scribbles (were these supposed to be initials?) in the bottom right-hand corner of the following documents:
the May 19th memo and the August 18th memo
As I understand it, GoogleNews merely showcases what is being reported on, it does not decide on the credibility of the stories.
The "originals" existed only on a computer monitor, prior to being printed out the first time.
I find it amazing that there continues to even be a debate about whether they're fake.
What's more amazing is that anyone would give a crap even if they're real. What the hell does it have to do with winning the war against the IslamoNazis who are trying to destroy our civilization?
They have to be laughing their asses off if they happen to be monitoring our news...
bump for the end of RAThers career.
The problem is.. the website disappeared and Bev Harris, one of the principals of the talon.com consulting website has moved on to an organization that called blackboxvoting.org.
Blackboxvoting.org is an alleged 501(c)(3) not for profit that is dedicated to make sure the new electronic voting machines in places like FLORIDA work. (As in work the way the DNC wants them to work or they will raise hell like in 2000 claiming that they are flawed machines).
Talon.com basically was made famous as the PR folks for the anti-Bush veteran groups in 2000. They promoted Beckett. Ran the 2000 Bush DUI smear and the PR for the "stolen" election in Florida.
While at the same time this woman had the gaul to claim that a "hacker attack" drove her to vote for Gore.
Their website has been taken down recently.
Fortunately, it has been archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20010331210012/http://www.talion.com/georgebush.html#News
But Ms. Harris didn't make a clean break.. the main telephone number for Talon rings now over to her new smear blackboxvoting.org group.
As an aside, Ms. Harris is now claiming to be an "investigative journalist" and has appeared on Air Amerikka to advance her voter fraud claims.
I think that why CBS is not backing off... this was part of a coordinated DNC/ press offensive
. Think military if you just on a small local attack on you own and you have this big of SNAFU right of the bat.. you probably stop and regroup
but it you just part of the opening round of a major offensive you just have to gut it out
because the campaign has started and ther a overall game plan to meet
CBS is just part of a larger campaign
and too bad if they take casualties
that war and there sticking the course for DNC/ press offensive greater good
"I just don't understand why the GOP does not seem to be making a stink and investigating who made these memos."
-- Why get your hands dirty when they already have enough rope to hand themselves. ABC and USA Today are starting to "investigate" Rathergate.
Folks have no idea of the military "culture" in 1973. The military was hyper-glutted with super-qualified jet jockeys. Pilots were being riffed by the thousands. A last-year ANG pilot, of a plane going out of commission, was not exactly needed around, LOL! The military was BEGGING pilots to take "early outs!" What was Bush supposed to do in Alabama in 73, sharpen pencils? Do crossword puzzles? Thousands of top-notch pilots were given the heave-ho, and they certainly didn't need an extra ANG pilot of an obsolete F-102!
Kevin Drum is a rabid rabid rabid Bush hater, and even HE had doubts about Burkett's credibility.
I just found out by a DU guy that the DU is banning ANYONE who questions the memos. Even hardcore members getting their posting privileges suspended for questioning the memo's or anything about Kerry. You either tow the hardline or they out you.
> which has been a persistent irritant
> for Bush since he first campaigned
> for the White House
I don't know, it seems pretty worthless as an attack on Bush in 2004. Because, unlike Kerry, Bush is a PROVEN leader. WHO CARES what he did early on? he was proven under fire after 9/11.
Kerry, on the other hand, has had a completely empty "career" as a senator (zero accomplishments, barely showed up, initiated nothing), and back in those days when he did actually ACT in public life, his actions were completely suspicious. Go meet with North Vietnam during a war?
Pretty desperate they must be to go after Bush on anything other than what he's done while in office, as that is by far the best indication of what he'll be like the next four years.
November 2000 Burkett says he wasn't trying to point a fingure and makes no mention of having any docs...
,,,,,Question: Did you allege that the governors staff doctored the records?
Burkette: No, instead I stated that the way this had been handled by the Bush staff, including knowledgeable military officials at the Texas National Guard, that it left the implication that the Bush staff had first incompetently provided an incomplete military file for the Governor which was consistent with his autobiography. I further observed that they probably did not anticipate that the file would be scrutinized to the level that it was. Whenever someone determined holes in service big enough to drive a Mack truck through, additional informationall of which was unofficial and some in pencil notationswere then submitted to the press to answer questions. I further observed the this trust me, Im the Governor approach had worked throughout Texas for George W. Bush within his tenure and the media had given the Governor a free pass, without the same scrutiny as the vice president [was given], until the eleventh hour revelation of the DUI. But this still left the basic question: Why didnt Governor Bush simply release his military pay files and retirement points accounting records, which are the only official records that will show that he satisfactorily and honorably completed his service commitment?,,,,,,,
Burkett is the guy who said he overheard orders to "clean up" W's TANG records some 7-8 years ago.
"stone, if i were to use the logic that USA TODAY used (but they did NOT print it to their credit) - I could pretend to be a disgrunted Kerry campaigner and drop off some forged documents of my own explaining how Kerry is a closet communist.
I am not that bad with photoshop either. :)"
-- I'd be careful about making comments like that. Trollers are everywhere now, and your comments can and will be used against you. Recall how the co-Author of "Unfit For Command" saw his sarcastic comments on FreeRepublic picked up by Reuters and AP. It wasn't long before liberal pundits on CNN and FOX were calling him an anti-catholic bigot (even though he's catholic).
FreeRepublic is considered the originator of Rathergate (along with Powerlineblog), so there's even more spotlight on us now.
I'd utilize private message a lot more...
Or, as I put it on another thread...
They will also have to explain how Killian, when he went through all those typographic contortions back in 1972 and 1973, knew exactly what these documents would need to look like to perfectly duplicate a format and type in an unimaginable future on a computer system and software he coudn't possibly have dreamt of.
Was Killian the most accomplished clairvoyant of the age?
Correct me if I'm wrong but... Burkett had access to official Guard records. CBS claims these documents are from Killian's personal file. Personal files would not be kept with the official files and would most likely be kept at home. So Burkett did not have access to these and could not have been the source.
If these personal files were kept at home the docs HAD to come from Killian's family. But Killian's family says he wasn't the type of person that would take notes or keep personal files and claim these are forgeries. Which still leaves us with the question - where did these docs come from? CBS has got to tell us or their credibility is down the tubes.
Yup - and W. did hundreds of hours of service while the war was raging. The war was winding down to basically nothing during the disputed time period.
Of course, Kerry was giving aid and comfort to our enemies WHILE THE WAR STILL RAGED.
of course, this doesn't bother the media - in fact, they applaud it.
Heh I heard Bev Harris on Art Bell a few months ago.
All my military records were hole punched. And most if not all paperwork that was worth keeping in a file had the same.
They wouldn't be hole-punched, because they aren't part of any official military record.
Same point applies to the claims that these aren't authentic because they aren't on letterhead. The memos for record/file wouldn't necessarily be on letterhead. I never did any of mine on letterhead. The exception is the memo that was purportedly sent to Bush, ordering him to report for a physical. That one you would reasonably expect to be on letterhead (although I don't know what the Texas ANG did in that regard -- do we have other, official memos from that time period that are on letterhead?) Also, one would expect that one (since it is an order) to have been filed "officially." Again, though, I don't know how complete the Texas ANG record-keeping is.
I never did understand those underlines. Why would an officer underline things in his own memo for record? If they are absent in the USA Today versions, then this means there is proof that these (probably forged) documents or document copies were tampered with by someone.