40 Comments

1. M. Simon:

The Edwards Campaign is touting the documents.

If you want a few more of my words on the subject.

Now we know why

and here for the source direct:

Edwards says look at the new docs/forgeries

Sep 10, 2004 - 11:09 pm 2. Godzilla:

How stupid can Edwards get? If he pipes up again tomorrow about the documents, he’ll be even a greater laughing stock than he was today. I seriously pity anybody (aside from family and friends - they get condolences) who actually wants this guy as a VP. Stupid, stupid!

Sep 10, 2004 - 11:31 pm 3. Samuel:

Roger

If you read my last long post in the previous thread you will know what I think about this. How can one defend this, liberal or not? I spoke to my father today (my parents are up from Florida as they have been run out by another Hurricane). He is a very intellectually honest yellow dog Democrat and he just can’t believe it. He thinks the Media are just killing the Democrats with bias against the Dems? No! With their disdain for Bush. He feels the Democrats are going to “Go down like McGovern and MOndale” and they deserve it. Yes he is still voting for Kerry, but I think his respect for Kerry is about equal with that of Micky Kaus, nose held firmly.

Now when I enquired “Dad you are talking 49 States for God’s Sake and 60 percent of the popular Vote”! He replied, “Son, McGovern and Mondale can knocked some sense in the noggin of the more sane. I don’t think Bush could win 49 states but LBJ won 44 states with one percent higher of the popular vote then Reagan and Nixon. Bush could certainly almost do that if the Democrats can’t do better then argue Vietnam and quit following the media down shit-holes.”

When I told him that Terry McCollough had promised to keep Bush’s National Guard Story front and center through November, he just rolled his eyes and said who cares, I don’t hate Bush anyway.

Sep 11, 2004 - 12:04 am 4. RT:

Q: when will the blogsphere quit hammering nails in MSM’s coffin?

A: when MSM quits handing the blogsphere nails.

Sep 11, 2004 - 1:45 am 5. bkw:

Arguendo, Staudt could still be exerting influence post-retirement.

It’s a stretch (and a silly one at that) — but I’m sure that argument will come up.

Sep 11, 2004 - 2:30 am 6. David Thomson:

“Arguendo, Staudt could still be exerting influence post-retirement.

It’s a stretch (and a silly one at that) — but I’m sure that argument will come up.”

Thank you for slapping us back to reality. Your cynicism is justified. John Kerryís campaign has been hurt—but heís not finished. The liberal media still dominate the agenda. Most Americans regrettably get their news from these despicable people. The odds favor President Bush. Nonetheless, itís best that we do not become overconfident. Talk of a 49 state electoral sweep may be a bit premature. Letís not take anything for granted. There are too many voters like Mickey Kaus out there.

Sep 11, 2004 - 3:25 am 7. ambisinistral:

I’m beginning to think that Dan Rather has such a keen eye for forgery that he would probably except monopoly money as change.

Sep 11, 2004 - 3:25 am 8. HA:

There is no way that Dan Rather is going to back down because it would mean the end of his career. It would be a crippling blow to CBS News. So as long as he is able to find a way to spin this he will do so.

The only way to smoke Rather out is to get this out of the public arena and into a courtroom. Somebody needs to file a lawsuit. I’m no attorney, but it seems to me that if someone can sue McDonalds because they spilled coffee on their own lap, someone can sue CBS for presenting forged documents as authentic. CBS has engaged in fraud and they should be taken to court.

Furthermore, CBS has failed to air a single piece of evidence that contradicts their story, even though there is a mountain of such evidence. Isn’t this negligence?

Here is a link to Rather’s bio:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/26/eveningnews/main502231.shtml

Here is a notable quote:

His day-to-day commitment to substantive, fair and accurate news reporting and his tough, active style have earned him a position of respect among his peers and the public.

Can Rather claim to have been “fair and accurate” on this story? Clearly not.

Here is a link to CBS’s Terms of Service page:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/18/utility/main286344.shtml

If you do send us any creative materials, including creative suggestions, ideas, notes, drawings, concepts or other information or if you transmit to the Site by electronic mail or otherwise, communications incluing any data, questions, comments, suggestions, or the like (collectively, the “Information”), the Information shall be deemed, and shall remain, the property of CBS. None of the Information shall be subject to any obligation of confidence on the part of CBS and CBS shall not be liable for any use or disclosure of any Information.

So according to this CBS policy statement, they have no obligation with withold disclosure of who provided them with the forged documents.

CBS News must have other polices on journalist integrity that they use for PR. I wonder if their forged document hit piece conforms with these policies?

Sep 11, 2004 - 4:16 am 9. HA:

Here is the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists:

http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp

Does anyone believe that Rather lived up to this code?

Sep 11, 2004 - 4:22 am 10. HA:

Here is a link to a discussion of the Rather Endowment at Sam Houston University:

http://www.shsu.edu/~pin_www/T@S/2000/RatherEndow.html

This is full of high-minded language about journalistic integrity that Rather failed to uphold.

Sep 11, 2004 - 4:30 am 11. HA:

I bet if one browsed these books by Dan Rather he would find all kinds of references to journalistic integrity:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Rather%2C%252520Dan/103-5940492-3089444

Sep 11, 2004 - 4:36 am 12. HA:

Here’s a treasure trove of Rather’s comments on journalistic integrity:

http://ratherbiased.com/journalism.htm

Sep 11, 2004 - 4:53 am 13. Terrye:

Edwards is a lawyer, perhaps someone should ask him if these socalled documents could stand up in court.

silly boy. So far as i know he was never in the service, was he?

Sep 11, 2004 - 5:27 am 14. hcq:

Nonono, wait, it gets better! [hcq attempts to stop laughing long enough to type]

Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian’s supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were “handwritten” and after CBS read him excerpts he said, “well if he wrote them that’s what he felt.”

CBS lies about Hodges’s “verification”

Sep 11, 2004 - 5:38 am 15. hcq:

Okay, let’s try that link again:

Link

Sep 11, 2004 - 5:41 am 16. MCinAtlanta:

Beautifully stated, Roger. Please mail to CBS/Dan Rather. I’ve emailed them twice as they need to receive an avalanche of thoughts on this one!

Sep 11, 2004 - 5:55 am 17. jack white:

John Edwards has done something I thought impossible. He diminishes the stature of John Kerry. Yes, it could be done. Fortunately, if this election goes as it seems likely now, the general public won’t have to suffer Edwards anymore after January.

As to Roger’s post: in theory, Staudt could have exerted influence over the TANG after he left although that is unlikely. Nonetheless, it is no more improbable than anything else associated with this fiasco. The final straw, as if one were required, was when Rather’s chief witness–the one he cited last night, Hodges–said he thought the memos were handwritten when they were read to him over the telephone. Even Hodges now says they are likely forgeries. As an aside, try to imagine the MSM reaction if even one of these damning circumstances had surrounded the Swift Boat story.

The real focus, now, will be who provided these forgeries to CBS. Forget about a retraction, let alone an apology. Someone from CBS will leak that source in the next few days. It’s rich to watch the role reversal. My money is still on Sydney Blumethal or someone else from the Clinton camp. I don’t believe it was done intentionally to hurt Kerry since he already was sinking, but if this turns out to be the source motivation also will be an issue.

Sep 11, 2004 - 6:12 am 18. Mike:

Ha:

If Rather and CBS, along with the vast majority of the MSM, lived up to the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists that you have cited, or their own mission statements, a conversation similar to the following would have occurred earlier this week at CBS corporate headquarters, between Rather and his boss, CBS NEWS President Andrew Heyward:

Heyward: Dan, I’m very concerned with the direction this story has taken, and its potential to create a long term credibility problem for us.

Rather: But I’ve done nothing wrong ……

Heyward: Dan, I need to confirm your position on this. Am I correct in stating that you feel the story is accurate as it has been presented to our viewers, even if the National Guard documents are forgeries?

Rather: That’s right.

Heyward: So, what you’re telling me is, whether Jerry Killian actually wrote these memos is of no concern to you, and you would still have run the story even if you knew prior to airing it that the memos were forged?

Rather: Well, naturally I would like the documents to be genuine, but yes, even if they were forged, and I knew they were forged, I still believe the allegations are true, and therefore yes, I would have aired it. Of course, I would have deep-sixed any mention of the documents. No one would have found out about the documents.

Heyward: Well, I appreciate your candour, Dan. And CBS appreciates the contributions you have made on its behalf. And it goes without saying that we wish you the best in your future endeavours.

Rather: What are you trying to say?

Heyward: Dan, you’re fired …..

Sep 11, 2004 - 6:16 am 19. Zak braverman:

There is something very interesting in how people are lining up over this issue. The “conservative” side of the blogosphere is jumping all over the forgery story because it represents a major hit to the credibility of the major news media.

The “liberal” side of the blogosphere, on the other hand, are defending the documents from the forgery allegations because they just want to attack Bush.

In other words, the “conservative” bloggers like Roger don’t even care about what it says about Bush; that’s tangential and uninteresting. Their target is CBS and the other dinosaur media. At the same time, the Atrioses of the world are defending the documents in a completely knee-jerk way because anything that debases Bush must, by definition, be true and worthwhile, and they don’t care one way or the other about the major media. An interesting imbalance there…

Sep 11, 2004 - 6:28 am 20. jerry:

After seeing the ABC news quote from General Hodges I can tell that this is a typical 60 minutes operation. They construct a set of plausable lies and call up a witness and read him, not show him, the incrimminating evidence. Then they say he confirms the documents as true. However, they don’t show Hodges on televison or quote his response accuratetly. This leads me to the conclusion that CBS news is in on the Con and the Kerry campaign (through Barnes) is the source.

I just can’t wait to see how this plays out this weekend.

Sep 11, 2004 - 6:36 am 21. Mike:

In the previous thread, Tmj Utah makes the point that may in the end force CBS’s hand, and compel them to be forthcoming with sufficient details to objectively fact check this story:

“This incident is a blatant attempt by a publicly held company to sway a national election by fraud.”

CBS doesn’t have an ethical or moral leg to stand on here. Because this story was aired in the heat of a presidential campaign, and because it was designed to influence the outcome, CBS has an inarguable obligation to fully disclose the substance and circumstances of the documents and their related allegations.

A defiant Rather continues to claim the story is fire proof. We hear of his ” unimpeachable sources.” If Rather is so confident of his allegations, then there can be no reason to stonewall.

There is so much horribly unjust with the way this controversy is playing out. CBS and Rather made a decision to air this story. Faced with the most serious of allegations concerning the veracity of the story, they have decided to compromise the fairness of the electoral process (actually, they’ve been doing that for the past year) for completely self-serving reasons; to save their own reputations and to keep Kerry from falling completely out of this race.

The heat on Rather and CBS has to be maintained. I’ve seen several posts here talking about the possible legal consequences if the documents are forged. These posts seem to be most concerned with whether an offence has been committed, the likelihood of conviction, penalty, etc. Of more interest is the idea of pursuing a criminal investigation with a view to compelling the turn over of evidence, naming witnesses for interviews, etc. The goal shouldn’t focus on even obtaining a conviction, but rather using a criminal investigation as a mechanism to force CBS to cooperate so the truth can be revealed to the public. Any indictments would simply be a bonus.

Enough information is already in the public realm to convince me that the origin of these documents, whether genuine or not, will not be difficult to determine if a criminal investigation is authorized and undertaken.

Shine the light of a criminal probe into the dark corners of CBS and the DNC, and watch the cockroach derby begin.

Sep 11, 2004 - 6:46 am 22. jdwill:

A rather (NPI) fair article from LAtimes

Amid Skepticism, CBS Sticks to Bush Guard Story

A retired Guard major general — who Rather said in an interview would corroborate the CBS account — instead told The Times that he believed the memos from the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian were not real.

But a CBS news executive insisted that Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, who was Killian’s immediate supervisor, had changed his story.

Of course, CBS would say that:

HODGES SAID HE WAS MISLED BY CBS

According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were “handwritten” and after CBS read him excerpts he said, “well if he wrote them that’s what he felt.”

Of course, the moonbats at daily Kos are swarming over a weak Boston Globe article

But Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.

That’s the whole argument, nobody seems to have bother to have trotted out such a machine and produced a duplicate memo. Why not? Because they will fail on the line spacing and apostrophes.

The problem for the AWOL club is that they are unable (so far) to definitively clear the documents (not even taking on all of the other techical failures of same), and when they try to run to a he said/she said type of argument (as Rather did last night) they run smack dab into the widow, the son, the daughter of Barnes, and now Hodges all claiming that:

1. They don’t believe the memos are real

2. CBS played dirty tricks on them

3. CBS spiked their stories

4. Now this - Staudt’s timeline

How long can Rather and CBS stand up against this storm? Great drama awaits …

CBS Quote:

“We shouldn’t have to be be doing this over the Internet,” Rile said. “This sounds like a case that could be resolved very quickly if you get the evidence and examine it; if you get the original.”

Shorter:

Make it STOP!

Sep 11, 2004 - 6:50 am 23. David C:

In fairness to Edwards, it looks to me like his interview was on Thursday, September 9, and he quite likely didn’t know about the challenges to the documents’ authenticity at the time. If he were to say such things *today*, there’d be plenty of room for criticism, but for now, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Zak’s point is interesting and telling. It’s worth bearing in mind that, even if 100% validated and true, the facts of the memo wouldn’t be all that damaging to Bush.

This is one of the things I’m surprised Democrat strategists haven’t realized more clearly. The facts don’t seem to support the view, but even if Bush *was* a lazy, good-for-nothing bum in the Guard, it doesn’t contradict Bush’s “campaign-approved life story,” which is more or less that he *was* a good-for-nothing bum until relatively late in life, when he gave up drinking, married Laura, found God, yada yada yada. There’s an asymmetry to the Bush-Kerry “Vietnam era narratives.” Kerry is holding his experience during that time as life-defining; Bush doesn’t regard his own experience during the time as anything to be especially proud of.

So hammering on Bush’s Guard years almost *can’t* hurt Bush seriously. Unless he killed a guy in Memphis or something, there’s nothing that could possibly be unearthed there that seriously conflicts with his own “life narrative.”

Sep 11, 2004 - 6:57 am 24. jdwill:

So hammering on Bush’s Guard years almost *can’t* hurt Bush seriously.

Probably true, as Scarborough said last night:

“And again, to tell you the truth, I don?t think George Bush remembers where he was back then.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5962283/

At the read deal is that this week and possibly next will be spent with hyperventilating Dems being tarred with the bogus memo brush while the Kerry is AWOL from the press for over a month.

Yowza, that’s the way to run a campaign, McAuliffe!

Sep 11, 2004 - 7:07 am 25. Silicon valley Jim:

Does anybody have a list of 60 Minutes’s advertisers (perhaps a videotape of Wednesday’s broadcast would be helpful)? Telephone calls to the investor relations departments of those advertisers asking why they are sponsoring programs that rely on forged documents to make claims, and perhaps suggesting that the caller doesn’t want to do business with companies like that, might succeed in putting some pressure on CBS. CBS News clearly doesn’t care about truth, but CBS and its parent company care about advertising revenue.

Sep 11, 2004 - 7:12 am 26. Annalucia:

I think we’re missing the point here.

Look - it’s the third anniversary of 9/11, the Presidential race is going ballistic, the SwiftBoat vets are doing real damage to Kerry, and who’s all over the news today?

DAN RATHER! More important than 9/11, the Swifties, the Presidential candidates! Is that the ultimate ego boost, or what?

Sep 11, 2004 - 7:36 am 27. jdwill:

Annalucia

Heh.

My 911 memorial early this morning was watching Donald Rumsfeld on C-Span from yesterday talking at the National Press Club. He gets it, unfortunately the press didn’t. Their questions tell it all. At one point he got frustrated and pointed out that you had to decide whether ot not you believed we were in 9/10 mode or we were in a global struggle.

When the press in general, and loons like Rather, in particular, get it, then I will calm down. Until then, I wonder if I have a country to defend or hold memorials in.

Sep 11, 2004 - 7:57 am 28. richard mcenroe:

Here’s a link to a list of CBS News Sponsors in case you want to write them and express your appreciation of the fine journalism they’re subsidizing…

Sep 11, 2004 - 8:24 am 29. richard mcenroe:

BKW ó Gotcha. Because there’s no one with more hidden-persuader clout than a retired National Guard colonel… certainly it makes more sense to go to him than to the existing chain of command. But of course, what serving officer would object to a former commander interfering in his unit… I mean really?

Sep 11, 2004 - 8:33 am 30. jdwill:

Richard

Thanks, I will do just that. My 911 tribute will be doing what I can to stick it to the arrogant bastards that tried to treat us like a herd of cattle to be lied to and thus led to the slaughter. This is what I felt on 911, that we had been asleep and we were being led to our doom by fools.

BTW: CBS expert, Matley, a dirty trickster via Captain’s Quarters

A number of readers also have informed me that Matley served on the commission that determined Vince Foster’s suicide note was genuine, although that seemed to me at the time and now to be a reasonable judgement. Far more interesting to me is the ethics of Matley …

It just gets thickerer and thickerer. It makes me wonder just how arrogant the inner cabal of media people are.

Sep 11, 2004 - 8:42 am 31. Charlie (Colorado):

Richard, in the interests of obsessive-compulsive correctness, I think Staudt got his star before he retired.

Not that this has any effect on the rest of you point.

Sep 11, 2004 - 8:56 am 32. Sandy P:

The Prowler was right. It was Hodges.

Let’s see if the leaker has guts to go further.

Sep 11, 2004 - 9:26 am 33. Byron00:

Ethics and truth aside, as a political event this flap is over and done. CBS has muddied the waters enough to get experts arguing with each other, and that’s plenty good enough to get them, and Dan Rather in particular, off the hook. And the Blogosphere has raised enough questions to neutralize any impact the memos might have had.

Everybody can now find permission to believe whatever they want about the whole episode. Bush fans can think the agenda of CBS and Rather have been exposed for all to see, Bush haters can think it’s GW’s craven character that’s been put on display. But for everybody else, the whole National Guard issue remains exactly what it always was, a big ho-hum, jsut another uninteresting he-said/he-said story about events of long ago with no discernable relevance to this election or anything else.

CBS made a tactical mistake in launching an attack on such weak evidence; they made a strategic mistake in focusing on a story that never had any legs to begin with.

Sep 11, 2004 - 9:27 am 34. larry:

“Unless he killed a guy in Memphis or something….”

Now we know what REALLy happened to Elvis?

Sep 11, 2004 - 9:36 am 35. Stephen_M:

Will public outrage have Rather run out of town on the same rail used when Cronkite violated media ethics lying about Tet?Will he become Sandy Berger’s cellmate?

Sep 11, 2004 - 9:38 am 36. Fresh Air:

I hate to recap, but it’s my linear-thinking nature.

Since New York Times v. Sullivan, the standard for libel against a public figure is “reckless disregard for the truth.”

Consider the recklessness exhibited here:

1. CBS does not have original documents.

2. CBS read something over the phone to a “source” who, with something less than authority, agreed what had been read to him was what had been read to him.

3. The typeface is a book font, not a typewriter font.

4. It is presumed Killian would make such a memo when his widow says he didn’t make memos.

5. It is presumed the memos he didn’t make were typed although Killian’s widow says he didn’t type.

6. It is presumed the memos were assembled on a tricky newfangled IBM Composer typewriter, the likes of which the National Guard probably never saw, by a man who didn’t type.

7. It is further presumed that this tricky piece of newfangled office machinery was employed to write a routine, or at least private, memo to file.

8. The letters are kerned–a feature that even the IBM Composer could not produce.

9. The headers in each of the memos are perfectly centered, a task almost impossible to do with anything short of a later-generation word processor. Even more improbable, each of the three headers perfectly overlays the other.

10. There is no SCCI code, a standard feature of every piece of military correspondence, at the top of each page.

11. The service used 8.5 x 9.5-inch paper, which means there should be visible lines on the photocopy.

12. The comedy of someone typing “CYA,” a crude term that would never have been used in military correspondence, in a subject line is overlooked.

13. The appropriate title is “MEMO: TO RECORD” but this was not used, even though the author was putatively a Lieutenant Colonel.

14. The officer’s title is not typed according to military style, which does not include a period after “Lt”. In addition, there are several instances of words that should be in all caps but are not.

15. The signature block is on the right in at least one of the documents, when it should have always been on the left.

16. On one of the documents it should have said “COMMANDING,” but instead says “COMMANDER.”

17. The tone of the “sugar coat” memo is wholly inconsistent with Killian’s previously laudatory remarks concerning Bush. Killian’s widow backs this up.

18. Killian’s son says these are not his father’s words.

19. Killian’s son says these memos were not among his personal papers.

20. It was believed without skepticism that Killian, a man who (a) did not type; (b) did not habitually make memos to the file; and (c) (according to his wife) did not bring work home with him, somehow decided to squirrel away a relatively inconsequential memo concerning a lieutenant’s failure to take a physical.

21. Orders were not issued as memos, and were almost never typed by lieutenant colonels.

22. A disregarded order, as implied by one of the documents, would trigger additional paperwork that does not exist in Bush’s Form 180-released records. (Orders are signed by the receiving subordinate and returned to the commander.)

23. There is evidently no chain of custody for the “documents.”

24. A simple, five-minute attempt to duplicate the documents on Microsoft Word yields an exact replica.

25. The signatures do not match.

26. There are no strike-throughs or insertions on any of the memos; the colonel was a perfect typist despite being out of practice.

27. Reference is made to Col. Staudt, who had retired a year before the memo was written, in regards to applying pressure relative to the obscure Lt. Bush.

28. The missed physical has always been a red herring that only partisans have concerned themselves with.

29. Killian is, conveniently enough, dead.

================

Now, taken together, there is a mountain of support for the idea that the memos are fake. But let’s just briefly look at the sequential probabilities of some of the more knowable aspects.

- Killian’s widow says Killian didn’t type. Maybe he did sometimes. Let’s be generous. Probability: 50%.

- Practically all typewriters at the time used typewriter fonts, not Times New Roman. Probability: 10%.

- Certain effects could only have been produced on the IBM Composer, a typewriter than retailed for approximately $4,000 in 1970. Like the Guard generally during wartime, the TANG was getting hand-me-downs from the other services. Probability: 5%.

- Killian was drunk when he signed two of the three documents from the appearance of his signature. How would I know? Maybe he always typed his memos drunk. Let’s just say probability: 60%.

- Killian’s son says the documents did not come from his personal papers; some outside source had them. Thus these papers would have to have been secretly kept for 30 years and passed on to another person before Killian’s death. Probability: 25%.

- Killian’s typing was flawless. Probability: 25%.

- Killian made routine errors in military style. Probability: 25%. (Probably much lower, but maybe because he didn’t type the memos he never paid much attention.)

- The same someone who saved the memos wanted to see Bush harmed and passed them to CBS. Probability: 50%

- I will ignore kerning and centering effects in this example, since it renders this exercise moot.

Okay, here’s the probability used my SWAG:

(.5 x .1 x .05 x .6 x .25 x .25 x .25 x .5) = .00001%

Feel free to put in your own assumptions, but there is no realistic answer that even rises to the 1% probability level.

Reckless? Absolutely!

Sep 11, 2004 - 9:47 am 37. jerry:

Fresh air:

I want to add one more thing about the CYA subject. There an important reason why no CO would blatantly state the purpose of a memo was to “CYA”. You write such a memo to the record to make sure if there is any blowback you have an exucse. If you type CYA then you are admitting that you are violating [in this case] AF regs. If the IG comes look’in you are screwed. You become the scapegoat. So, Killian would never have written SUBJECT: CYA

Sep 11, 2004 - 1:55 pm 38. Oyster:

Is all this maybe just a form of wagging the dog? No one’s talking about Kerry’s record the last few days.

And why are all the older documents typed out with newer technology. Meaning Bush’s Application for Discharge 1 1/2 years later is from an old pica type-face typewriter. Even Killian’s approval is in the same typeface.

And if it’s true that the IBM Composer typewriter was such a big machine, it should be easily remembered compared to a clacky machine we all remember from the past. Why doesn’t someone simply ask any officers that were there at the time if they remember such machines? I remember the typewriter that was in my mother’s office around that time. Just a small detail but easily recalled.

Sep 11, 2004 - 7:22 pm 39. Tom O'Bedlam:

Arguendo, Staudt could still be exerting influence post-retirement.

It’s a stretch (and a silly one at that) — but I’m sure that argument will come up.

You might worry about that ability to think like a Democratic flack. Yes, the argument has already come up, and been answered. If you read farther down in the article Roger links to in the main post, you find the following:

A CBS staffer stood by the story, suggesting that Staudt could have continued to exert influence over Guard officials. But a former high-ranking Guard official disputed that, saying retirement would have left Staudt powerless over remaining officials.

Sep 11, 2004 - 7:56 pm 40. Tom O'Bedlam:

The “conservative” side of the blogosphere is jumping all over the forgery story because it represents a major hit to the credibility of the major news media…. In other words, the “conservative” bloggers like Roger don’t even care about what it says about Bush; that’s tangential and uninteresting.

Let’s get something straight here. If the documents are forgeries, then their contents are essentially irrelevant to any real issue.

If Bush’s commander really said these things, then that’s (maybe, assuming these issues are important) news. But if some DNC flack or some bozo on the street with no personal knowledge says them, who cares? And if some DNC flack makes them up and THEN incorporates them into forged documents, then what’s being said isn’t news anymore than it would be if the flack just said them; but the fact that he forged them IS news. That’s, indeed, almost certainly the only news in the story.

Sep 11, 2004 - 8:08 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: