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.

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.

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.

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

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!

Now we know what REALLy happened to Elvis?

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.

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

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