On clinging to the fantasy
Kevin, after finally conceding to the windmills by stating the memos could be fake, writes:
Every single accusation that was originally brought up by the bloggers has been thoroughly discredited.
Horseshit. You may want to reconsider that statement. Or at least start thoroughly discrediting all the claims. Go on, I’ll wait.
September 15th, 2004 at 1:25 pm
Pick one claim that was originally made by a blogger that remains feasible.
September 15th, 2004 at 1:27 pm
Not doing your homework for you. Kev made the ridiculous assertion now he can prove them all wrong. But you can start with the expert that was interviewed over at http://www.indcjournal.com.
There’s a good start.
September 15th, 2004 at 1:51 pm
one word fellows
kerning.
that is the important question.
also i thought the rasied TH was found to be fake.
secondly, the culy qoutes are not what typwriters do.
http://sandcastlesandcubicles.blogspot.com/2004/09/atrios.html
September 15th, 2004 at 2:30 pm
SU
See, this is what I am tlaking about. You don’t read — the Globe has as direct quote form the guy saying that he was wrong in his original assertions, and that even he damdits that workign from copies is a fools game. if thats evidence, I hope to God you are never on a jury.
And the curly q things and the th subscript and all the other typographical stuff has been shown to have been silly. This stuff has been around for days now, and yet people still repeat it.
There are legitimate questions about the documents, but they have nothing to do with the typographical stuff that the blog brought up.
September 15th, 2004 at 2:57 pm
You don’t read
Pot kettle. Then you would know that the superscript th thing is quite valid. Sure, they could superscript by rotating the wheel a click. What they couldn’t do was change the size of the superscripted text. And that’s just one example.
September 15th, 2004 at 3:39 pm
It’s all well and good arguing about whether or not the technology existed to create the memo, or even if the TexANG had access to it, but it proves nothing either way. Is a well created forgery any more real than a shitty one? I’m sorry, but attention to detail doesn’t automatically validate a lie. For example: Staudt retired in 1972, when he was mentioned in the CYA memo as pushing to sugarcoat Bush’s record. Dated 1973. That’s just one example, and I’m too lazy to dig up the rest I read.
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/special_packages/election2004/9633814.htm
All you guys are doing is quibbling over the unimportant aspects and ignoring the meat of the matter. Do you think the Secret Service has ever let anyone off the hook for counterfeiting just because it was expertly done? Come on.
September 15th, 2004 at 4:04 pm
“Sure, they could superscript by rotating the wheel a click. What they couldn’t do was change the size of the superscripted text. And that’s just one example.”
And its bogus example — go back to the link and read what is actually there! At the very best for you, you contention MIGHT be ture, but lots of experts say it isn’t. How does that constitute proof?
Dave
See, now thats a legitimate question (though not conclusive – -the Texas Guard is a political operation and its possible that old officers put pressure on their former comrades in ways that didn’t deal with the Guard itself but with the outside life) but it wasn’t discovered by the blogosphere and has nothing to do with anything brought up in the blogoshpere. Journalists — from the big bad liberal media — went out and did actual journalism and found that out.
September 15th, 2004 at 4:11 pm
And its bogus example
Bull. I know what i can see with my own eyes. I saw the discrepancy on CBS when the addressed superscript.
September 15th, 2004 at 6:06 pm
I am commenting on the culy qoutes thing.
Ok so i read the daily kos article. Some typewriters did have the ability to type curly qoutes.
But did the ibm selectric compower have curly qoutes
Please read this.
http://sandcastlesandcubicles.blogspot.com/2004/09/atrios.html
please read this.
http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_atrios_archive.html#109500451825801385
please read this.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp
The ibm selectirc type writer which is the one everyone pretty much agrees is the one that would have had to written the letters did not have curly qoutes.
so those letter could NOT HAVE BEEN made by the ibm selectirc composer.
You own left wing blogs have provided me with enough info to make a decision.
simple as that.
September 15th, 2004 at 6:08 pm
secondly, the issue of kerning is still not answered, it would take the orginal docuemnts to do that.
so we have curly qoutes, kerning, and the fact that the person mentioned in the memos is retired.
hmmm…i remember reading all of those on blogs.
September 15th, 2004 at 6:11 pm
this comment should be read frist.
the ibm selectir composer did not have curly qoutes.
how do i know this, i saw an orginal document made with it here.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp
via this guy of all people
http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_atrios_archive.html#109500451825801385
September 15th, 2004 at 6:22 pm
So let me get this straight, you guys are saying that Bush got no special help to get in the TANG whatsoever?
September 15th, 2004 at 7:05 pm
Rick, WHo said that?
September 15th, 2004 at 9:16 pm
Rick: Bush got into the ANG, in Texas. Dick Gephardt also got into the ANG, in Missouri.
Dick Cheney got student deferments, and John Kerry called him a coward for not fighting. John Edwards also got student deferments. I’m still waiting for John Kerry to call his running mate a coward.
BTW, is there a principal to your beliefs, or do your beliefs just conveniently fall along party lines? If you have principled beliefs, please state them. What’s your opinion of people who got student deferments during Vietnam? What’s your opinion of people (like CCR’s John Fogerty) who served in the National Guard during Vietnam?
September 15th, 2004 at 9:18 pm
Kevin Drum says the memos are “almost certainly fakes.” You know, that partisan Bush-lover Kevin Drum.
September 15th, 2004 at 9:29 pm
Small correction to what I wrote above: it was Harkin, not Kerry, who called Cheney a coward.
September 15th, 2004 at 9:37 pm
Mr. Jones,
I know Bush got into the ANG, my question is, is there anyone who seriously believes that Bush got there all on his own, no help from family connections, didn’t have any strings pulled?
Simple questions really.
And what’s this about Dick Gephardt? Does Dan Rather have fake memos about him skipping out on completing his guard duty? That bastard, will Dan ever learn!
…Unless you all just really want to fight about the fake memos. [grin]
September 15th, 2004 at 9:37 pm
Say Uncle,
No one did but I thought that it might be more productive to find out where we actually are with this story, the fake memos notwithstanding.
September 15th, 2004 at 9:46 pm
Well, a couple posts down, I called bush a half-assed guardsmen so that should tell you what i think of his guard service.
September 15th, 2004 at 11:22 pm
“I know Bush got into the ANG, my question is, is there anyone who seriously believes that Bush got there all on his own, no help from family connections, didn’t have any strings pulled?”
There’s one person (Ben Barnes) who says that he helped Bush get in, but it was a Bush family friend who asked for the help, not the Bushes. Barnes is one of Kerry’s biggest fundraisers. If Barnes was a swift vet, I imagine you’d consider him a partisan.
Me, I don’t much care. Did Bush get help getting into the Guard three decades ago? Maybe, but it’s not especially relevant today. I’m more interested in the candidate’s resolve to fight terrorism and rogue states. Bush has it, Kerry doesn’t.
“And what’s this about Dick Gephardt? Does Dan Rather have fake memos about him skipping out on completing his guard duty?”
I thought you were morally outraged that some people used political ties to get into the guard instead of seeing combat in Vietnam. What happened to your principles?
“…Unless you all just really want to fight about the fake memos. [grin]”
Hey, why not? Only 16% of Americans attach any significance to Bush’s guard service. If you want to keep flagellating that deceased equine, be my guest.
On the other hand, most Americans would probably be concerned that a network anchorman would run bogus documents less than two months from the election. But if you don’t care that journalists are planting evidence to support their prejudices, that says even more about your lack of principle.
September 16th, 2004 at 10:23 pm
I thought you were morally outraged that some people used political ties to get into the guard instead of seeing combat in Vietnam. What happened to your principles?
Exactly where did I say that? You must be thinking about somebody else. I don’t give a rat’s ass if all of these guys had strings pulled, but for god sakes. But the hand wringing that has gone on by the administration and their supporters to avoid answering that question directly (“He was honorably discharged”) going back to his very first run for Governor is way off the scale for an issue that “doesn’t mean anything to anybody”.
Of course the democrats are going to harp on it; Bush is making his ability to lead in this war the centerpiece of his campaign. BTW do you always assess moral outrage to people and then argue about being how they’re being hypocritical, I that only Dan Rather and Michael Moore did things like that?
I can’t tell you about Gephardt don’t know that much about him, but if his family was powerful and connected I would assume he had strings pulled to get into the guard, sure.
And I am concerned about the networks running stories with bogus documents, but you’re implying some kind of culpability on the part of CBS, they may have gotten a bad case of “get Bush fever”, but they may have “been” any number of things, They may have been the victim, they may have been reckless, that may have just been too stupid to figure out that they were being taken, or they may have been trying to be a sinister kingmakers in this years election, no one really knows. But I’m sure Bush would love to sue CBS but I would imagine that would open up a whole can of worms that he would rather not open right now. But if the notion that Bush had strings pulled on his behalf to get into the guard and cut some corners on his term of service is a non issue then who is really harmed? After all CBS news will go down in disgrace, people will stop watching them and the invisible hand of the free market will solve everything which is why I’m not all that worried about CBS.