CBS and Rather Admit Mistakes in Bush Documents

Vexler writes "The word this afternoon from CBS regarding the authenticity of the national guard memos of President Bush is that they cannot be trusted, confirming what several document experts had already suggested. In Dan Rather apologized for a 'mistake in judgment.' I have to wonder though: What would be the price CBS (or CNN, during the 2000 presidential election in which the final tally from Florida was changed several times before they realized that a recount may be needed) would pay for 'mistakes' of this type? What are some of your thoughts regarding 'moderating' (think /.) a news agency when it admits that more than just an honest mistake has been committed in its reporting?" There is still one big question remaining unanswered, too: who forged the memos? Where did they come from? Burkett, the man who provided them to CBS, won't say where he got them.

Comments

Who did this damage more?

[tao_of_biology]

Whilre sincerely trying to stay neutral here...

So, who did this damage more? CBS aired their very-hyped 60 minutes episode that now seems to have totally and unfairly libeled Bush. The damage was done in peoples' minds immediately... and after the fact, 60 minutes and CBS and Dan Rather can come and say, "Whoops." Regardless of what you think about Bush, this isn't totally fair and I think he'd have a good case for libel, if he wasn't president. Shouldn't there be some other ramification other than loss of public trust?

But, since the documents were so quickly shown to be BS (only the documents, the story might actually be true)... it seems to have really, really hurt the democrats and apparently back fired on the apparently-not-so-impartial Dan Rather. It makes the Democrats look like conspirators and more than a little slimy. That they're so worried that they'd need to plant false evidence smearing Bush. I'm not saying this is true, but it definitely could have that appearance to people.

So, given the short attention spans of the public--who did this help or hurt the most? I think the argument could definitely be made both ways. And, I can definitely see motivation for both parties to manufacture these documents and hand them over to CBS... I mean, weren't they exposed a little TOO fast?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[pudge]

Please, stop. These forgeries were *so bad*, why would any Republicans have believed that CBS would not have caught them? Plus, CBS said their source (now revealed to be Burkett, a man who hates Bush and has advocated using dirty tricks against the Republicans) was very reluctant to turn these documents over to CBS, for a long time (apparently years). Saying this may have come from the GOP doesn't pass the smell test.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[(trb001)]

In defense of the people who exposed them, I heard about the memos wednesday and saw them first thing thursday morning...the first thing *I* thought was "These don't look real", and went off to find what other people were saying. I'm no forensic/typographic/handwriting expert, but there's been such a flurry of military documentation released in the past year due to the Kerry/Bush "Where Were You When..." drama, I've seen enough of them to think these looked strange.

Unfortunately, now that the monkey is off CBS' back, we may never find out who forged them...unless criminal charges are pressed on Burkett, he has no reason to talk. He's also a bit of a looney, this isn't the first time he's attacked Bush.

--trb

Re:Who did this damage more?

[joranbelar]

Please, stop. These forgeries were *so bad*, why would any Republicans have believed that CBS would not have caught them?

Uh, yeah...that's the idea. The Republicans manufacture some patently obvious forgeries and let them "slip" into CBS's hands. Once they're proven to be fake, the Democrats get smeared. Nice tactic, eh?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[PatHMV]

IAAL, and I can tell you that, in a libel suit, President Bush would not have to prove that CBS "knew" that the documents were forged, but could simply prove that CBS published them "with reckless disregard" for the truth.

We now find out that CBS, who previously had the utmost confidence in their source, did not even trouble to learn who actually provided them. They allowed Bill Burkett, who is not a reporter, to withhold the identity of his purported source for the documents. In other words, CBS published very damning documents without even knowing who had obtained the originals. A simple Google search on Bill Burkett would have revealed numerous detailed reports of his attacks on Governor and President Bush, and the subsequent undermining of his claims when subjected to scrutiny such as done by the Boston Globe.

CBS knew or easily should have known that Burkett had a long-standing axe to grind with President Bush. They knew he was not the original source of the documents. They knew that he was not the original source for the documents, and had only his word, with no confirming details, that the documents came from a legitimate source. They knew that THEIR OWN DOCUMENT EXAMINERS warned them of problems with the documents, and the one expert they finally relied on vouched only for the signature, not the rest of the document, and specifically stated that it is impossible to fully authenticate a photocopy. To report on documents obtained by Burkett, trusting only his clearly biased word that the documents are authentic, showed, in my opinion, reckless disregard for the truth.

Rather's and CBS's recklessness is further shown in their initial response to the immediate and substantive criticism of the documents. Instead of admitting that they really didn't know where the documents came from, or that the source was a known and persistent critic of the President, they accused their own critics of being partisan. They slapped up a typwritten document with a small "TH" on it as proof positive that typewriters back then could do superscripted "TH", despite very clear differences between that typewritten example and the forged documents.

Did Dan Rather actually know that these documents were forged when he reported them? I doubt it. Did he show reckless disregard for that truth? I believe so, yes.

To prevail in a libel lawsuit, President Bush would also have to show actual malice on the part of Dan Rather and CBS. Personally, I believe that the whole course of conduct showing Rather's and CBS's reckless disregard for the truth is itself evidence of malice. There is no other conceivable motive for their actions. I would be willing to bet quite a bit of money that they have rejected similar stories which portrayed Democrats negatively.

Truly, if one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had brought Dan Rather or his producer a set of documents looking exactly like this but supposedly from the "personal files" of one of Kerry's Vietnam commanders, claiming that Kerry did not deserve one of his medals, does anybody truly believe CBS would have run that story without a great deal more fact checking and certainty than they required here?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[mcmonkey]

It's like saying in American football, "Let them score so we can get the ball back."

Which happens, while not every game, more than once in a blue moon.

Situations calling for giving the other team a quick score include, time is running out and a score seems imminent. Coaches decide to maximize time left when they get they get ball back rather than letting the other team run out the game clock. A more common example is giving the other team an intentional touchback. Giving the other team 2 points when you're up by 3 is sometimes the best move.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[PatHMV]

In fact, I was slightly off in my recollection of New York Times v. Sullivan, but not in the way you suggest. I said that the actual malice test was separate from the reckless disregard test. In fact it is not. Here's what the court said:

The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made [376 U.S. 254, 280] with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

Sullivan does not itself define reckless disregard. Its definition has been flushed out in several subsequent opinions of the court. Fundamentally, the court has said that it must ultimately come down to a case-by-case analysis. In St. Amant v. Thompson, the Supreme Court in 1968 fleshed out what it meant by reckless disregard. The court stated:

The defendant in a defamation action brought by a public official cannot, however, automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true. The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith. Professions of good faith will be unlikely to prove persuasive, for example, where a story is fabricated by the defendant, is the product of his imagination, or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call. Nor will they be likely to prevail when the publisher's allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put them in circulation. Likewise, recklessness may be found where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports.

In Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, the Supreme Court found actual malice through reckless disregard because of a newspaper's extreme departure from the normal standards for investigation followed by responsible journalists:

In short, the evidence is ample to support a finding of highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.

Now, was it really necessary to resort to infantile personal insult?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Zeinfeld]

Uh, yeah...that's the idea. The Republicans manufacture some patently obvious forgeries and let them "slip" into CBS's hands. Once they're proven to be fake, the Democrats get smeared. Nice tactic, eh?

What are folk on here?

One of the curious facts about the activities of the 111th keyboarders discussion of antique typewriters is that almost none of the points raised by 'experts' were valid. As I said at the time the series of claims about the capabilities of 1970s era typewriters fell apart, there was a typewriter that could have produced the memo and denying that fact only obscured the genuine question of whether it was Killian's office typewriter. Its like arguing that Hitler and Stalin never met because they were not contemporaries. The conclusion is correct but the argument is based on a claim that is clearly false, same thing with the claims that the documents were not produced on a typwriter, take a look at the uneven baseline and then explain how to produce the same effect using a laser printer.

Regardless of how the document was produced the issue of provenance was always going to be there. There is no real reason to doubt that the documents were given to CBS by Burkett, a critic of Bush who does not appear to be sponsored by either the Democratic party and certainly not by Karl Rove.

I guess that we could hypothesize that Rove planted the documents on Burkett, but this seems highly unlikely. The simplest explanation is that Burkett forged the documents himself.

I don't see why this should affect the Democrats. It is very clear that the 'Smearboat Liars for Bush' are peddling outright lies, their story has changed repeatedly, is denied by contemporary documents, including the citations for decorations awarded to the smearboat liars. It is very obvious that the Smearboat Liars are a Rove creation but this does not seem to have damaged Bush.

As for libel, I can't see how Bush would want to empower CBS with discovery powers. Killian's secretary has stated that the documents produced were forgeries but that she remembers typing similar documents. The documents were only a small part of the evidence against Bush. The fact remains that Bush lied about the reason for not taking his medical.

It is a pity that the Republican party did not exercise the same degree of skepticism with respect to the documents provided by Ahmed Chalabai that were used to justify the entry to the Iraq quagmire. Chalabai was a far more suspicious source than Burkett, he is after all a convicted embezzler and the CIA had concluded he was an Iranian agent back in the 1990s.

Bush's lies about his guard service are irrelevant compared to his lies about the cause for war in Iraq.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Cereal Box]

was a typewriter that could have produced the memo

Can you name that typewriter?

My understanding of the issue, after reading a lot on both sides, is that the forged memo contains both a superscript "th" and proportional spacing. The two IBM typewriters that were constantly batted about as possiblities were (IIRC) the Selectric and the Executive. The Selectric could do "th" with a removable type ball, but it could only do monospaced typing. The Executive could do proportional spacing, but it had a fixed set of characters, of which the superscripted "th" isn't one of them. So I think the real issue is that you need to find a typewriter that can do BOTH, not point out the obvious fact that there were typewriters at the time that could do one but not the other.

The other more pressing issue is the fact that typing up the same memo with MS Word's defaults gives a memo with unbelievably similar spacing and font...

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Cereal Box]

There have been several IBM repairmen from the time who report doing this on a regular basis.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that someone who reportedly didn't type memos would know how to do this or was even inclined to do so. We could ask Mr. Killian, but he's dead. Very convenient.

Again, the claim made was false, the similarities disappear when you do a comparison at a decent resolution.

I don't follow. I tried this, and you can try it yourself. Find a website that has the MS Word file of the memo, then print it and the CBS memo PDF out and overlay them (turning the Word memo every so slightly to compensate for the CBS memo being scanned at a slight angle) and you will clearly see that the spacing is remarkably similar.

you still don't come up with the uneven baseline that is very clear on the CBS copy.

The memo was scanned in at a slight angle...

I wonder why so many Bush appologists preferred to make demonstratively untrue statements such as 'typewriters cannot do proportional fonts' rather than perform the simple test that would be decisive.

I think you heard a lot of people who were simplifying the issue, that's all. And haven't people been TRYING to perform the "simple" decisive test? Didn't CBS admit that they can't vouch for the authenticity of the memos (in other words, they're sugarcoating "these memos are forged")? Their source even refuses to identify where the got the memos from -- it's just a little bit suspicious, don't you think?

Whoever took the trouble to create the documents definitely used a typewriter to do so.

Well, which typewriter is it? No one has provided a definitive answer, only stating the obvious fact that "this typewriter can do superscripts IF you go to the trouble of replacing a type ball and this other typewriter can do proportional spacing" or even pointing out that very expensive typesetters that only experienced people could operate COULD actually produce this document (but not necessarily with the exact same spacing and fonts that a brand new copy of MS Word possesses). Honestly, it should be very easy for those among us who are not convinced of MS Word forgery to identify THE EXACT typewriters that could have been used (and more importantly, likely to have been used) and compare National Guard purchase records. Even with THAT simple, decisive test, CBS still has to acknowledge that they don't believe the memos are authentic anymore.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The latest piece of jujitsu in this saga is that the DNC has demanded that the RNC explain their part in the forgery of the memos.

Misdirection and spin. The RNC has no part in the forgery whatsoever. The DNC, in demanding that the RNC explain its involvement, has allowed its most lamebrained followers to reject that answer out of hand and keep the conspiracy theory alive.

Lame, lame, lame. Clever politicking, but incredibly lame.

the chances of either national party being involved are negligible.

Um. The DNC is already involved. Joe Lockhart, remember?

The polls are clearly swinging towards Kerry

LOL! Have you seen the latest numbers? Even in the biased polls --the ones that selectively sample in order to approximate the voter turnout in the 2000 election, which was a very low turnout for Republicans--show Kerry tied or behind by a margin that's within the MOE. The unbiased polls show Bush up by as much as 14 or 15 points nationwide. Electoral college math has Bush breaking 300 electoral college votes if the election were held today. Bush's job approval is up over 50%, and the Rasmussen automated tracking poll, not known for being accurate in the numbers but known for being an indicator of trends, has Bush's margin increasing.

Al Qaeda to attack before the inauguration unless people vote for Bush etc.

Oh, sure. It's all a big conspiracy. Whatever, dipshit.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[DeputySpade]

Like when do we discuss the 1000+ US soldiers that have died because Bush lied?

Like, when do we _STOP_ discussing them?

Seriously... Can you "Anybody but Bush" folks not endure one single conversation on any topic without bringing up Iraq? Believe it or not, Iraq is not the only thing to discuss this election season. WTF does Iraq have to do with forged documents being used in an attempt to interfere with a presidential election?
You people are like Walter.

Walter Sobchak : I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this fucking document...

Dude : I don't see any connection to Iraq, Walter.

Vote Tabulation

[christopherfinke]

...during the 2000 presidential election in which the final tally from Florida was changed several times before they realized that a recount may be needed.

Does anyone else think that no counting of votes or reporting of results should occur until all polls in the nation have closed? Situations like the one in 2000 could be avoided, and voters in western states would not feel that their vote doesn't matter, since the results of the eastern states would not be public.

Re:Vote Tabulation

[nharmon]

Does anyone else think that no counting of votes or reporting of results should occur until all polls in the nation have closed?

I don't think people understood before the impact that preceding states have on states in later time zones. Hopefully recent electoral experiences will prompt states to delay election information.

In fact, I'm not terribly happy with how news organizations treat election-day broadcasts. They seem to treat it the same as they would treat the final game in a Stanley Cup Series. As opposed to celebrating the freedom of voting, and perhaps a look back on 4 years.

For example, I would have thought that in the years I've spent watching election coverage, I would have heard about what Badnarik said about pre-1890s ballots not being printed by the government.

Hindsight is 20/20

[etymxris]

Remember, the question to ask here is not, "Are the documents authentic?" but rather, "Was CBS justified in believing the documents to be authentic?" Of course, if they did not believe the documents to be authentic, but ran the story anyway, that would be even worse.

The point is that there are always going to be mistakes made. Demanding 100% accuracy is unrealistic and does more harm than good. Mistakes are only blameworthy if they are caused by carelessness. Not to say that CBS is not blameworthy, but we should be sure to ask the right questions here.

Re:Hindsight is 20/20

[Otter]

Before airing the story, they checked with (in the last version of the story, AFAIK) four forensic experts -- three of whom now claim to have warned them that the documents were fake.

In any case, the real issue isn't the mistake, it's the cover-up. If they had retracted the story immediately, it would have been much more forgivable but there is simply no excuse for the way they stonewalled until it was clear that the problem wasn't going away. And the "apology" here doesn't address that issue at all.

Criminal complaint?

[nharmon]

Is it illegal to falsify government documents?

If so, would Bill Burkett have to tell investigators where he obtained the documents?

Re:Criminal complaint?

[overunderunderdone]

Is it illegal to falsify government documents?

Yes. A number of "bloggers" who are also lawyers (which seems to be most of them) have looked into this idea. There are three different laws (AFIAK) that could apply.

1. There is a Texas law regarding falsifying government records. The fake TexANG letterhead on the forgeries qualifies these documents. Even if they were "private" memos they were the private memos of a National Guard officer in his capacity as such. One of them purports to be an official order so that one definitely qualifies.
2. There is a Texas forgery law regarding forgery with the intent to defraud or harm another. "Harm" is pretty broadly defined, certainly tarnishing a reputation or two (Bush, Staudt) qualifies.
3. If the culprit is subject to the UCMJ there is a forged military documents law.

l got this from www.indcjournal.com

Beyond those laws there is the potential for a civil suit. Bush certainly has grounds though he would never sue because of the politics of it. Staudt could sue. I believe Killian's widow and son could sue under a Texas law which allows the estate of a dead person to sue for libel on the deceased's behalf. One of the memos mentions Killian committing a felony by backdating (that is, falsifying) a government document a violation of laws number two and three above.

Finally, tangentially related, the two document analysts that came forward to ABC & the Washington Post may have a claim against CBS since in a public statements CBS said those experts "misrepresented" their communications to CBS. Given the nature of their profession the accusation that they misrepresented themselves (i.e. "lied") is a pretty serious accusation and if false is probably actionable.

How Soon Does The News Have to Be Out?

[TheWanderingHermit]

In libel and slander suits, law recognizes a difference between a daily newspaper and a magazine, which should have much more time to check facts. A newspaper, which has to be printed quickly and is literally keeping up with today's news does not always have time for in depth checking as a magazine.

CNN, and other networks, on Election Night in 2000 were reporting live, real time events. It is very understandable why all the networks had trouble calling Florida's vote count.

Dan Rather, on the other hand, had time to check, and didn't do his job. In one case, a source had been read the documents over the phone, but never told they were typewritten. There were also problems with the dates -- the memos involved people who were no longer in the Texas ANG. While there is a rush to get that kind of info out, Rather (who, I admit, I have never trusted or liked as a newscaster) seemed to live up to the image I developed of him in Journalism class when I read his autobiography (The Camera Never Blinks) -- he was more concerned with being the first, the most noticable, and the one with the biggest ego, instead of making sure he was reporting news.

I don't think there's reason to penalize CNN and other networks for the gaffs in 2000, but Rather -- I hope this helps people finally see he operates on the same level Geraldo operated on when he did stunts like opening Al Capone's vault.

I also think Rather owes a public apology to BOTH Bush and Kerry, since the memos slandered Bush, but also would have looked to many like Kerry was trying to slander Bush.

BTW, even though I can forgive CNN for the mistakes in 2000, I still can't bring myself to call any station a news channel when they spend 8 hours a day for a year on the O.J. Simpson trial.

My two questions

[Otter]

1) These documents didn't appear in a vacuum. They came out in what was clearly a coordinated attack on Bush by CBS, the Boston Globe (who, with their NYT owners are getting off the hook way too easily on this) and the DNC. Now, I don't believe for a second that the Kerry campaign created these documents. But given how closely the campaign was tied to these documents, everyone involved really needs to explain where the forgeries came from. (And, no, there is no issue of protecting an anonymous source in a case like this.)

2) The CBS "apology" might have been adequate a week and a half ago. But at this point, CBS has been stonewalling and hiding behind a constantly changing cast of "experts" way, way past the point where it was obvious that the documents were egregious fakes. (And ridiculing everyone who bothered to actually do some real fact-checking.) Are there going to be any further explanations or consequences? This is nowhere near enough.

(By the way, given that this is going to turn out to be a watershed moment in Internet journalism, Slashdot has been curiously oblivious to its News For Nerds aspect.)

Re:My two questions

[kalidasa]

Don't forget that Karl Rove has been known to do things like bug his own office. The assumption that this was a coordinated attack on GWB is just that, an assumption based upon the (perfectly legitimate anywhere except in politics, where this sort of thing usually ends up favoring the target) logic that GWB's campaign wouldn't forge documents that make them look bad. Do I think there are people on the left capable of doing something like this? Sure. But don't assume that just because the obvious benefit (if the documents hadn't been all but proven to be forgeries) would have redounded to Kerry means folks with Kerry's best interests at heart forged them.

Re:My two questions

[shaka999]

Why exactly do you believe CBS and/or the Boston Globe were in on a coordinated attack? A much more likely situation is that someone was out to get Bush and CBS/Globe jumped on the story in the age old journalistic tradition.

This is just going to feed the Right Wing's crap about the liberal press.

2) Here I agree. CBS took way to long to admit a mistake. Furthermore, some of the items brought up to prove these documents were fakes were so obvious I have to seriously question how well the researched them in the first place. Again, they probably wanted to get the story out so bad they fell hook, line, and sinker.

Lawsuit

[c.ecker]

This is the we're sorry ploy. Notice they didn't retract the story -- just retracted the authenticity of the memos. They're trying to mitigate possibility of a lawsuit with more fictional reporting ...

If GW was a citizen rather than The President, he'd have a slam-dunk slander case. CBS did not follow due diligence in determining the authenticity of the memos. It really looks like CBS was shopping for the verification they wanted, in order to be able to air the memos even though they knew they were fakes. They even went so far as to call a preliminary opinion of the documents (collectively, not just the 4 memos) their authentication.

If it can be proven that CBS intentionally ran the story with fake documents, its just a short step further to the jackpot slander verdict ...

Watch how they CYA with their 'follow-up' 'report' on how the documents were authenticated ... more bogus reporting by CBS and company ...

Re:Lawsuit

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Notice they didn't retract the story -- just retracted the authenticity of the memos.

Um. No.

I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where--if I knew then what I know now-- I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

That's a retraction. Of the whole story.

If GW was a citizen rather than The President, he'd have a slam-dunk slander case.

No, he wouldn't. In order to collect damages for defamation, you generally have to prove that the publishing agency acted with the clear knowledge that the information wasn't true. Proving that the absence of probative evidence --a memo from Rather saying that the story is crap but that he's going to run it anyway because he hates that bastard Bush--is essentially impossible.

Re:Lawsuit

[overunderunderdone]

Read the second half of the sentence you put in bold ...as it was aired. He would still have aired the story, he just would have told it differently, still plenty of room in that statement for the "fake, but accurate" line Rather has taken in recent days.

It doesn't bother me so much that CBS was duped, but that they were so EAGER to be duped. The appearance of the documents raises red flags. The "unimpeachable" source is anything but (a very partisan Democrat with a personal animus towards Bush and towards the Texas National Guard, who has had to retract some previous accusations). The partisan nature of the other key source Ben Barnes who is a Vice Chair of, and a top fundraiser for, the Kerry campaign. I am not a big believer in "bias" but I can't imagine that Rather would have run with a similarly partisanly sourced hit piece against Kerry.

Re:Lawsuit

[PatHMV]

The lawyering up will be happening very quickly now. The latest news from the AP is that Mary Mapes, the CBS producer, called Joe Lockhart in the Kerry campaign a few days before the report aired and recommended that he call Burkett, that Burkett was going to be providing some documents to CBS regarding President Bush's National Guard service. The AP report is coming directly from Joe Lockhart himself. A major news media producer called political campaign headquarters and gave him non-public information about upcoming news stories about their political opponent. That is such a tremendous breach of journalistic standards as to boggle the mind.

There will be a criminal investigation into all this very soon. Lockhart is clearly trying to get ahead of the game and pin everything on Mapes. A New York Times article yesterday or this morning cited CBS sources also starting to push the blame onto Mapes. I bet she won't sit still for it, myself. It's only a matter of time now. This is going to finish Dan Rather, and it may finish 60 Minutes and the entire CBS News organization. And I don't see how Lockhart can stay with the Kerry campaign after admitting to collaborating with CBS news. It's pretty obvious that the timing of the DNC's "Operation Fortunate Son" attack wasn't coincidental in the slightest.

It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[trentfoley]

The Bush administration created these documents!

They heard that CBS was investigating the story and they immediately went in to damage control. The documents were clandestinely delivered to Kerry supporters so that they would then be given to CBS. They were made to be so juicy that CBS wouldn't be able to see through all of the drool that they were obvious forgeries.

The Bush family has a history in the intelligence business. I wouldn't put this past them.

Sure, the documents are forgeries, but is the story true or false? As it stands now, the story is in a quantum state, awaiting the collapse of a wave function.

I agree with another poster, "Kodos 2004"

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[SpaceLifeForm]

The 'wave function' is leaning to the story being true simply because bush has made no effort to refute them.

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[nine-times]

The 'wave function' is leaning to the story being true simply because bush has made no effort to refute them.

Yes. And if you refuse to let the nice officer search your car, you must be smuggling drugs. Oh, and if you plead the 5th on the witness stand, you must be guilty of the crime your accused of. And while you're at it, let's ask George W. a simple yes or no question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" We'll know the answer is "no" if he doesn't want to answer that one.

John Kerry's coffin called...

[Anonymous Coward]

It said, "No more nails please."

Allow Me to Rant About This

[Murdock037]

So, because these documents were forged, it means George W. Bush honorably and fully completed his commitment to the National Guard, right?

Of course not. But, as is the custom with our current administration, the most effective way to suppress the message is to conduct a smear campaign against the messenger.

Such is the cult of personality surrounding George W. Bush: Because Bush cannot be flawed in any way, those that suspect he is must be destroyed. (I'm thinking of Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Dan Rather, and any other number of smaller government employees, economists, journalists, etc.)

But you can't entirely blame Bush's people. Why not do what works, if you can get away with it?

This whole forged documents story is endemic of a systemic failure in our print and television media-- a failure that allows any number of major scandals to go unreported, that allows lies to pass under the guise of "viewpoints," that focuses on real or imagined personality traits rather than issues.

I will register my disgust in the proper way: through my vote. ...But it's not as if I really trust that anymore, either.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

So, because these documents were forged, it means George W. Bush honorably and fully completed his commitment to the National Guard, right?

Well, actually ...yeah. Given that the only documentary evidence of misconduct that anybody has ever been able to cough up has turned out to be forged, yes, this basically means that the "Bush went AWOL" non-story can finally be put to bed once and for all.

There are idiots out there who will fight to keep it alive, of course, but there are people who insist we never landed on the moon, either.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[ConceptJunkie]

You know, it's ironic that everyone is saying to just move on and get past the circumstances surrounding Kerry's Purple Hearts and Silver Star, because according to the military, he earned them and deserved them, and yet the DNC is beating up on Bush even though he received an honorable discharge, in other words, according to the military, he did his job.

How is that the military's word is good enough for one candidate and not the other. I would love to see one campaign where a double standard isn't so blatantly applied by either side. As it is, I need to keep duct tape wrapped around my head to keep it from exploding.

Here's an idea: Let's give Kerry credit for serving bravely and honorably and let's give Bush credit for serving, even if it wasn't in combat.

Here's the real question: Who's going to keep the Islamofascist nutjobs from blowing me up?!

I still can't see what tortured logic you are applying to blame this issue on the Republicans. Dan Rather destroyed himself (and he's been doing it for years). I didn't give him any credibility before all this happened. You ever hear the nickname "Red" Dan Rather? It's been around for years, even decades.

Courage, indeed. CBS has gotten to the point where they can't even pretend to be objective. I'd trust the National Enquirer before those clowns.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[cgranade]

My god. This comment is enough to bring me out of a nearly year-long hiatus from posting to /..

Of course there is other evidence. Try this. In fact, there is no evidence to support that Bush was not AWOL. In this case, since the military should have been keeping meticulous records, it is a reasonable conclusion that Bush was AWOL in lieu of any credible evidence to suggest that he did in fact show up for his duty at wartime.

By your idea of "logic," because there is no document saying there is not an invisible pink unicorn flying above your head, there must be. Here, there should be documentation of his service, but there isn't. Were this a case where we shouldn't expect records to exist, you'd be right. However, at fault is your assumption that a (fictious) lack of evidence to incriminate Bush in fact clears him. It does not. Furthermore, as I specified above, there is evidence to incriminate Bush. Take this quote from the article:

And Bush himself, in his 1999 autobiography, ''A Charge to Keep,'' recounts the thrills of his pilot training, which he completed in June 1970. ''I continued flying with my unit for the next several years,'' the governor wrote.

But both accounts are contradicted by copies of Bush's military records, obtained by the Globe. In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all. And for much of that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen.

I rest my case. Here, we have evidence to specifically incriminate him, and none to save him. Until further evidence is produced on this issue, there is no logical conclusion but that he failed in his duty, then lied about it.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Try this.

A Boston Globe story? You've got a lot of balls posting that link in here.

In fact, there is no evidence to support that Bush was not AWOL.

Except, you know, for the fact that he was honorably discharged, not an honor conferred upon them what don't show up. And the public record of Bush's attendance. And the expert opinion of Lt. Col. Lloyd given upon examining the records. And the dental check-up that you guys love to forget about.

Except for all that evidence, there's no evidence at all.

Hell, even CBS News admits that ample evidence of the president's honorable service exists.

Here, we have evidence to specifically incriminate him, and none to save him.

Oooh, one quote taken out of context and misrepresented. (He was talking about an event that happened in the winter of 1968, dumbass.)

You baffle me. "There's no evidence at all! Except for all that evidence, which doesn't count because the Boston Globe which never, ever lies told me so!"

Loser.

Re:Look at the those MEMOS! Look only at the MEMOS

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The story was well researched

Um. No. Even CBS News says now that the story never should have gone on the air.

includes a lot of interviews

Mostly interviews that torpedoed the story. But you didn't hear anything about those on 60 Minutes.

including, now, to the secretary who says "I didn't type those. But I typed ones that said about the same thing"

That's not at all what she said --go read the transcripts --and she's also the same person who was quoted in the Dallas Morning News as saying that the thought Bush was "selected, not elected." No possible agenda there, no sir.

The Globe (and CBS) showed pretty darn conclusively that Bush reneged, was AWOL, that it was covered up/excused, and that he's lying and/or stonewalling when he says different and at the same time, he and his proxies are attacking Kerry's war record.

Wow. That's the precise opposite of what the record actually shows. Amazing.

Did George W. Bush sign up for a six-year commitment? Yes. Did he fulfill every obligation during his service? Yes. When he transferred to Alabama, did he give up his flight status because there was no place on the flightline for him? Yes. Did he request an early discharge? Yes. Was he granted that early discharge? Yes.

Is there any evidence at all that George W. Bush did anything improperly or incompletely? No. Ben Barnes insists that he pulled strings for Bush, but he simply can't produce any evidence to that effect, and everybody else involved maintains that it simply isn't true.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your personal hatred, now.

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The charges themselves have been all but corroborated by the White House

That's not correct.

and certainly nobody is denying the content is true.

Also not correct.

The only (campaign) issue is whether these actual embodiments are from the time period they claim to be.

Actually, the campaign issue is whether a major news organization used memos which it either (1) knew or (2) reasonably should have known were falsified as the basis for a story which was released with the intent of influencing the outcome of the election.

Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document?

How can you not?

The point is that Bush dropped the ball when he was supposed to be defending the country in the 1970's, a job he got by virtue of being his father's son in the first place.

See, those are the two allegations that these memos were alleged to support, but that in the absence of these memos turn out to be completely unfounded. Ben Barnes has been alleging that somebody pulled strings to get Bush into the Guard since the 1994 Texas gubernatorial race. There's absolutely no evidence to support that allegation. In fact, in 1999, Barnes himself recanted his own story through his attorney. And the "he disobeyed an order" thing was concocted out of whole cloth, apparently either by Bill Burkett or by somebody who then passed the story on to Burkett.

These are two allegations which simply are not true. And yet you're repeating them like they're revealed gospel. Could it be that you're suffering from Dan Rather Syndrome?

Admission of guilt is actually a good thing

[AnwerB]

What are some of your thoughts regarding 'moderating' (think /.) a news agency when it admits that more than just an honest mistake has been committed in its reporting?

The fact that a station actually admits that they made a mistake is to its credit.

I'm sure that there are news stations that misreport without ever clearing up any mistakes they may have made.

Anyway, firstly, if you wanted to censure news stations for obvious bias, there would probably not be any US-based channels on the air. I personally prefer news from Reuters and the BBC, but I'm sure someone will believe them to be pinko-commie-sympathizing liberals (or neo-Nazi facists, depending on your view of the news being reported).

Secondly, I think that allowing people to moderate news will result in continuous 24 hour coverage of sports and models, since that's probably what most people would like to see instead of depressing world news and politics.

Re:Admission of guilt is actually a good thing

[kalidasa]

The whole problem here is that the potential moderators don't have enough evidence or knowledge to accurately moderate the news. Look, I know from my mods that most of the time when I make a political comment, if the mods reflect the repllies, that liberals mod me up and conservatives mod me down - regardless of whether or not they know that what I'm saying is true. There are some exceptions - mostly conservatives who respond politely or constructively or at least logically and rationally, and who I assume would mod me up if I were making some kind of sense regardless of whether or not they agreed with my thinking. But for the most part, mods on news and political comment will be polarized and partisan.

So no, I think it is unlikely such a system would work.

Welcome to "even worse"

[switcha]

Of course, if they did not believe the documents to be authentic, but ran the story anyway, that would be even worse.

From ABCNEWS.com,

Two of the document experts hired by CBS News now say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast of 60 Minutes II about the disputed National Guard records attributed to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.

"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter," she said.

Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.

"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said.
...

emphasis mine

And keep reading the link for more who called 'shenanigans' before the piece went to air.

Re:There's no libel here

[Watcher]

Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document?
Oh boy. I'm no fan of Bush (I voted for him in 2000, and I'm not voting for him this time around), but just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you can conveniently ignore the fact that these documents were forged. Even if they are talking about something that really did happen in the early seventies, they are forgeries, and therefore nothing more than mean spirited fiction. They are not evidence, and no amount of good intentions on anyone's part can change that, no more than some of the more fanciful stories about Clinton that have been proven false are somehow correct because they were "morally justified".

You can't apply one standard to the group you agree with, and then apply another standard to those you don't. That's just hypocrisy.

Cat Got Your Democracy?

[Rie Beam]

So this is what it's come to? I'm stuck voting for the people who lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top, or people who lie, cheat, and steal to make the others look bad. Meh...

**waves flag, promptly burns it**

I hear Canada is nice this time of year...

Re:There's no libel here

[nathanh]

Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document? The point is that Bush dropped the ball when he was supposed to be defending the country in the 1970's, a job he got by virtue of being his father's son in the first place.

Are you serious? Are you really suggesting that it's OK to forge documents to prove a point that you think is true? Would you also advocate planting falsified evidence on somebody you're certain is guilty of another crime?

Heavens to Betsy, there is something seriously defective in the ethical centre of your brain.

CBS and Rather are totally at fault here.

[Shivetya]

Rather was looking to bring down a President. He was warned by more than one person that the documents were trouble. Instead of following the well known mantra of the newsman he let his personal hate of all things Bush get in his way. Combined with MM who shares his views these documents were the best gift an old warhorse like Rather could want.

Rather needs to be forcibly retired and M Mapes (?) needs to be reassigned. Both destroyed the credibility of 60 Minutes (as if had any - they are distortion central) and CBS.

Not only did Rather slader Bush he also damaged Kerry because it will be played out by many as being a DNC based conspiracy.

Just a few days before this story broke Rather was proclaiming what happened 30 years ago didn't matter

(Quote) "I would like us to concentrate more on issues and less on campaign process. But there is always a tendency to go with what's sensational. Also, we're human, and humans keep making the same mistakes. In the end, what difference does it make what one candidate or the other did or didn't do during the Vietnam War? In some ways, that war is as distant as the Napoleonic campaigns. What's far more import is this: Do they have an exit strategy for Iraq? If so, what is it? How will they address the national deficit? And what are the chances their plans will work?"

Dan Rather was a great newsman who traded his integrity in an attempt to play kingmaker. He has probably damaged CBS for some time to come all because his selfish political ideas were more important than the truth.

Nothing

[xpccx]

I think the lawsuit against Fox over bovine growth hormone proves that this will cost them nothing. From what I gather, Fox reporters were pressured by Fox executives to alter their news story in order to paint a prettier picture about the effects of BGH. When the reporters didn't change the story they were fired. A lawsuit insued and Fox has won on appeal because, get this, the FCC doesn't require news agencies to tell the truth.

So, whether this was done on purpose or accidentally, from a legal perspective it matters little.

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Yellowcake uranium from pre-Gulf War I does not qualify as a WMD

That's not a correct statement. In this context, "WMD" means anything that was prohibited by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Lots of radical leftists want to re-define the term so that "WMD" only means working nuclear bombs or whatever. That's just silly.

Bad intel - WMD and WNG (W Natl Guard)

[code_rage]

You would think after the fiasco about media credulity of Iraq WMDs, the media would be more suspicious of this sort of thing. In both cases, evidence was uncritically accepted because it fit with a preconceived notion of the facts.

We knew Saddam had developed and used WMDs in the past, we knew that Saddam had disobeyed UN resolutions in the past, we knew that Saddam had cheated on international weapons inspections in the past. Why wouldn't he have WMDs? When evidence was presented, everyone was ready to accept it. Even the Joe Wilson story (Niger yellowcake) didn't keep people from accepting the worst case scenario.

Similar thing with the Bush National Guard records. We know that Bush jumped to the head of the applicant list through the good ol' boy network. We know that he did not perform the duties he signed contracts for.

There was nothing in the content of the forged memos that raised suspicion -- instead it was abbreviations and typography that gave it away. Interestingly, the same was true of the Niger yellowcake documents -- one of the big giveaways was that the names of govt officials were not contemporary with the dates on the documents.

Even old pros like Rather need to learn: just because evidence seems to fit does not make it true.

Re:There's no libel here

[commodoresloat]

That's not correct.

Yes it is. The White House admitted that Bush skipped out on the physical. They released documents that show it. The CBS document controversy has overshadowed these facts, which makes you wonder who created the fake documents to begin with.

and certainly nobody is denying the content is true.

Also not correct.

The poster should have said "nobody credible is denying."

Actually, the campaign issue

Actually, there is no campaign issue here. Bush skipped out on his guard duty 30 years ago because he was doing drugs and would have failed the physical. It's an issue of historical fact but hardly a campaign issue, and the Kerry campaign is silly for going after what happened 30 years ago when Bush is doing so much to foul things up right now.

CBS made a huge error here, and somebody will likely lose their job over it. And they should make a significant effort to publicize who forged the documents and why. But this shouldn't be a campaign issue at all.

Ben Barnes has been alleging that somebody pulled strings

No; Ben Barnes is admitting that he pulled strings. The admission diminishes his own character as well, so it is difficult to see this as some kind of self-serving scheme. In any case, Bush's absence from the guard is well documented by documents the White House released and does not dispute.

The Democrats are wasting their time with this. Everybody knows Bush and Cheney ducked out on their country during Vietnam, and the people who don't want to believe that it's true are not going to be convinced by a document, real or not. The historians will sort the truth out. The campaign would do well to focus on what's actually happening today rather than looking at 30 years ago.

Re:There's no libel here

[nursedave]

Ain't it a pisser there's no proof. Funny how some people will believe anything bad about a politician they don't like, despite proof, yet won't believe something like, oh, say, the FACT that al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence folks had meetings before 9/11, or the FACT that Iraq had WMD which they shuffled from spot to spot while inspectors were in the country, and more than likely moved them to Syria during the enormous lead-time before the war. I mean, they did exist (this was proven in GWI), Hussein didn't destroy them, and now they can't be found.. Geee, where could they be?

The most important fact

[Dan the Control Guy]

3 other investigations, (the Boston Globe among them) have found the charges are correct WITHOUT USING THESE DOCUMENTS. Face it, Bush is a dick ( and so is Cheney)

The real victim

[quarrelinastraw]

In this whole situation is the independent media. I can't see anything that CBS has done wrong from a purely journalistic point of view. They made a mistake believing Burkett, but news organizations make retraction more often than would be believed. The onus is not on the organization to report ONLY the truth, but to do vigorous fact checking, investigate itself internally, and apologize when mistakes are made. I think CBS has done that, even in the face of a bullying conservative media that I imagine would have forced the Washington Post to retract Watergate had they been as strong then. I believe that CBS checked its facts in earnest and made a mistake. But that is different entirely than broadcasting known lies (as Fox is known to do) or not having a fact-checking organization at all, like all bloggers.

The "documents are faked" cry came from conservative bloggers. Then people started wondering whether typewriters can make superscripts (they can) and a handfull of the document inspector panel said they didn't approve the documents. Of course, that's why there is a panel of experts, and not just one expert. Anytime there are documents, I imagine a few experts disagree, and they go with the weight of the panel. There is nothing particularly insidious about inspecting your documents and following expert opinion.

But the initial Bush response was not to deny the veracity of the claims. In fact, they didn't claim the documents were forged until the conservative bloggers had pushed the story into the media, which indicates at least partially that they were unsure. If they were unsure, there's a pretty good reason to believe that the allegations alleged MIGHT have some merit. Moreover, the Bush response was to say "these guys are just repeating old allegations," in other words, everybody already knows that Bush got it easy during Vietnam. To change from that to "CBS intentionally forged documents to hurt the president" is frankly absurd and intellectually dishonest.

CBS is NOT a partisan company. They make every effort to be neutral with respect to politics, so if CBS comes out tarnished as a Bush-hating medium by the conservative pundits, that will be a sad day indeed. The original post mentions the 2000 election call, which it may be recalled was originally made by Bush's cousin at Fox News. The absolute last thing we need is for more people to believe the "Rathergate" hype and to fall into the "liberal media bias" mythology.