Saturday, September 11, 2004


September 11 commentary from Bill Little at the University of Texas:

Saturday night in Fayetteville, Texas will remember. The Longhorns will carry the American flag on to the field. The flag bearer who will lead them is a reserve fullback named Ahmard Hall. He is a walk-on player, and you know him only as No. 46 who played late in the North Texas game. His fellow Marines know him as a guy who has served in real battles, with real bombs and real bullets. Three years ago on 9/ll, he was in Kosovo. Later, he was in Afghanistan, as the liberation came. Now, he's getting his college education on the GI Bill, and has two years of military obligation waiting when he finishes.

He will carry the flag with pride. He's seen Her in way tougher places than a football road trip.

It will be important on Saturday night to celebrate sport, and to enjoy the game. To remember the past, and how The Game of the Century mattered so much in 1969, and in a very real sense matters today.

But it is more important to understand how, on that morning in September just three years ago, America changed forever. Safe and secure were replaced by fear and concern.

Saturday night in Fayetteville, they will play a game, and folks will watch and a team will win and a team will lose. And there will be cheering and tears.

In a world where school children die and people kill for causes, it is important to remember what we all really stand for.

In a far off land, soldiers and Marines stand sentinel in a brave effort to change the world.

That's why the flag is important, and why the coaches and the players talked about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Grand words, those.

Words worth fighting for.

And remembering.

Friday, September 10, 2004


The Prowler is reporting (via Instapundit again and via The Daily Recycler) that the forged documentst may have Kerry campaign fingerprints on them (apparently The Prowler has been shut down by a link from Drudge):

A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.

"The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush's file that had Killian calling Bush 'an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.' And someone who Killian said 'performed in an outstanding manner.' Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different."

The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. "This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn't show it," says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.

Now, the producer says, there is growing concern inside the building on 57th Street that they may have been suckered by the Kerry campaign. "There is a school of thought here that the Kerry people dumped this in our laps, figuring we'd do the heavy lifting on the story. That maybe they had doubts about these documents but hoped we'd get more information," says the producer. "If that's the case, then we're bigger fools than we already appear to be judging by all the chatter about how these documents could be forgeries."

Well there are fools and then there are tools like Chris Lahane, who Powerline reports was speculating that the Bush campaign was behind the forgeries. The theory being, I suppose, that the documents were so easily debunked that no one associated with Kerry could have thought that they could get away with their release. Only one problem with that, the same logic works for Karl Rove.

The really interesting thing here is that CBS was so anxious to pump out dirt on Bush that they didn't perform the due dilligence on their authenticity that we know, based on excellent work done by the blogosphere, could have been wrapped up in 24 hours.

Like I said last night, heads are gonna roll over this one.


More analysis from Donald Sensing (via Instapundit)who concludes:

From all this I conclude that the Killian-signed documents are forgeries, forged by someone without a very good knowledge of military correspondence or Air Force publications or procedures. Based on the Air Force's own online library of current and obsolete publications, I conclude that there never was an Air Force Manual 35-13, although there was an AF Regulation by that number. But a lieutenant colonel would never have made such a fundamental error as using "AFM" twice when he meant AFR.

Furthermore, it is likely that whatever AFR 35-13 governed, flight physicals wasn't it. My contention is buttressed by two points:

A. AFR 35-13's successor publication is a personnel management instruction (regulation).

B. This online copy of a senior NCO's routine reassignment orders, dated 1954, which cites AFR 35-13 as an authority for the transfer. A publication governing personnel assignments doesn't also govern enforcement of flight physicals.

So the forger said the physical was to be done IAW a manual, not a regulation, and named a manual that never existed anyway, and used a numeric that belonged to a personnel-management reg, not a flight-standards reg.

Thursday, September 09, 2004


Captain's Quarters links to the Weekly Standard where Stephen Hayes has a couple of experts who have this to say:

"These sure look like forgeries," says William Flynn, a forensic document expert widely considered the nation's top analyst of computer-generated documents. Flynn looked at copies of the documents posted on the CBS News website (here, here, here, and here). Flynn says, "I would say it looks very likely that these documents could not have existed" in the early 1970s, when they were allegedly written.

Several other experts agree. "They look mighty suspicious," says a veteran forensic document expert who asked not to be quoted by name. Richard Polt, a Xavier University philosophy professor who operates a website dedicated to typewriters, says that while he is not an expert on typesetting, the documents "look like typical word-processed documents."

While Powerline has been destroying CBS' credibility, or what was left of it, in a series of updates and links.

And then there is INDC, where I saw it first (via Allah is in the HOUSE):

UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard called me again, and after further analysis, he says that he's pretty certain that it's a fake.

Here's why

* He looked through old papers he's written, and noted that he's come up against the inconsistency of the "4" several previous times with forgeries that attempt to duplicate old proportional spaced documents with a computer word processing program.

* Regarding the small "th" after the date, Dr. Bouffard told me that it was possible to order specialty keys that would duplicate the automatic miniaturization completed by word processors after a numerical date, but it was certainly not standard, and wouldn't make a lot of sense in a military setting. "That by itself, while suspicious, is not impossible, but in conjunction with the (font irregularity of the) number four, it is really significant," he said.

* Dr. Bouffard said that signature analysis isn't that relevant because the signature could have easily been copied and pasted onto one of the photocopied forgeries from another document.

* He said that he didn't know who CBS contacted to verify the document's authenticity, but that there is really only one other man that may be more qualified to determine authentic typefaces than himself. I think that the burden of proof may be on CBS to reveal this information.

I asked him to put a percentage on the chances that this was a fake, and he said that was "hard to put a number on it." I then suggested "90%?" Again he said it's "hard to put an exact number, but I'd say it's at least that high, sure. I pretty much agree that that font is Times New Roman."

I hesitate to render verdicts, but based on an initial visual analysis by one of the country's foremost forensic document analysts that specializes in old typefaces, it looks like CBS was duped.

Charles Johnson does some forensic work of his own. And more expert analysis from Hugh Hewitt.

A different angle is pondered by Dr. Sanity (nice name - ed.):

My problem with the memos is the content, particularly the content of the May 4th memo purportedly ordering Lt. Bush to get his flight physical.

I am a former NASA flight surgeon. I did physical exams on members of all the military services, including ANG. People report normally for a PEX (physical exam) by the last date of their birth month. Bush's birth month is July (DOB July 6, 1946). WHY WOULD HIS CDR ORDER HIM TO REPORT OVER 2 MONTHS EARLY FOR HIS ANNUAL PEX? Especially since we know that GWB was flying in April (he had 7 flight days according to the records).

If Bush was already aware that he would be going to Alabama--where they did not have the plane he was trained in and where the CDR of the Alabama unit had already told him they had too many pilots, but that he was "welcome" to come-- Bush would have allowed his flight status to lapse, since NO pilot willingly will permit a physician to do a PEX if he didn't have to.

Nothing in these new memos makes sense from the flight surgeon point of view. And, of course, the timing is awfully suspicious.

Meanwhile Jerry Killian's son doubts that his father held the views that are being attributed to him by CBS.

CBS is going to have to issue a lot more than a retraction after the smoke clears. If the allegations are true and Rather and his anti-Bush minions have either been taken in by a sloppy forgery that is this quickly debunked, heads will have to roll. This will make the Jayson Blair scandal look like a day in the park. Blair was just an individual reporter lying in print to further his own career with the Times editors failing to exercise the proper oversight. CBS, if this is true, will have been guilty of manufacturing a partisan attack on the president with clumsily forged documents.

The desperation meter has just jumped the chart for Kerry partisans in the media. Maybe this is why. The map shows 288 electoral votes for Bush-Cheney, but at this point I think Minnesota (10), New Mexico (5) and Pennsylvania (21) should be in the president's column raising his total to 324 EV's. Iowa (7) and Oregon (7) are also toss-ups.

Not to mention that Bush's National Guard service is old news. The electorate has thourough knowledge of it already and it is unlikely to weight in the minds of undecided voters (the few that still are) more than the president's record in office.

The biggest impact of the weeks events could be the total discrediting of CBS News and the end (hopefully) of Dan Rather's association with it.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=