News & Politics - CBS Stands by Memos on Bush Guard Service

Semmer · 09-11-2004, 05:43 PM

CBS Stands by Memos on Bush Guard Service
Saturday, September 11, 2004

WASHINGTON — CBS News acknowledged memos it received about President Bush's service in the Air National Guard (search) were difficult to definitively authenticate, but said they came from "solid sources."

Some forensic experts were quoted by news organizations, including The Associated Press, saying the memos appeared to have been computer-generated with characteristics that weren't available three decades ago.

On Friday's "CBS Evening News," anchor Dan Rather (search) said that "no definitive evidence" has emerged to prove the documents are forgeries.

"If any definitive evidence comes up, we will report it," Rather said.

The show broadcast excerpts of interviews with Marcel Matley, a San Francisco document expert, who said he believed the memos were genuine.

CBS can state "with absolute certainty" that the disputed memos could have been produced on typewriters available in the early 1970s when the memos are purported to have been written, the network said. Rather said the typeface and style of the memos were available on typewriters since well before the 1970s.

But CBS News said in a statement: "The documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but sources familiar with their content." Matley was the only expert cited, and he focused on signatures on the memos.

Matley and Rather acknowledged the memos were difficult to definitively authenticate because CBS has only photocopies, not the originals. Matley did not return a telephone message left at his office immediately after Friday's report.

At question are memos that carry the signature of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian (search), who was the commander of Bush's Texas Air National Guard fighter squadron. They say Killian was under pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's record, and Bush refused a direct order to take a required medical examination and discussed how he could skip drills.

Casting further doubt on the memos, The Dallas Morning News said in a report for its Saturday editions that the officer named in a memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's record had left the Texas Air National Guard 1 1/2 years before the memo was dated.

The newspaper said it obtained an order showing that Walter B. Staudt, former commander of the Texas Guard, retired on March 1, 1972. The memo was dated Aug. 18, 1973. A telephone call to Staudt's home Friday night was not answered.

"60 Minutes" relied on the documents as part of a Wednesday segment — reported by Rather — on Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968 to 1973.

Former colleagues of Killian disagreed Friday on the authenticity of the documents.

One, who appeared in the TV newsmagazine segment, said Friday he did not see anything in the memos that made him think they were forgeries. Robert Strong noted he's not a forensic expert and isn't vouching for the documents.

"I didn't see anything that was inconsistent with how we did business," Strong said in an interview. "It looked like the sort of thing that Jerry Killian would have done or said. He was a very professional guy."

Both Wednesday and Friday, Strong was the only associate of Killian quoted by CBS as supporting the memo's contents.

Retired Col. Maurice Udell, the unit's instructor pilot who helped train Bush, said Friday he thought the documents were fake.

"I completely am disgusted with this (report) I saw on '60 Minutes,'" Udell said. "That's not true. I was there. I knew Jerry Killian. I went to Vietnam with Jerry Killian in 1968."

Killian's son also questioned some of the documents, saying his father would never write a memo like the "sugar coat" one.

Several of the document examiners said one clue that the documents may be forgeries was the presence of superscripts — in this case, a raised, smaller "th" in two references to Guard units.

Rather said typewriters were available in the early 1970s which were capable of printing superscripts. CBS pointed to other Texas Air National Guard documents released by the White House that include an example of a raised "th" superscript.

That superscript, however, is in a different typeface than the one used for the CBS memos. Document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines of Paradise Valley, Ariz., who examined the documents for the AP, said she was "virtually certain" they were generated by computer.

Lines said that meant she could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer.

CBS has not revealed its source or sources for the documents or the names of experts besides Matley it said examined the memos before Wednesday's report.

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday the White House, which distributed the memos after obtaining them from CBS News, was not trying to verify their authenticity. "We don't know if the documents are fabricated or authentic," McClellan told reporters traveling with the president to West Virginia.

McClellan suggested the memos surfaced as part of "an orchestrated effort by Democrats and the Kerry campaign to tear down the president."

I've actually heard Democrats blaming the Republicans for these false files. Like they set them up to blame the Liberals. Wow. I guess no matter what Republicans do they will always be held responsible. Even if they didn't do anything

alli balli · 09-11-2004, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Semmer
Wow. I guess no matter what Republicans do they will always be held responsible. Even if they didn't do anything

Well, let's look at their track record so far from the presidential race. They're not the most honest guys in the world.

Not that I think they necessarily did this. I think it's a definite possibility, but it's also a definite possibility that the Democrats came up with it, or that they are in fact real. So who knows.

Katis · 09-12-2004, 03:19 AM

Honestly, refusing to admit that they might be wrong about the memos? I mean when you have a professional, who can give a testimony that's good enough to be fact in court, saying that she is sure it was made on a computer it makes you look really silly still saying it's authentic.

ceilirose · 09-12-2004, 08:57 AM

Please...the Swift Boat Veterans had six weeks of media attention based on people who didn't even serve on the same swift boat as Kerry and weren't even at the battle with him that day. Some of them said that their friends told them what happened.

Let it play out. These people who are saying it has to be computer generated could have agendas as well.

Semmer · 09-12-2004, 02:01 PM

Yeah, and if the Swift Vote Veterans were found out to be completely false it would be the headline on everything. Now, finding that these weren't authentic apparently doesn't matter, because I found this little article on the bottom of all the different news sites. I guess it doesn't matter if people make up fake things to slander Bush's name. It's funny, after four years in office you think this stuff would have turned up earlier if it was true or at least when Bush was running the first time when the only thing the media tried to burn him with was the fact that he used to be an alcoholic. But suddenly two months before an electon after his opponent Kerry had been persecuted for his own actions during war, now suddenly Bush's "files" are uncovered. Interesting.

ceilirose · 09-12-2004, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Semmer
Yeah, and if the Swift Vote Veterans were found out to be completely false it would be the headline on everything.

Honestly I doubt that very much. For instance, two of those veterans whose names were on that affadavit said they never signed it. The story wasn't carried nationally. I think that group did what it had to do. Kerry was ahead in the polls when the story came out and now he's not.

Quote:

Now, finding that these weren't authentic apparently doesn't matter, because I found this little article on the bottom of all the different news sites.

No..some experts have said they're not authentic. CBS says they are. It should be fairly easy to ascertain though. IBM should be able to tell whether fonts that could type superscript were available in the 70's. I've read left leaning blogs where it says that they are. The objective answer should come from IBM. Until then nothing is really settled.

Quote:

I guess it doesn't matter if people make up fake things to slander Bush's name.

You mean like what the SBVT did to Kerry? Or what some Conservatives did to the Clintons? Welcome to the world of politics in the 21st century. If those who have smeared Kerry can't handle 'slander' against Bush then the old saying applies - 'Don't dish it out if you can't take it.'

Quote:

It's funny, after four years in office you think this stuff would have turned up earlier if it was true or at least when Bush was running the first time when the only thing the media tried to burn him with was the fact that he used to be an alcoholic.

Bush's record was a question in the 2000 election. Our 'liberal' media accepted the line that Bush has used consistently which is he received an honorable discharge so he served honorably. No one except a very few questioned why there was never a record of him attending NG meetings in Alabama.

Besides for those who remember that election..the colors of Gore's wardrobe were much more interesting.

Quote:

But suddenly two months before an electon after his opponent Kerry had been persecuted for his own actions during war, now suddenly Bush's "files" are uncovered. Interesting.

How has Kerry been persecuted for his own actions during war? The official military records confirm his story. It's the SBVT who were not on Kerry's boat who are claiming otherwise. The only people who believe the SBVT are the core Bush supporters.

Bush released his military records this past February. This isn't a sudden news story. It's ebbed and flowed depending on how interested the press was and what the major story of the day was.

What's interesting is that the WH isn't denying these latest charges but letting the circus about fonts and typefaces used in the 70's dominate the news.

***Jerry D*** · 09-12-2004, 04:16 PM

I find it so unbelievable that so much focus has been put on both Kerry's and Bush's service during the Vietnam era. It’s an established fact that both Bush and Kerry served their country during that era, so I don’t know why this keeps getting dredged up. I think it’s a disgrace that the military service of both Bush and Kerry is being called into question when I don’t feel it has any significant relevance to what’s going on today, over thirty years later, and I think that both parties should focus on the issues at hand.

WalkingOnSunshine · 09-12-2004, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Semmer
Yeah, and if the Swift Vote Veterans were found out to be completely false it would be the headline on everything. Now, finding that these weren't authentic apparently doesn't matter, because I found this little article on the bottom of all the different news sites. I guess it doesn't matter if people make up fake things to slander Bush's name. It's funny, after four years in office you think this stuff would have turned up earlier if it was true or at least when Bush was running the first time when the only thing the media tried to burn him with was the fact that he used to be an alcoholic. But suddenly two months before an electon after his opponent Kerry had been persecuted for his own actions during war, now suddenly Bush's "files" are uncovered. Interesting.

I agree but remember a lot of people believe the media is "right-leaning". Which I have never understood but I will not get into that right now.

The entire fact is that John Kerry made Vietnam the "War" to talk about. He has based his entire run for the presidency on his 4 months serving over in Vietnam. The thing that bothers me the most about Kerry's attacks on Bush's record is how he makes the National Guard seem like child's play. The fact is Kerry is alientating those Vets of the NG when he constantly criticizing Bush's service and makes it seem like nothing.

This entire "memo" just baffles me. I mean if it turns out to be false, which I believe it is, that might the final straw that breaks the Kerry camp's back.

Goonieforever · 09-12-2004, 07:35 PM

The reason these memos are just being released now is because the White House just found them. They were not in Bush's military record but in the personal records of the boss who wrote them.

Goonieforever · 09-12-2004, 07:38 PM

I would also like to state that I don't think Bush's past alcoholism and multiple DUI's are some trivial thing that should be looked over. The media made a big deal over them and rightfully so. The media made a big deal over Clinton's infidelities as well and rightfully so on those terms because the moral character of our candiates is important to certain voters. So lets please not take something like irresponsibility with alcohol as an unfair poltical agenda. To me it's as important as the things they keep bringing up about the democrats...politics is all about little trivial issues. Thats the American way.

WalkingOnSunshine · 09-12-2004, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Source Pulls Support for Memos on Bush Guard Service

WASHINGTON — A key source who was named to back up CBS News' claims about the authenticity of documents used in a report on President Bush's (search) Air National Guard service has recanted his support, saying the network got the information wrong.

Retired Major Gen. Bobby Hodges (search), a key source behind a "60 Minutes" story that claims Bush shirked his guard duty, said that now that he has seen the memos, he does not believe they are authentic. Hodges told FOX News that CBS did not call him until two days before the piece aired on the network last Wednesday night, and never offered to show him the memos. He said the network only wanted to discuss their content, not their authenticity.

Rest of the story here

So the "story" continues to unravel...

ceilirose · 09-12-2004, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WalkingOnSunshine
So the "story" continues to unravel...

Not so fast...the link - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pr...695873,00.html

It's a fairly objective report. This story should have legs for more than a few days. I know Bush supporter's want it to go away but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

Quote:

The X Files Of Lt. Bush
A flurry of contested memos and memories sheds more heat than light on his record
By AMANDA RIPLEY
Journalists and politicos have been trying off and on for a decade now to suss out exactly what George W. Bush did in the National Guard more than 30 years ago. The basic facts are not very mysterious: Bush got a coveted homeland gig in the Guard, just as many other well-connected college graduates did, while hundreds of thousands of other young men got drafted and sent to Vietnam. Ever since Bush ran for Texas Governor in 1994, details of the subplot have dribbled out, suggesting that he was a slacker in his later days as a pilot in the Guard and may not have fulfilled his obligations to the military. Bush has prolonged the intrigue by never fully answering questions about his service. His representatives repeat, like a mantra, that Bush was honorably discharged from the service, so why keep asking us about these pesky details? With critics of Democratic challenger John Kerry raising unsubstantiated claims that he exaggerated his heroism as a swift-boat commander in Vietnam, the matter of Bush's own service is back in the spotlight.

Various search dogs, partisan and not, barked madly up and down the hills of people's memories last week, sometimes scenting truth and other times falling off the cliff entirely. CBS released several damning new memos, which may or may not be authentic (more on that later), that sent forensic experts researching the history of the type font Times New Roman and bloggers dusting off their old IBM typewriters. Welcome to the final stage of a tight race. Now let's pause for a few reality checks.

On the question of whether Bush got preferential treatment as the son of a Texas Congressman and later the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Ben Barnes, a former speaker of the Texas House, has long been on record saying he did. After years of denying he had done anything special for Bush, he reluctantly said in a 1999 deposition that he had pushed to get Bush into the Guard at the request of a friend of the Bush family. Recently, Barnes, who has become a fund raiser for Kerry, has again spoken out about the matter, acknowledging at a Texas rally and on CBS that he had helped Bush. Bush has always denied that he or his family asked for any favors.

After Bush joined the Guard in Texas in 1968, he received positive evaluations. But records clearly show that his performance dropped off suddenly in 1972. After he transferred to an Alabama unit so he could work on the Senate campaign of a family friend, Bush began missing regular Guard duty. Only one member of Bush's unit has come forward to say he saw Bush reporting for duty in Alabama, but his recollection places Bush in the state before Bush was officially assigned there. A new TV commercial produced by the Democratic-allied group Texans for Truth features a member of Bush's Alabama unit vowing that he never saw Bush there. A gap in service was not unprecedented, though; members of the Dallas Cowboys served in the Guard and routinely disappeared during the football season.

In a report last week, the Boston Globe zeroed in on a document showing that before Bush moved to Cambridge, Mass., in 1973 to attend Harvard Business School, he pledged to register with a local unit. In 1999 his spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush had indeed done so. Bartlett told TIME last week he had misspoken. Bush never registered locally. But he did not have to, Bartlett now claims, because the military's central registry in Denver knew his whereabouts. It remains unclear, however, what exactly the registration rules were at the time.

The biggest blot on Bush's record may be his failure to take his required annual physical in 1972. As a result, he was suspended from flying — an embarrassment for serious pilots. In years past, the Bush campaign claimed he missed the physical because his personal physician was in Houston. Now the White House says Bush did not need to take the physical, since he did not intend to fly during his stint in Alabama. New egregious claims about Bush's service are made in four memos released by CBS last Wednesday dating from 1972 and 1973. The network has not revealed how it obtained the documents but says they are from the personal files of Lieut. Colonel Jerry Killian, Bush's squadron commander in Texas, now deceased. If authentic, they demonstrate more favoritism toward Bush than previously indicated. In one document, Killian states that he and his superior, Major General Bobby Hodges, were pressured by Walter Staudt, the Texas National Guard commander, to "sugar coat" an evaluation of Bush. Hodges, who initially thought the memos were handwritten and authentic, now says he thinks they are fake. He told TIME last week, "There was no political pressure that I can remember." And Staudt's military records show that he had left the Guard by the time the memo was written, according to the Dallas Morning News. A TIME reporter called and visited Staudt's home but got no response. Killian's son Gary, who served in the Guard alongside his father from 1971 to 1979, says he believes the documents are fake, in part because he remembers that his father admired Bush.

So far, forensic and typewriter experts consulted by TIME and other major media organizations have not reached a consensus on the authenticity of the memos. Some insist it would have been nearly impossible for a 1970s-era typewriter to produce the memos because of the letter spacing in the documents and the use of a raised and compact th symbol. But Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York City who worked for IBM repairing typewriters from 1973 to 1985, says those experts "are full of crap. They just don't know." Glennon says there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key — the likes of which he says were not unusual — could have created the superscript th.

Another memo released by CBS, if real, indicates that when Bush missed his physical, he was disobeying a direct order from Killian to get one. But Hodges, who is now retired, says missing the physical was "no big deal." CBS broadcast a special segment wholeheartedly defending its report two days after it aired.

Will any of this matter come Election Day? The truth is, while Kerry may have taken a hit in the polls as a result of the largely bogus criticism of his war record, Bush, as the incumbent, is not as vulnerable — even if the accusations are more credible. Americans have spent four years watching Bush as President. Kerry is the unknown, and as with any stranger at the gate, people are wary. What's more, the breathless debate over typewriter fonts last week shifted the debate away from Bush's questionable record.

Wow..with people saying they are on record one day and then changing their story the next day...well it's beginning to approach Swift Boat Veterans for Truth standards.

Jerry D - I know many people who believe as you do but I have to agree with goonieforever. How people react to adverse situations or how they react to a challenge sheds light on their character. What a President can do politically is sometimes limited by which party holds the majority in Congress. I just look for other qualities as well when I make my decision.

***Jerry D*** · 09-12-2004, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ceilirose
Jerry D - I know many people who believe as you do but I have to agree with goonieforever. How people react to adverse situations or how they react to a challenge sheds light on their character. What a President can do politically is sometimes limited by which party holds the majority in Congress. I just look for other qualities as well when I make my decision.

Oh, I completely understand what you're saying ceilirose, and I agree with you. I'll be honest with you, certain things that both Bush and Kerry did in their past doesn't sit well with me, so I'm not thrilled with either one of them, but I think that way too much emphasis is being put on the military service of both candidates, and I think that there are far more important issues to focus on than their actions in the early 1970's.

UnsilentMajorty · 09-13-2004, 12:20 AM

I tend to agree with Jerry D in that while these past actions obviously show character (or a lack of) in terms of how a person reacts (or doesn't as the case may be) in certain situations...

Both sides are guilty of the mud slinging when this election should and will be decided on the issues at hand in 2004, and not what happened in the 1970s.

Bottom line is this:

I think the election is already won, or lost depending on your POV and who you support.

That's pretty vague, but I believe it is the truth right now (w/ two months to go).

Swing voters are out there, but unless there is some huge surge in either swing voter registration, or just who votes for whom as a swing voter...

Democrats and people effected by job loss and domestic strife are voting for Kerry while those more concerned with terrorism, religion, wealth and world affairs are voting for Bush in the overall sense.

Issues like the SBVT and Bush's NG record are all secondary window dressing that go to further either sides stance on who is more fit -- or unfit as the case may be -- to lead us the next four years.

I am hoping that while that while past actions are important in voters eyes, that the current, real issues of what is going on and what may happen depending on who is elected NOW, in Novemeber, override those perceptions because I honestly believe that sometimes people fall right into the political traps that both sides set and that is to make the election about issues that it really isn't supposed to be about -- and will have no bearing on future events/politics -- In no uncertain terms.

Semmer · 09-13-2004, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goonieforever
I would also like to state that I don't think Bush's past alcoholism and multiple DUI's are some trivial thing that should be looked over. The media made a big deal over them and rightfully so. The media made a big deal over Clinton's infidelities as well and rightfully so on those terms because the moral character of our candiates is important to certain voters. So lets please not take something like irresponsibility with alcohol as an unfair poltical agenda. To me it's as important as the things they keep bringing up about the democrats...politics is all about little trivial issues. Thats the American way.

Weren't Winston Churchill and FDR heavy drinkers, FDR cheated on his wife, while Winston used opium in college. Adolf Hitler didn't smoke, rarely drank, and was a vegetarian. It's hard to judge a leader and person by those things. I don't know, but Hitler seems like the better candidate out of those three.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > CBS Stands by Memos on Bush Guard Service