The Left campaign gets more stupid by the day (TO BE FAIR!)

[Flatrater]

Today's big Boston Globe story on President Bush's Air National Guard service is based on memos to file from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian: "Bid cited to boost Bush in Guard." The Globe story is itself based on last night's 60 Minutes report: "New questions on Bush Guard duty." The online version of the 60 Minutes story has links to the memos. Killian died in 1984; CBS states that it "consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic." Readers Tom Mortensen and Liz MacDougald direct us to the FreeRepublic post and thread (see post no. 47) to this effect:

Every single one of the memos to file regarding Bush's failure to attend a physical and meet other requirements is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing (especially in the military), and typewriters used mono-spaced fonts. The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction high-end word processing systems from Xerox and Wang, and later of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang and other systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used mono-spaced fonts. I doubt the TANG had typesetting or high-end 1st generation word processing systems.I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively.

UPDATE: Thanks to all the readers who have written regarding this post. Several have pointed out that the Executive line of IBM typewriters did have proportionally spaced fonts, although no reader has found the font used in the memos to be a familiar one or thought that the an IBM Executive was likely to have been used by the National Guard in the early 1970's. Reader Monty Walls has also cited the IBM Selectric Composer. However, reader Eric Courtney adds this wrinkle:

The "Memo To File" of August 18, 1973 also used specialized typesetting characters not used on typewriters. These include the superscript "th" in 187th, and consistent ’ (right single quote) used instead of a typewriter's generic ' (apostrophe). These are the sorts of things that typesetters did manually until the advent of smart correction in things like Microsoft Word.

UPDATE 2: Reader John Risko adds:

I was a clerk/typist for the US Navy at the Naval Underwater Systems Center (NUSC) in Newport RI for my summer job in 1971 when I was in college. I note the following with regard to the Killian memos: 1) Tom Mortensen is absolutely correct. Variable type was used only for special printing jobs, like official pamphlets. These documents are forgeries, and not even good ones. Someone could have at least found an old pre-Selectric IBM (introduced around 1962). Actually, I believe we were using IBM Model C's at the time, which was the precursor to the Selectric.2) I also used a Variype machine in 1971. I fooled around with it in my spare time. It was incredibly difficult to set up and use. It was also extremely hard to correct mistakes on the machine. Most small letters used two spaces. Capital letters generally used three spaces. I think letters like "i" may have used one space. Anyway, you can see that this type of machine was piloted by an expert, and it would NEVER be used for a routine memo. A Lt. Colonel would not be able to identify a Varitype machine, let alone use it.3) US Navy paper at the time was not 8 1/2 x 11. It was 8 x 10 1/2. I believe this was the same throughout the military, but someone will have to check on that. This should show up in the Xeroxing, which should have lines running along the sides of the Xerox copy.4) I am amused by the way "147 th Ftr.Intrcp Gp." appears in the August 1, 1972 document. It may have been written that way in non-forged documents, but as somone who worked for ComCruDesLant, I know the military liked to bunch things together. I find "147 th" suspicious looking. 147th looks better to me, but the problem with Microsoft Word is that it keeps turning the "th" tiny if it is connected to a number like 147. And finally......5) MORE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF FORGERY: I had neglected even to look at the August 18, 1973 memo to file. This forger was a fool. This fake document actually does have the tiny "th" in "187th" and there is simply no way this could have occurred in 1973. There are no keys on any typewriter in common use in 1973 which could produce a tiny "th." The forger got careless after creating the August 1, 1972 document and slipped up big-time.In summary, the variable type reveals the Killian memos to be crude forgeries, the tiny "th" confirms it in the 8/18/73 memo, and I offer my other points as icing on the cake.

UPDATE 3: We have received so much information from readers that it's hard to keep up. Reader Fred Godel points us to Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly "Smoking gun update" stating that the White House has released copies of two of the memos and left their authenticity undisputed. Reader John Burgess adds:

I'm afraid the Post 47 at Free Republic is not compelling. By 1969, I was using an IBM Selectric typewriter, with proportional type balls. They were widely available in the public sector-and thus readily available to the military. I do not recall having used a Palatine typeface, but Times Roman was certainly common. While I do think the entire argument about "Bush/AWOL" is bull, the raising of type faces is not useful. In fact, it's counterproductive because it's demonstrably false.

Reader Chris Rohlfs points to another "document in Bush's record (http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/doc27.gif) which, if real (I got that link from here) appears to have some typing from the same typewriter. Look at the word 'Recommend.'" Reader Larry Nichols adds:

What a freakin' joke! I served in the Air Force for 21 years -- 1968 to 1989 -- the first 7 as a Personnel Specialist and the remainder as a PSM (Personnel Systems Manager). I also spent 2 years as an inspector at Hq SAC, Offutt AFB, NE in Omaha, inspecting Personnel Offices at all 26 SAC bases. As a PSM I had to know every job in Personnel, including the proper filing of documents in individual military records. Memos were NOT used for orders, as the one ordering 1LT Bush to take a physical. This would have done as a letter, of which a copy should have been sent to the CBPO (Consolidated Base Personnel Office) to be filed in 1LT Bush's military record. Memos DID NOT get filed in personnel records. I first used a computer in the Air Force in 1971 while stationed at Albrook AFB, Canal Zone. The computers were used only for updating records data. The Air Force was the first branch of the military to use a mainframe (Burroughs B-3500) computer for updating military records. Punch cards were used up until then. There were no Word Processors used until the late 1970's or early 1980's. Typewriters were still used extensively until the mid-1980s. These memos appear to be bogus. As far as an Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) on Bush, unless he was under a supervisor for X number of days during a reporting period, no report could be written. Under special circumstances, a report could be written with only 60 days of supervision. The period may cover an extended period. Example: FROM 1 JUN 1970 THRU 15 DEC 1971 (more than 1 year) DAYS SUPERVISED: 60. The "vanilla civilian" Liberals and Journalists should quit trying to talk and write about things they know nothing about. In Sen. Kerry's case, that includes almost everything!

Finally -- finally for the moment -- reader Joshua Persons writes:

I've written a post regarding the forgery post on my weblog (click here). Mostly a rehash, but I googled and found a comparable, unrelated government memo from 1972 for visual comparison. Check it out at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/72e30.pdf .

UPDATE 4: Charles Johnson has written to let us know that he has resolved the issue: "Bush Guard documents: Forged." UPDATE 5: Reader Timothy Sampson writes:

There is no confirmation of authenticity by the White House. See Kevin Drum's update:

I now have copies of the memos the White House released, and they are just versions that CBS faxed to the White House the day before the 60 Minutes segment aired. There's no indication that the White House had its own copies of these memos and had been sitting on them. Apologies.

UPDATE 6: Reader Elbow Elbow provides this "link to the PDFs of the memos the White House released." We are unable to confirm that the White House has "released" anything other than copies of the memos it may have been provided by CBS. UPDATE 7: INDC Journal has posted an interesting summary of the review of the memoranda by forensic document examiner Dr. Phillip Bouffard: "Are the National Guard documents fake?"UPDATE 8: The signatures on the CBS documents do not appear to be authentic. Check out the two signatures below, courtesy of Michele Catalano of The Command Post. The one on the left is an actual signature of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. The one on the right is from one of the CBS documents. It's not even close; in fact, it doesn't even look like the person who signed it made any attempt to copy Killian's signature:
Since I posted this, a number of readers have written to disagree with me--they think the signature on the right is a crude effort at forgery. Dafydd ab Hugh's characteristically thorough and brilliant analysis is too long to include here, and Diana Magrann also argues persuasively that the signature is an attempt at a forgery.UPDATE 9: Reader Andy Devlin takes issue with John Burgess, quoted above:

From 1973 until late 1982 I was a repairman for the Office Products Division of IBM. I can assure you that the comments on your site by Mr. Burgess regarding the Selectric typewriter are incorrect. The Selectric was available only in mono type. At that time my customers who wanted proportional type used either the IBM Executive typewriter or IBM Composer. The Composer was an expensive and complicated piece of equipment which would normally be found only in printing and communications departments. I doubt that it would be used to write memos to file.

UPDATE 10: Reader Jon-Erik Prichard adds what strikes me as an especially persuasive point:

[A]nother aspect of the type on [the August 18, 1973 memo] suggests, perhaps proves, forgery. 1. The type in the document is KERNED. Kerning is the typsetter's art of spacing various letters in such a manner that they are 'grouped' for better readability. Word processors do this automatically. NO TYPEWRITER CAN PHYSICALLY DO THIS.To explain: the letter 'O' is curved on the outside. A letter such as 'T' has indented space under its cross bar. On a typewriter if one types an 'O' next to a 'T' then both letters remain separated by their physical space. When you type the same letters on a computer next to each other the are automatically 'kerned' or 'grouped' so that their individual spaces actually overlap. e. g., TO. As one can readily see the curvature of the 'O' nestles neatly under the cross bar of the 'T'. Two good kerning examples in the alleged memo are the word 'my' in the second line where 'm' and 'y' are neatly kerned and also the word 'not' in the fourth line where the 'o' and 't' overlap empty space. A typewriter doesn't 'know' what particular letter is next to another and can't make those types of aesthetic adjustments.2. The kerning and proportional spacing in each of the lines of type track EXACTLY with 12 point Times Roman font on a six inch margin (left justified). Inother words, the sentences break just as they would on a computer and not as they would on a typewriter. Since the type on the memo is both proportionally spaced and kerned the lines of type break at certain instances (i.e., the last word in each line of the first paragraph are - 1. running, 2. regarding, 3. rating, 4. is, 5. either). If the memo was created on a typewriter the line breaks would be at different words (e. g., the word 'running' is at the absolute outside edge of the sentence and would probably not be on the first
line).3. The sentences have a wide variance in their AMOUNT of kerning and proportional spacing. Notice how the first line of the first paragraph seems squished together and little hard to read but the last line of the first paragraph has wider more open spacing. Even the characters themselves are squished in the first line (as a computer does automatically) and more spread out on the last line where there is more room.There's no way a typewriter could 'set' the type in this memo and even a good typesetter using a Linotype machine of the era would have to spend hours getting this effect.

UPDATE 11: CBS is sticking to its story. It's not entirely clear which story, however. Initially, CBS spokeswoman Kelli Edwards said:

As is standard practice at CBS News, each of the documents broadcast on '60 Minutes' was thoroughly investigated by independent experts, and we are convinced of their authenticity.

Later, however, Ms. Edwards sent out an email that appeared to revise the nature of the "authentication" process:

CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written. These individuals were close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written.

So what CBS is now saying is not that the documents are authentic, but that the opinions they express are authentic, based on the hearsay reports of anonymous persons alleged to be close associates of Col. Killian, who recall his views of thirty-two years ago. This is what passes for "authentication" in the mainstream media.UPDATE 12: In the August 18, 1973 memo "discovered" by 60 Minutes, Jerry Killian purportedly writes:

Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job.

But wait! Reader Amar Sarwal, citing Peter Nuss, points out that General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972. The more I look at these "memos," the more obvious it appears that they are inept forgeries.

[Flatrater]

And another from the same site http://www.powerlineblog.com/



Asking Questions of the AP
This is the email I sent to the Associated Press this morning:

I am writing to lodge an ethics complaint against Tom Hays and the Associated Press in connection with a story that you published on Friday, Sept. 3. The story was by-lined Tom Hays; it reported on a rally for President Bush in West Allis, Wisconsin. Mr. Hays' story said that: "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them." These statements were false. Later the same day, the AP released a second version of the article that did not contain these false claims. I have written about this scandal extensively on my web site, Power Line, http://powerlineblog.com. I also have an informant who is a reporter covering the Bush campaign, who was at the West Allis rally, and who saw what happened. Here are what I understand to be the facts:1) Tom Hays was not at the West Allis rally, even though his by-line appeared on the story.2) The real source of the story was Scott Lindlaw. Lindlaw was at the rally, along with at least one other reporter from the AP.3) Lindlaw is a well-known Democratic partisan; my source has heard him say, "My mission is to see that Bush does not get re-elected."4) During President Bush's speech, Lindlaw had earplugs of some kind in his ears to deaden the noise. This is apparently a common practice of his.5) After the speech, Lindlaw approached another AP reporter and said that he thought he had heard boos. The other reporter told him, "there weren't any boos." In fact, as the audiotape of the event makes clear, no one booed. No one. No one made any sound that remotely resembled a boo.6) Despite the fact that he could not hear the crowd, and despite the fact that another reporter from the AP had told him that there were no boos, Scott Lindlaw--a vicious Democratic partisan--lied, and told the world that "Bush's audience of thousands booed," and "Bush did nothing to stop them." This was a conscious, deliberate lie, which Mr. Lindlaw perpetrated for the purpose of helping his own party in the ongoing Presidential campaign.Now, you tell me--are the above facts correct? What investigation have you carried out of this matter? This appears to me to be a major scandal, which goes to the heart of the Associated Press's credibility as a news organization. Someone here should be fired--Tom Hays, if he really was responsible for the lie, or Scott Lindlaw, if, as my informant says, he was the actual source.I know for a fact that the White House press corps is buzzing about this scandal and wondering what the Associated Press intends to do. You can't cover this up. You must take appropriate action against the individual or individuals who have betrayed their profession.Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss the status of your investigation, and what actions you intend to take.John Hinderaker

The AP will not direct telephone calls to a person responsible for complaints, but suggests sending such complaints and inquiries to [email protected].

[my3rdskyline]

I think we are a little side tracked talking about a fucking 40 year old signature. People have been talking about lots of shit, but what I'd like to see is people talking about lots of shit that matters.

[YogsVR4]

It matters that Kerry is proposing to socialize medicine - a real bad idea.

It matters that Kerry has supported every tax increase that anyone has ever thought of - another bad idea.

Kerry has no convictions. Like the weather, just wait a day, it'll change.

Kerry is a dolt. He acts like a child. He's the one who won't let go of the vietnam issue. He's a typical left wing mental midget who likes to have working people support the lazy. He supports handouts to the people who decide to take it easy and those people who chose not to put in the effort.

Hes a rob Peter to pay Paul and take a cut for himself kind of guy. Doesn't matter to him that Peter is working his ass off and Paul made his choices.

[jaysgotalude]

Originally Posted by my3rdskyline

I think we are a little side tracked talking about a fucking 40 year old signature. People have been talking about lots of shit, but what I'd like to see is people talking about lots of shit that matters.

I agree let's talk about ending the war, doing something to actually stop terrorist, let's talk about how to make this country better and safer. who gives a fuck what someone did 30-40 years ago, everyone makes mistakes, everyone no matter who you are. but sadly american politics is only about image now .

[2strokebloke]

I think we are a little side tracked talking about a fucking 40 year old signature. People have been talking about lots of shit, but what I'd like to see is people talking about lots of shit that matters.

At least somebody in this thread is making sense.

[taranaki]

Pitiful that the Republicans have no achievements from the last 4 years to sell.Pathetic that they'd rather smear their opposition than campaign on their own successes.Understandable though,if they tried to campaign on their record,they'd get CREAMED.

[crapmaster4000]

lets see who casts the first stone now! Its not quite the same when your in someone elses shoes now is it libs!

[dbebesi]

ever notice how liberals always try to change the subject, when something like this comes out. they didn't with watergate and nixon. libs and the mass left media are such sad, sad creatures. at least it gives sain minded people something to laugh at.

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Pitiful that the Republicans have no achievements from the last 4 years to sell.Pathetic that they'd rather smear their opposition than campaign on their own successes.Understandable though,if they tried to campaign on their record,they'd get CREAMED.

What is pitiful is that fact that several topics here have been started by you trashing BUSH and the republicans yet now the shoe is on the other foot and you are crying foul. I say don't throw stones at glass houses.

What is pitiful is the democrats start playing games and when they get beat playing the same games they run crying and whining.


Who started the Vietnam service issue?

Who started the Bush and Hilter issue?

Who brought up Bush's National Guard issue?

Kerry and the democrats started it and when they were beaten down they started crying foul. If you don't like it don't start it!

[Tehvisseeus]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

What is pitiful is that fact that several topics here have been started by you trashing BUSH and the republicans yet now the shoe is on the other foot and you are crying foul. I say don't throw stones at glass houses.

What is pitiful is the democrats start playing games and when they get beat playing the same games they run crying and whining.


Who started the Vietnam service issue?

Who started the Bush and Hilter issue?

Who brought up Bush's National Guard issue?

Kerry and the democrats started it and when they were beaten down they started crying foul. If you don't like it don't start it!

[2strokebloke]

What is pitiful is the democrats start playing games and when they get beat...

It's funny that I've yet to see any winners - only losers. I don't see anybody "beating" anybody - what it ammounts to is the right and left wing standing at opposites sides of a room, muttering insults under their breath, because they're both too scared to debate anything meaningful or have anything actually worth discussing to seperate one candidate from the other in any effective way.

[lazysmurff]

wow. thats nice. so someone forged documents. nothing new to see here people. happens all the time.

welcome to american politics, the only government where people are elected based on actions that occured 30-40 years prior to running for office.

both canidates have bad enough records while in office that we dont need to go back in time to talk shit about them. this is ridiculous.

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

wow. thats nice. so someone forged documents. nothing new to see here people. happens all the time.

welcome to american politics, the only government where people are elected based on actions that occured 30-40 years prior to running for office.

both canidates have bad enough records while in office that we dont need to go back in time to talk shit about them. this is ridiculous.

Then stay out of American politics. And you act like no other country in the world does this. Please crawl back under your rock then.

[lazysmurff]

awww, someones feelings got hurt....didnt mean to tread on the importance of your find there buddy.

and im well aware that we're not the only country that does this...i was being phecitious (fecitious?)