InstaPundit says:

What we need from CBS is (1) the provenance of the documents; (2) chain of custody; (3) extrinsic evidence of reliability — and the original documents, not just PDF copies on the web, made available to independent outside experts for review.

I think what we’re getting is “trust us” and after-the-fact lawyering.

QandO demands more:

The blogosphere has been all over the CBS documents, but all the information is parceled out in penny packets all over the place. At the request of a reader, I thought I’d try to consolidate them into a single post. This is not canonical, of course, just the stuff I know about.

Typographical Arguments

1. The use of superscripted “th” in unit names, e.g. 187th. This was a highly unusual feature, available only on extremely expensive typewriters at the time.

2. The use of proportional fonts was, similarly, restricted to a small number of high-end typewriters.

3. The text of the memos appear to use letter kerning, a physical impossibility for any typewriter at the time.

4. Apostrophes in the documents use curled serifs. Typewriters used straight hash marks for both quotation marks and apostrophes.

5. The font appears indistinguishable from the Times New Roman computer font. While the Times Roman and Times fonts were rare, but available, in some typewriters at the time, the letters in Times Roman and Times took up more horizontal space than Times New Roman does. Times New Roman is exclusively a computer font.

6. Reproductions of the memos in Microsoft Word using 12pt TNR and the default Word page setup are indistinguishable from the memos when superimposed.

7. The typed squadron letterhead is centered on the page, an extremely difficult operation to perform manually.

8. Several highly reputable forensic document specialists have publicly stated their opinions that the documents were most likely computer generated, and hence, are forgeries.

9. The numeral 4 has no “foot” serif and a closed top. This is indicative of the Times New Roman Font, used exclusively by computers.

Stylistic Arguments

1. The memos do not use the proper USAF letterhead, in required use since 1948. Instead they are typed. In general, typed letterhead is restricted to computer-generated orders, which were usually printed by teletype, chain printer or daisy-wheel printer, the latter looking like a typed letter. Manually typed correspondence is supposed to use official USAF letterhead. However, even special orders, which used a typed letterhead, were required to use ALL CAPS in the letterhead.

2. The typed Letterhead gives the address as “Houston, Texas”. The standard formulation for addresses at USAF installations should require the address to read “Ellington AFB, Texas”.

3. Killian’s signature block should read:

RICHARD B. KILLIAN, Lt Col, TexANG

Commander

This is the required USAF formulation for a signature block.

4. Lt Col Killian’s signature should be aligned to the left side of the page. Indented signature blocks are not a USAF standard.

5. The rank abbreviations are applied inconsistently and incorrectly, for example the use of periods in USAF rank abbreviations is incorrect. The modern formulation for rank abbreviations for the lieutenant grades in the USAF is 2Lt and 1Lt. In 1973, it may well have been 2nd Lt and 1st Lt, but that certainly wasn’t correct in 1984, when I entered active duty, so I find the rank abbreviation questionable, and, in any event, they would not have included periods. Lt Col Killian’s abbreviations are pretty much universally incorrect in the memos.

6. The unit name abbreviations use periods. This is incorrect. USAF unit abbreviations use only capital letters with no periods. For example, 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron would be abbreviated as 111th FIS, not 111th F.I.S.

7. The Formulation used in the memos, i.e., “MEMORANDOM FOR 1st Lt. Bush…” is incorrect. A memo would be written on plain (non-letterhead) paper, with the top line reading “MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD”.

8. An order from a superior, directing a junior to perform a specific task would not be in the memorandum format as presented. Instead, it would use the USAF standard internal memo format, as follows:

FROM: Lt Col Killian, Richard B.

SUBJECT: Annual Physical Examination (Flight)

TO: 1Lt Bush, George W.

Documents that are titled as MEMORANDUM are used only for file purposes, and not for communications.

9. The memos use the formulation “…in accordance with (IAW)…” The abbreviation IAW is a universal abbreviation in the USAF, hence it is not spelled out, rather it is used for no other reason than to eliminate the word “in accordance with” from official communications. There are several such universal abbreviation, such as NLT for “no later than”.

10. The title of one of the memos is CYA, a popular euphemism for covering one’s…ahem…posterior. It is doubtful that any serving officer would use such a colloquialism in any document that might come under official scrutiny.

Personal Arguments

1. The records purport to be from Lt Col Killian’s “personal files”, yet, they were not obtained from his family, but through some unknown 3rd party. It is an odd kind of “personal file” when the family of a deceased person is unaware of the file’s existence and it is not in their possession.

2. Both Lt Col Killian’s wife and son, as well as the EAFB personnel officer do not find the memos credible.

3. Keeping such derogatory personal memos , while at the same time, writing glowing OERs for Mr. Bush would be unwise for any officer. At best, it would raise serious questions about why his private judgments differed so radically from his official ones, should they ever come to light. At worst, they would raise questions about whether Lt Col Killian falsified official documents. As Lt Col Killian’s son, himself a retired USAF officer, has said, nothing good can come of keeping such files.

4. Both Lt Col Killian’s wife and son relate that Killian wasn’t a typist. If he needed anotes, he would write them down longhand, but in general, he wasn’t paper-oriented, and certainly wasn’t a typist.

And what do we get from Dan Rather? This, according to Wizbang:

Dan Rather came out swinging tonight but so far he was just shadow boxing. To defend his story, he made 4 arguments.

#1) You could find th’s in other documents. Fair enough. (or not, see ‘more’ below.) What about the other 300 anomalies Dan? [See QandO’s list, above: ED}

#2) We learned the name of their forensics guy… (I’ll save you the trouble and set up the search) Marcel Manley

My mini google tells me the guy is not that impressive. He has a few self-published books that I found. Mostly he is a “handwriting expert,” he has no apparent skills at looking at the rest of the document. Certainly not the resume’ that Bill at INDC Journal’s guy had. (He also seems more at home with the legalities of being an expert witness than being a forensics guy.)

I also found he apparently is behind the story that Kurt Cobain’s suicide note was bogus and he was really murdered. I’m speaking before I google enough but the guy seems like wingnut. (more later) Update: The guy who wrote the web page was a wingnut. No reflection on Matley.

Anyway the Forensics guy said (in a nut shell) that since the signatures match (which they don’t to my layman’s eye) the whole document is legit. Because obviously nobody would scan a signature and paste it into Word… No, never.

Prediction: CBS is going to get nailed on this guy… wait for it.

#3) Some guy -name not important — that said the documents were legitimate because everyone knew Bush sucked. (no joke)

#4) Some other guy — who has written multiple books bashing Bush- said the documents were legitimate because everyone knew Bush sucked. (No, I’m not making this up.)

Then Dan Rather said that we know the documents are real because well — Bush sucked. (Update 4)

Basically, CBS is making the case that since the content of the documents is true, the documents are legit. And we know the content is true because we have these documents to prove it. (an odd form of recursion)

The other humorous bit of defense is when Rather made the case that the blogosphere is way off base because the copies we got have been copied, faxed and recopied and some of them have been (gasp) downloaded. Completely ignoring that we all got the doc right from their web site. We are looking at a scan of what they have. 1 scan does not lose that much quality. All in all, that line was just laughable.

More as I google.

One more comment – To distill the above, their whole argument was that the signatures matched. The rest was fluff. [emphasis mine: ED]

UPDATE: hmmm This is interesting… Seems Matley vouched for the authenticity of the Vince Foster suicide note.

UPDATE 2: ZERO (none, nada, zip) evidence this guy was in any way qualified to vouch for the authenticity of these documents. NONE. He is a handwriting guy who makes the case the signatures match. (they can be scanned) His only claim to fame is that he is a librarian. Google can find nothing this guy has ever done with anything other than handwriting. Bill at INDC spanked CBS.

Bottom line… CBS’s document expert ain’t.

UPDATE 3: I forgot to note that the defense of the documents came after Rather bashed Bush for a while… I know you’re surprised.

UPDATE 4: I kinda made a joke about everyone saying “Bush sucked” but from an evidentiary point of view that is what they offered. They said the documents must be legit because everyone knew this is what happened. Since the contents were true, the docs were, by definition, not forgeries. It really was rather odd. (oh heck, that pun wasn’t intended but I’ll take it) Only the mentally lame will accept this argument….

Clearly, Rather is one of the mentally lame. He came nowhere near addressing all the charges. He’d be found guilty of flagrant violation of journalistic standards, if there were such a thing.

UPDATED AND RE-DATED

Perhaps having learned from the Swift Boat Vets controversy, the mainstream media quickly picked up the Bush documents controversy. Three cases in point:

NYTimes — Commander’s Son Questions Memos on Bush’s Service

Washington Post — Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush

ABC News — False Documentation? Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush’s Guard Service

And of course —

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU SEPT 09, 2004 22:45:32 ET XXXXX

CBSNEWS LAUNCHES INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AFTER SUSPICIOUS BUSH DOCS AIRED

**Exclusive**

But then there’s this (from Captain’s Quarters) — Is The Chicago Tribune Cleansing Its Archives Of The CBS Scam?

And this (also from Captain’s Quarters) — The American Spectator column claims that the forged documents came directly from the Kerry campaign (The American Spectator‘s site has been crashed by traffic.)

Now Dan Rather is in denial (from Drudge Report):

RATHER DIGS IN: THE DOCUMENTS ARE AUTHENTIC

CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather publicly defended his reporting Friday morning after questions were raised about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos aired on CBS which asserted that George W. Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer in the Texas Air National Guard.

CNN TRANSCRIPT:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn’t have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn’t going to be — there’s no — what you’re saying apology?

QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or…

RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don’t like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.

Is this the end of Rather? The end of Kerry? Well, Rather is retiring, anyway, and Kerry’s cause was looking lost before this brou-ha-ha. But I can hardly wait to see which donkey the tail gets pinned on.

Now we hear from the daughter of ex-Texas governor Ben Barnes:

WBAP Exclusive

AUDIO – Daughter of Ben Barnes Disputes Father’s Claims as Political

The Former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes’ recollections over how he helped President Bush get into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War have evolved over the years from fuzzy to distinct.

Barnes, who once claimed he did not help Bush enter the National Guard, reversed his story and told CBS News 60 Minutes that he in fact did help Bush.

Mr. Barnes daughter, Amy Barnes Stites called the Mark Davis Show and spoke with guest host Monica Crowley on WBAP September 9th dismissing Barnes’ claims as political and opportunistic….

Excerpt of Call:

BARNES: I love my father very much, but he’s doing this for purely political reasons. He is a big Kerry fund-raiser and he is writing a book also. And [the Bush story] is what he’s leading the book off with….He denied this to me in 2000 that he did get Bush out [of Vietnam service]. Now he’s saying he did.

CROWLEY: Did he tell you, Amy – and I’m glad I have you on the line with me – did your father tell you that he was prepared to do this on behalf of John Kerry – go after President Bush like this?

BARNES: He told me he was going to do it. In fact, I talked to him a couple of months ago. He told me he was writing the book. He told me that he was going to be talking about this. And he knows that I – we have very diverse political opinions. He knows my opinions and we get into this debate every time I see him. But, you know, he said that he was going to be talking about it.

CROWLEY: Now you’re saying, Amy, that he has had two separate stories on President Bush’s Guard duty during the Vietnam era?

BARNES: Yes, yes. This came out in 2000 and I asked him then, at the time, if he [helped get Bush into the Guard]. He said: “No, absolutely not. I did not do that.” –

CROWLEY: So, I hate to put you in this position, but I will ask you, do you think your father, Ben Barnes who was on “60 Minutes II” with Dan Rather last night – do you believe that he lied on the air to the American people last night about President Bush?

BARNES; Yes, I do. I absolutely do. And I think he’s doing he’s doing it for purely political, opportunistic reasons – trying to get John Kerry elected and trying to make Bush look like the bad person….Like I said, he’s going to be trying to promote his book that he’s got coming out.

See my earlier post here.

REVISED AND REPOSTED

A lot of blogs are on the story about the apparently forged documents used by CBS in its attack on Bush’s record of service with the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. Powerline has been in the lead all the way. The relevant Powerline posts are here, here, here, and here.

I have nothing to add but this: Suppose it’s true that the documents are bad forgeries. And suppose someone saw to it that those forgeries found their way to CBS through sources credible to CBS? I’m just saying suppose…

That raises two possibilities. The documents might have been clumsy forgeries by Democrat operatives. If that’s the case, they deserve every bit of backlash that’s coming to them. Alternatively, the documents might have been created by Bush partisans in a clever effort to defuse the attacks on Bush.

If, in the fullness of time, we discover that the documents were planted by Bush partisans, their prank will go down in the annals of political dirty tricks as one of the greatest — if not the greatest — dirty tricks of all time. A “clean” dirty trick, designed not to smear a candidate but to discredit those who are out to smear a candidate.

I can’t wait to see how this plays out.

Today’s washingtonpost.com has two great headlines. First we find that “Edwards Says Kerry Plans to Confront Iran on Weapons”. Okay, so why is Edwards saying this instead of Kerry? Would it be too confrontational if Kerry says it? But it gets worse, because the Kedwards approach to confrontation boils down to this:

A John F. Kerry administration would propose to Iran that the Islamic state be allowed to keep its nuclear power plants in exchange for giving up the right to retain the nuclear fuel that could be used for bomb-making, Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards said in an interview yesterday.

Edwards said that if Iran failed to take what he called a “great bargain,” it would essentially confirm that it is building nuclear weapons under the cover of a supposedly peaceful nuclear power initiative. He said that, if elected, Kerry would ensure that European allies were prepared to join the United States in levying heavy sanctions if Iran rejected the proposal….

Heavy sanctions? Wow! I suppose France would vow never to repeal its headscarf ban.

Then there’s this headline, which in light of recent polling trends seems to be post-mature (pun intended): “Series of Misjudgments Cost President His Lead”.

Some days it doesn’t pay to get the paper out of bed.

Washingtonpost.com reports:

Federal investigators concluded that Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) divulged classified intercepted messages to the media when he was on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, according to sources familiar with the probe.

No, that’s not news. But if you read on you find some nuggets:

Specifically, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron confirmed to FBI investigators that Shelby verbally divulged the information to him during a June 19, 2002, interview, minutes after Shelby’s committee had been given the information in a classified briefing….

Cameron did not air the material. Moments after Shelby spoke with Cameron, he met with CNN reporter Dana Bash, and about half an hour after that, CNN broadcast the material, the sources said. CNN cited “two congressional sources” in its report….

The disclosure involved two messages that were intercepted by the National Security Agency on the eve of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks but were not translated until Sept. 12. The Arabic-language messages said “The match is about to begin” and “Tomorrow is zero hour.” The Washington Post, citing senior U.S. intelligence officials, reported the same messages in its June 20, 2002, editions.

National security officials were outraged by the leak, and moments after the CNN broadcast a CIA official chastised committee members who had by then reconvened to continue the closed-door hearing….

Emphasis added by me to underscore an important difference — at least in this case — between Fox News, on the one hand, and CNN and The Washington Post, on the other. The First Amendment protects the press from censorship, but it doesn’t ban self-censorship.

Daniel Okrent, “public editor” (ombudsman?) of The New York times, admits today that The Times is a liberal newspaper. (Free registration required.) Some bloggers have badly misread Okrent’s piece as an apologia for his paper’s slant. If anything, it’s really an explanation and an apology.

The explanation, which is reasonable, amounts to this:

The Times has chosen to be an unashamed product of the city whose name it bears, a condition magnified by the been-there-done-that irony afflicting too many journalists. Articles containing the word “postmodern” have appeared in The Times an average of four times a week this year – true fact! – and if that doesn’t reflect a Manhattan sensibility, I’m Noam Chomsky.

Okay, but what about the apology? Here it is:

[I]t’s one thing to make the paper’s pages a congenial home for editorial polemicists, conceptual artists, the fashion-forward or other like-minded souls…, and quite another to tell only the side of the story your co-religionists wish to hear. I don’t think it’s intentional when The Times does this. But negligence doesn’t have to be intentional.

The gay marriage issue provides a perfect example….

[F]or those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it’s disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading….I’ve learned where gay couples go to celebrate their marriages; I’ve met gay couples picking out bridal dresses; I’ve been introduced to couples who have been together for decades and have now sanctified their vows in Canada, couples who have successfully integrated the world of competitive ballroom dancing, couples whose lives are the platonic model of suburban stability.

Every one of these articles was perfectly legitimate. Cumulatively, though, they would make a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause. You wouldn’t even need the articles: run the headlines over the invariably sunny pictures of invariably happy people that ran with most of these pieces, and you’d have the makings of a life insurance commercial.

This implicit advocacy is underscored by what hasn’t appeared. Apart from one excursion into the legal ramifications of custody battles…, potentially nettlesome effects of gay marriage have been virtually absent from The Times since the issue exploded last winter.

The San Francisco Chronicle runs an uninflected article about Congressional testimony from a Stanford scholar making the case that gay marriage in the Netherlands has had a deleterious effect on heterosexual marriage. The Boston Globe explores the potential impact of same-sex marriage on tax revenues, and the paucity of reliable research on child-rearing in gay families. But in The Times, I have learned next to nothing about these issues, nor about partner abuse in the gay community, about any social difficulties that might be encountered by children of gay couples or about divorce rates (or causes, or consequences) among the 7,000 couples legally joined in Vermont since civil union was established there four years ago.

On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires. This has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one’s own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning. Six years ago, the ownership of this sophisticated New York institution decided to make it a truly national paper. Today, only 50 percent of The Times‘s readership resides in metropolitan New York, but the paper’s heart, mind and habits remain embedded here. You can take the paper out of the city, but without an effort to take the city and all its attendant provocations, experiments and attitudes out of the paper, readers with a different worldview will find The Times an alien beast.

Well said. But will Okrent follow through after his August vacation? Will The Times do anything to balance the egregious leftward slant of its news columns? The blogosphere will be watchfully waiting to see what happens.

Lately I’ve been seeing a lot of references to “some experts” in my local (left-leaning) daily newspaper. Today I saw a similar reference in the lede of an online New York Times article (“Where Does the Buck Stop? Not Here”):

Accepting responsibility is an essential part of everyday life, something every parent and child, every boss and worker, every friend and colleague wrestle with, or know they should. But for a president it is quite rare, and at least in the view of some historians and government experts, getting rarer, as a national culture of shifting blame permeates American politics.

The article, of course, goes on to berate President Bush for failing to accept responsibility for 9/11 in the same theatrically obsequious manner as did former “anti-terrorism czar” Dick Clarke. (Clinton is ripped, as well, but he’s not running for re-election, is he?) Two “experts” are cited by name: David (a man for all administrations) Gergen and Michael Beschloss (the groupies’ historian). I guess two experts equals “some experts.”

So it seems that the NYT and its ilk on the left have found a new, cheap, journalistic trick. Quote a few pseudo-experts who have an opinion on a subject — an opinion that conforms to the paper’s opinion, of course — and refer to them as “some experts” in the headline or lede of a slanted story. And don’t bother to cite anyone with an opposing opinion. They don’t report, they decide.