From 60 Minutes

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
From 60 Minutes
60
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 12:10am
A few months before Mr. Bush would become eligible for the draft, Barnes says he had a meeting with the late oilman Sid Adger, a friend to both Barnes and then-Congressman George Bush.

"It's been a long time ago, but he said basically would I help young George Bush get in the Air National Guard," says Barnes, who then contacted his longtime friend Gen. James Rose, the head of Texas' Air National Guard.

"I was a young ambitious politician doing what I thought was acceptable," says Barnes. "It was important to make friends. And I recommended a lot of people for the National Guard during the Vietnam era - as speaker of the house and as lt. governor."

George W. Bush was among those he recommended for the National Guard. Was this a case of preferential treatment?

"I would describe it as preferential treatment. There were hundreds of names on the list of people wanting to get into the Air National Guard or the Army National Guard," says Barnes. "I think that would have been a preference to anybody that didn't want to go to Vietnam or didn’t want to leave. We had a lot of young men that left and went to Canada in the '60s and fled this country. But those that could get in the Reserves, or those that could get in the National Guard - chances are they would not have to go to Vietnam."

But 60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file. Among them, a never-before-seen memorandum from May 1972, where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about "how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November."

Lt. Bush tells his commander "he is working on a campaign in Alabama…. and may not have time to take his physical." Killian adds that he thinks Lt. Bush has gone over his head, and is "talking to someone upstairs."

Col. Killian died in 1984. 60 Minutes consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic.

In a memo from Aug. 18, 1973, Col. Killian says Col. Buck Staudt, the man in charge of the Texas Air National Guard, is putting on pressure to "sugar coat" the evaluation of Lt. Bush. Staudt, a longtime supporter of the Bush family, would not do an interview for this broadcast.

The memo continues, with Killian saying, "I’m having trouble running interference and doing my job."

"He was trying to deal with a volatile political situation, in dealing with the son of an ambassador and former congressman," says Strong. "He was trying to deal with at least one superior officer, Gen. Staudt, who was closely connected to the Houston political establishment. And I just see an impossible situation. I feel very, very sorry, because he was between a rock and a hard place."

One of the Killian memos is an official order to George W. Bush to report for a physical. The president never carried out the order.

On Aug. 1, 1972, Lt. Bush was suspended from flying status, due to "failure to accomplish his annual medical examination." That document was released years ago. But another document has not been seen until now. It’s a memo that Col. Jerry Killian put in his own file that same day. It says "on this date, I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended not just for failing to take a physical….but for failing to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards."



dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 7:57pm
Oops, didn't catch my mistake in time, sorry. Anyway, I know you won't trust the weekly standard as an unbiased source, but I'll post this nonetheless. Seems like if they are forgeries they are extremely bad ones, and the errors are obvious. Peter Jennings reported on ABC News tonight that the documents may not be authentic.

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4596&R=9FCD2F192

DOCUMENTS CITED Wednesday by 60 Minutes in a widely-publicized expose of George W. Bush's National Guard Service are very likely forgeries, according to several experts on document authenticity and typography. The documents--four memos from Killian to himself or his files written in 1972 and 1973--appear to indicate that Bush refused or ignored orders to have a physical exam required to continue flying. CBS News anchor Dan Rather reported the segment and sourced the documents this way: "60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file," he said. The 60 Minutes story served as the basis for follow-up news reports for dozens of news organizations across the country. The memos were almost immediately questioned in the blog world, with blog Power Line leading the charge.

And according to several forensic document experts contacted by THE WEEKLY STANDARD say the Killian memos appear to be forgeries. Although it is nearly impossible to establish with certainty the authenticity of documents without a careful examination of the originals, several irregularities in the Killian memos suggest that CBS may have been the victim of a hoax.

"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."

There are several reasons these experts are skeptical of the authenticity of the Killian memos. First the typographic spacing is proportional, as is routine with professional typesetting and computer typography, not monospace, as was common in typewriters in the 1970s. (In proportional type, thin letters like "i" and "l" are spaced closer together than thick letters like "W" and "M". In monospace, all the letter widths are the same.)

Second, the font appears to be identical to the Times New Roman font that is the default typeface in Microsoft Word and other modern word processing programs. According to Flynn, the font is not listed in the Haas Atlas--the definitive encyclopedia of typewriter type fonts.

Third, the apostrophes are curlicues of the sort produced by word processors on personal computers, not the straight vertical hashmarks typical of typewriters. Finally, in some references to Bush's unit--the 111thFighter Interceptor Squadron--the "th" is a superscript in a smaller size than the other type. Again, this is typical (and often done automatically) in modern word processing programs. Although several experts allow that such a rendering might have been theoretically possible in the early 1970s, it would have been highly unlikely. Superscripts produced on typewriters--the numbers preceding footnotes in term papers, for example--were almost always in the same size as the regular type.

So can we say with absolute certainty that the documents were forged? Not yet. Xavier University's Polt, in an email, offers two possible scenarios. "Either these are later transcriptions of earlier documents (which may have been handwritten or typed on a typewriter), or they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but I won't let that cloud my objective judgment: I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."

Says Flynn: "This looks pretty much like a hoax at this point in time."

CBS, in a statement Thursday afternoon, said it stands by the story. The network claims that its own document expert concluded the memos were authentic. There are several things CBS could do to clear up any confusion:

(1) Provide the name of the expert who authenticated the documents for Sixty Minutes.

(2) Provide the original documents to outside experts--William Flynn, Gerald Reynolds, and Peter Tytell seem to be the consensus top three in the United States--for further analysis.

(3) Provide more information on the source of the documents.

(A spokeswoman for CBS, Kelly Edwards, said she was overwhelmed with phone calls and did not respond to specific requests for comment.)

Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 8:18pm
You have a very low threshold for what you consider to be "proof." You've posted a bunch of speculation from another board (which, unfortunately for the field of journalism...Drudge has linked to.) 60 Minutes has said they had these documents verified by an expert. I know that still leaves slight room for error. I'm willing to trust 60 Minutes until more credible allegations come forward.

I tried to go to a website about typewriter type, and was met by a message saying their site was down "because of excessive hits due to conspiracy theories." I seem to remember my old typewriter having a tiny "th" key (as well as a tiny 1/2 key) but I don't have it anymore to check. The sad thing is that the case against Bush blowing off his National Guard duties can be made even without these documents. All I can say about this is don't believe everything you read on the internet.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 8:44pm
As a co-CL for a board that spinning out of control, should you really be encouraging "partisan glee" ? I know being CL doesn't mean you have to temper your own views, but this seems a bit over the line. People are leaving this board in droves because it's just a fist fight. And this is how you post?

Whatever happened to mifskie? She hasn't been around much.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 9:02pm


I believe she said "shame on you for quashing the partisan glee", fail to see how that is encouraging partisan glee. I know exactly what she means. It seems to me that is just what the revelation that these documents may be false has done-tempered the unabashed joy some folks have at possibly having "caught" the president at something. Rightly so-even if there is legitimacy to any of the questions about George Bush's service records, if these documents do prove to be forged that issue is dead in the water-it will be seen by most Americans as an obviously baseless smear.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 9:11pm
I'm also viewing these claims with suspicion. I looked at the first memo posted, and at first glance, I can see why people are questioning it. In general, typewriters space things evenly. This memo has letters "kerned" or grouped together in a way that eliminates wasted space between letters (sorry if I'm incorrectly assuming you don't already know this...I work in the visual arts and am forever kerning things, it's a real pain).

BUT... what really works against this forgery argument is that the first time the 111th appears in the memo - the very first line, actually - the "th" is not raised. It sits imperfectly on the baseline. (The baseline being the same line all the other letters are sitting on.) It's odd that it's imperfect, since a wordprocessing program would have been perfect, and a forger who was attuned to such nuances certainly would have been attuned to the fact that the very next time the "th" appears, it's RAISED, above the baseline in a superscript. Yes, Microsoft Word does that for you automatically now, but in the old days you used to have to actually scroll the paper up a notch and type the "th" and then scroll it back down a notch. This results in a "th" that's above the top of the other letters, which this "th" is. I typed the same exact line into Microsoft word, using the typewriter-like font Courier, and the while the "th" was certainly raised automatically, it was still nearly in line with the top of the other letters. Of course, a forger could have used a more advanced typewriter font, but still...why would they get it "right" the first time, and wrong the second time? It doesn't make any sense if people are claiming this is an automated computer thing. It's inconsistent.

I just checked the other documents posted by the Weekly Standard and the "th" thing is very inconsistent - sometimes it's on the baseline, sometimes it's in a "superscript." A computer program would be consistent, as would either a smart or dumb forger. I don't think these documents are fakes. Although if this story takes hold it could be the fist time the fate of a nation was decided by an over-conscientious secretary. Very scary. I look forward to hearing what the experts have to say about this tomorow. But even if they do say the claims are false, this is all some hypnotized Bush supporters need to run with it. Just a sliver of doubt and they're posting they have "proof."

Here's a link to the retched Weekly Standard, where you can find links to the typewriten memos. http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4596&R=9FCD2F192

(Since I have just as much credibiliaty as the freepers, I look forward to seeing my analysis of this on Drudge tomorrow.)

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2004
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 9:17pm
Do we really want four more years of a man who took the rich boy's out of service in Vietnam? How can we ever trust someone as Commander-in-Chief who played political games while others were maimed, tortrued and killed? In my humble opinion he started this war in Iraq, for his own ego boost. Frankly the man and those around him scare me to death.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-21-2004
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 9:38pm
Ah, that's interesting...

I find that reporting by CBS to be "speculation, rumour, and innuendo, and nothing more."

One man's *reliable, nonpartisan source* is another man's ENQUIRER.

I find it telling that you will believe a piece on 60 Minutes as the truth and discount other reports so easily.

Who is being partisan here?

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 9:49pm
< Do we really want four more years of a man who took the rich boy's out of service in Vietnam? How can we ever trust someone as Commander-in-Chief who played political games while others were maimed, tortrued and killed? >

I suppose you voted for Bush Sr. then, since he served, while Clinton is on record stating that he used his connections to avoid going to Vietnam?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 10:05pm
>> I find it telling that you will believe a piece on 60 Minutes as the truth and discount other reports so easily. <<

You find it hard to believe that I hold a source with 70 + years of journalistic experience as more credible than a few internet sites I've never even heard of before today.

So what?

Your evidence from cns "The right news. Right now" doesn't cut it as a reliable independent source for me.

If anyone provides a non partisan source, I'm open.

Blame my high school media studies teacher.

"Consider the messenger as well as the message"

He hammered this stuff into my head years before the Internet was in existence.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-21-2004
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 10:15pm
You can actually watch CBS, especially the CBS EVENING NEWS, and tell me that you don't see the liberal, anti-Bush bias?

CBS used to be credible in my book. But now that the networks don't have the monopoly on informing the public, they seem to have lost their integrity. People have a choice and the internet for news, from all sources. Sure, some of them are not reputable, but why would you assume CBS is?