Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I'm sure they'll try to chalk it up to an "internet blogger's joke taken out of context that got out of hand."

What better way to discredit the blogging community and cover your ass at the same time?

And, considering how many of your APUPI articles have been seriously misconstrued, they have plausible deniability as well.

That, or an internal office joke, but I'm sure that some anonymous computer user will get blamed either way.

Posted by John Breen III at September 10, 2004 06:56 AM

I misspoke. They don't have plausible deniability, just that the "blogger defense" is plausible in light of how many other blog writings have blown up beyond their authors' control.

It would still be a lie, though.

Posted by John at September 10, 2004 06:58 AM

Well, the intellectual giants at DU have already conclusively determined that Rove planted the docs with 60 minutes in order to expose the issue as a fraud. That way, when the REAL documents are released, everyone will dismiss them as well. The DU folks have never been fond of Occam's Razor.

IMO, if the blogosphere hadn't inspected these docs, they would have been taken at face value and reported as truth. Late last night, as it was becoming obvious that these were faked, the DNC sent an email out to their subscribers repeating the text of the memos and encouraging people to write letters to the editor using the memos as evidence to show Bush a draft dodger. (a bad DD, not a good DD like Clinton)

My fervent hope is that this election will turn out to be as transformational to the press as Watergate. Watergate made every reporter think they could change the world and inspired the "look for a scandal" mentality of the current press corps. Hopefully, this one will inspire reporters to go back to being more neutral pursuers of the truth.

But who am i kidding....

Posted by Bob at September 10, 2004 07:10 AM

Rand, I don't follow the Clinton logic.

Hillary (to run for President) would want Kerry to lose, not win in 2004. If Kerry wins, he will run for a 2nd term, obviously and no matter what happens in 2008, John Edwards would then be a major opponent in 2012.

And 2016 is a long way away.

If Kerry loses, Hillary (in her dreams) can step forward in 2008 to save America after 8 years of "W" - - so why would she want Kerry to win in 2004?

Now in the other hand, John McCain hates George W. Bush and is talking nice now to preserve his relationship with the far right for his 2008 run.

And John Kerry winning in 2004 better positions McCain for 2008.

Posted by Bill White at September 10, 2004 07:51 AM

Bill, the Clinton logic is exactly the same as the Rove logic. Hillary doesn't want Kerry to win in 2004, which was my point. The idea is to plant documents that are obviously (well, not obviously to the dim bulbs in the mainstream press) forged, to discredit the Kerry campaign.

I'm not saying I buy it, but it makes as much sense to suspect Hillary as Karl Rove.

I actually think that the perpetrators were probably Kerry supporters, who were both venal and stupid (such types, sadly, abound among his supporters, or at least among those who oppose George Bush--I'm not sure that there are any actual Kerry supporters).

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 10, 2004 07:59 AM

It's interesting to note that the former Clinton advisors have been on board less than a week and the campaign has become dirtier and full of intrigue, all of it detrimental to Kerry. Kerry's naïveté that former Clinton advisors would be loyal to anyone but the Clintons is another sign of his inability to be President.

Posted by Bill Maron at September 10, 2004 08:31 AM

Kerry's naïveté that former Clinton advisors would be loyal to anyone but the Clintons is another sign of his inability to be President.

Compare and contrast. . .

The neo-cons naïveté that convicted criminal Ahmed Chalabi would be loyal to anyone but himself and his Iranian paymasters is another sign of their inability to guide foreign policy.

And Mr. Chalabi even sought to convince us that the Iraqi people would rally under a blue & white flag, another sign that in his deepest heart, Chalabi wanted the US occupation to fail.

= = =

Rand, on conspiracies, IF the forgers knew their forgery would be easily detected then I agree with you. But if the forgers were merely inept then my logic removes one layer of conspiracy.

And it still could be some college kids spinning a goof. In any event its a hall of mirrors with too many unknown unknowns.

Still I keep trying to remind myself to rarely blame conspiracy when mere stupidity will suffice.

:-)

Posted by at September 10, 2004 09:14 AM

The actual forgers almost have to be young. Less than 30ish IMNSHO. The sheer insanity of the 'errors' is obvious to anyone that's honestly typed anything on a typewriter and on a word processor.

The shenanigans I went through with cutting and pasting to meet format requirements isn't something you'd forget.

Posted by Al at September 10, 2004 09:35 AM

I think you're right, Al. I'd bet that it never occurred to the people who were doing this that there were no such things as word processors, or Microsoft in 1972, an era that's probably ancient history to them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 10, 2004 09:59 AM

It is worth asking, though, if absent the blogger analysis, the other nets would have questioned it, or if they would have just echoed CBS.

You know the answer to that one, Rand.

And it isn't "questioned it."

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at September 10, 2004 10:05 AM

That narrows the search down a bit - we're looking for persons who have never been in the military, are young enough never to have used a typewriter, and are unaware that the 'internet' can apply a kazillion eyes to any problem in a matter of hours and so damned dumb they don't know their own limitations.

Posted by Brian at September 10, 2004 10:10 AM

It strikes me that perhaps these damaging documents concerning Bush's service are, in fact, being released by the upper brass in the military in an effort to prevent Bush/Cheney from being reelected and squandering more troops (and damaging the armed forces even more) in a pointless and economically-draining war in Iraq against 'terrorists'.

I suspect that these documents are genuine (anyone with half a brain knows that IBM Selectrics were capable of different fonts back during the time period these documents were created) and that this is, in fact, a 'soft coup' being undertaken against Bush/Cheney in case fair elections do not, in fact, take place.

(And really, a rigged election couple with dirty tricks and repeated lies (aka Zell Miller's speech) appear to be the only way for President Bush to be reelected. Realistic polls, not the ones on Fox News, would seem to predict a massive grassroots support for Kerry/Edwards, based on the 'Anybody but Bush' mindset).

Thank God someone has the balls to try and take these power-hungry fools down. I think that if Bush/Cheney are reelected they may wish to emulate Stalin during the 1937 May Day parade and make sure that the troops who march in the Inaugural Parade are, in fact, disarmed. It would seem to be a wise precaution as I know first-hand that the level of sheer hatred directed against Bush/Cheney by members at all levels of the armed services is astounding.

Rand, I'm sure your head is exploding right now and you're frothing at the mouth in right-wing anger. Sit back, take a deep breath, and try moderate thought instead. I have faith that you can, in fact, shake off that Republican brainwashing that's affecting the ability to think for yourself.

Posted by Capt Ed at September 10, 2004 11:57 AM

Howard Kurtz's "Media Notes" column on www.washingtonpost.com this morning (8AM) is rather bizarre. Kurtz, of all people, should know how serious this is. After all, this is not only 60 Minutes, but it is the middle of an election campaign. Forged documents are the kinds of things that get people fired and result in the FBI conducting investigations. Forging documents to influence an election campaign is not simply "dirty politics," but illegal. But Kurtz's ho-hum view is that there are more important things that the press should be looking at. This is the same guy who exposed Jayson Blair's shenanigans?

Posted by at September 10, 2004 12:28 PM

Capt, you're hilarious.

I'm sure unintentionally, though. (Hint: I'm neither "right wing" or "Republican").

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 10, 2004 12:41 PM

I should add, however, that among other idiocies you spout:

...anyone with half a brain knows that IBM Selectrics were capable of different fonts back during the time period these documents were created...

Some of us with full brains know that there has never been a typewriter manufactured that is capable of kerning (as appeared in the document), since this would require ESP on the part of the machine, to know what the next letter typed would be. If you really believe the drivel that you typed, you're so far around the bend you can't even see it from where you are.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 10, 2004 01:01 PM

The other question, of course, is why were they so dumb to think that they'd get away with what looks to be, in retrospect, an obvious forgery, for a large number of reasons? Sure, they could expect dumbbell Dan to eagerly run with it unexamined, but did they really think that no one else would notice? It is worth asking, though, if absent the blogger analysis, the other nets would have questioned it, or if they would have just echoed CBS.

I think this is an easy one to figure out -- the forgers never thought CBS would post exact copies of the documents on the Internet. How many times over the years (even the last decade when Internet posting was possible) has CBS done investigative stories using "exclusive" documents that, at best, would be shown in a 10-second frame shot on TV while Dan, Mike, Morley or Ed voices over the information contained inside. That's what the forgers no doubt thought would happen; a quick image of the letters on TV, and then they're locked up in the CBS News vault forever.

Had the network not posted the pdf files, any questions about the letters would have to come from someone with a VCR and a screen image capture card. So it wasn't only the Internet bloggers that blew the story out of the water, it was the Internet itself that allowed CBS to hoist itself on its own petard by posting the memos where everyone could see them.

Posted by John at September 10, 2004 01:51 PM

It strikes me that perhaps these damaging documents concerning Bush's service are, in fact, being released by the upper brass in the military. . .

or a CIA operation. Dubya isn't on the best of terms with them, either.

Posted by at September 10, 2004 02:04 PM

There's no doubt that the print rules out most typewriters. But I wouldn't like to say "They're FAKE!" and then have someone turn up with the one model of Selectric typewriter and "golfballs" that could print it. I don't think it is likely, but I do think we should be careful not to ASSUME it is impossible. That said, it is definitely in CBS's court to prove it could have been done, and if they can't, they should retract the memos as unproveable.

In fact, their comments so far have done nothing of the kind. From -

Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush

...CBS reporters had verified the documents by talking to unidentified people who saw them "at the time they were written."

If they couldn't have been printed then, those statements are irrelevent, even if these people talked publically.

A senior CBS official ... said a CBS reporter read the documents to [Maj. Gen. Bobby W.] Hodges over the phone and Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."

Again, says nothing about the validity of the memos. But it is reported that CBS considered this to be proof.

As for what happened, my guess would be that CBS heard juicy stories, but couldn't get people to go on camera or go on record with their stories. But somebody they contacted faxed them the "memos" and they could find people who would vouch for them off the record.

Posted by VR at September 10, 2004 02:04 PM

Wow. All sorts of developments on this. Apparently, Dan is going to speak to this and defend their position on CBS news tonight. In a short note about it, they seemed to be focusing on the "th" superscript. That is one of the MINOR issues. They need to show equipment available at the time that definitely could print these memos to demonstrate the POSSIBILITY they are real.

Unless CBS has VERY good evidence, they are digging themselves a very, very big hole.

Posted by VR at September 10, 2004 02:55 PM

Yes, and they apparently are unaware of the old adage about what to do when in holes...

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 10, 2004 02:58 PM

New name for CBS: DNCBS.

Something sure stinks about this, and it ain't my smelly sweat socks...

Posted by Greg at September 10, 2004 05:20 PM

Well, this has been fun. Drudge has the CBS News transcript. They mention that it was possible to do superscript "th" on some typewriters. They mention that the a new times roman typeface existed. They did not mention a specific machine available at the time that could have printed this, or mention that they had done a test on same.

They said the copies of the document available for download are far removed from what they started with but they did not mention that they were now making high res duplicates available.

They had two people speak. Both hedged. They are "compatible" and they are "consistent." They did not say "Yes. I was there and those are real."

Pathetic. If they had anything, they would have shown it.

Posted by VR at September 10, 2004 05:29 PM

"They had two people speak. Both hedged. They are "compatible" and they are "consistent." They did not say "Yes. I was there and those are real.""

That was telling. Dan Rather asked one of these people point blank if the documents were genuine and the guy did not say "yes."

What was also telling was how leading Rather's questions were, along the lines of "Is it surprising that there are partisan attacks over these documents?"

Posted by at September 11, 2004 07:50 AM

Why did they do it? the psychology of the forgers

Putting up such a blatant forgery in the pursuit of defeating Bush is understandable if you spend enough time listening to what the anybody-but-Bush people are constantly saying.

The ABB really believe that Bush lies and cheats his way to political success. The ABB really believe that the only way for the Democrats to "level the playing field" is to fight just as dirty as they believe Bush does.

Out of that kind of belief system comes actions such as the CBS forged documents, or the false AP story of the booing Clinton
incident.

The forged documents are only the beginning. Unless Bush beats Kerry by a sizable margin, expect the mother of all legal battles over the election results, complete with widespread knowingly false evidence produced by the challengers.

The really horrible thing about all this is how much the MSM will go along with the false witnesses. Thank god for the internet and the blogosphere as an antidote.

Posted by Brad at September 11, 2004 04:44 PM

Post a comment