***Summary of the Newly Released Killian Memos and CBS Source***

[indyjones1938]

The other thread was getting messy so let's start discussion here.

For those who aren't aware, two new memos from Lt. Col. Jerry Killian have been released, in addition to the original four from 60 Minutes on Wednesday.

They are at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf

The #1 memo and the #5 memo are the two newly-released ones. They are the missing pieces in the puzzle. Dan Rather has just buried the claims of forgery AND slyly revealed his source. Here's how:

(1) Read this new memo #5. It's obviously a letter from Killian to one of his superiors. The date is late June, 1973. He's telling this superior that he can't evaluate Bush because he hasn't shown up, and asks the superior what to do about it.

(2) It logically follows that Bush was contacted by either Killian or this superior sometime after the letter was written in late June, 1973. Bush realizes that he's in hot water and starts "talking to someone upstairs."

(3) Within a few weeks, Killian's superior writes back to him telling him to let Bush off the hook.

(4) Pissed off and suspicious, Killian "Covers His Ass" a few weeks later by writing that personal memo, in which he indicates that Hodges has been pressured by Staudt to let Bush off the hook. So Hodges was obviously the superior who Killian had written in late June, and Staudt was the one who Bush (or Poppy) had contacted sometime between that letter in late June and August.

(5) Since the #5 memo was written to Hodges (and SIGNED) by Killian, it HAD to have come from Hodges' files.

Therefore, CBS's source was almost certainly Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges.

It's no coincidence that these two new memos were quietly released just as Hodges was crying foul and accusing the memos of being forgeries. The way I see it, there's two possibilites why he's backpedaling:

(1) Bush/Rove realized that he was the source and have threatened him or his family. Nothing new for the BFEE.

(2) The backpedaling is a ruse, and Rather/Hodges are playing the other media networks like a fiddle. This is much more likely. Rather knew that the wingnuts would accuse the documents of being forgeries instead of addressing their contents, so he set them up. Let them cry forgery for a few days, let the rumors spread, then have his "top source" Bobby Hodges accuse CBS of fraud to fan the flames. Then, release other documents, prove the Killian memos are authentic and watch Bush/Rove go down in flames. 100:1 bets Rather has OTHER documents and their release is imminent. The reason these two memos were released by USAToday instead of by CBS directly is so the wingnuts can't accuse CBS of forgery anymore. Clearly, USAToday has had their own experts vet the new documents and are convinced of their authenticity. Rather is now going into battle with an ally at his side. Absolutely brilliant.

Another important piece of information comes from memo #1 about Bush and James Bath, his close friend who was suspended from flying status the exact same time as Bush. Allegedly, Bath was doing cocaine, and Bush was as well by association. 100:1 that Rather has used FOIA to pull Bath's records and is about to prove the cocaine story about Bush. Game, set, match.

I think Bush is going to be singing his Swan Song within the next week.

[indyjones1938]

1. Kick

:kick:

When is someone going to tell the freepers that their hero was just checkmated? None of this is fun unless we get to see freepers' faces turning bright red! :(

[City Lights]

2. Excellent analysis and great find!

How did you find out about these new docs since there doesn't seem to be any story in the media about them?

[indyjones1938]

5. DU

Someone on DU mentioned the two new documents in another thread. They just quietly appeared out of nowhere. When I read them, I realized what a goldmine they were.

As for why the media hasn't mentioned them - probably because they prove that the memos are legitimate? :shrug: Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews are probably pulling their hair out, realizing what a crippling blow this is for Bush.

[City Lights]

8. But if no one is talking about them, what impact will they have?

I'm surprised that USA Today doesn't have a story to accompany the new documents posted on their site. I'm hoping that Dan Rather is sitting quietly, waiting for the right moment to pounce.

[johnnyrocket]

93. I am stunned by the media bias pro-Bush...

...not even an exaggeration. The last few months have been especially egregious. TV news heads all looks like robots spewing crap, and political wire stories are arbitrary, fast and loose with facts and filled with opinion. Why is every new poll story about how Bush is a little ahead in some state??

Corporate media NEVER brings up the fact that Kerry could win, and spins Bush being ahead everywhere, trying to say the elections over, stay home.

If Ridge doesn't scare you into saying away from voting because you might get blown up by terrorists, the big corp. want to convince you the elections a blowout, don't bother.

Arrrrgg!! When do the (sane and rational people) take the country back!?!?

[henslee]

44. It's a weekend. News elite are away.

[merbex]

3. Rather hinted at something on Friday

WHY didn't LT Bush take the ordered physical?

I'm paraphasing but the release of this and maybe stuff on Bath sets it up

[SoCalDemocrat]

60. Too much coke

I think Bush was running coke out of Central America instead of tropical plants as the reports indicated. He was running from Central America to Florida to Texas for some agricultural venture. It was the same time period where he was rumored to be doing coke and wouldn't take his physical.

I'm guessing George was sampling the product, or maybe being paid in kind for his services. At least he was industrious.

[Mr_Spock]

4. Hmmmm, I'm starting to warm up to this story.

And I don't like to discuss anything that isn't hard fact and will have a real effect than nobody, including the media, can ignore.

[discopants]

89. kick!

this thread is too damn important.

[WiseMen]

6. Wrong assumption. I allways put copies of sent mail in MY file.

Unless it is a hand written note there is no reason to think
that the recipient is the source.

[indyjones1938]

13. Nope

It was posted on here, and elsewhere, that military secretaries in those days would stamp the sender's copy with "Sent" or "To File." Killian wouldn't have signed the copy that was going to his own files. His secretary would've just stamped it.

But he WOULD have signed the letter that was going to his superior officer, and that officer could only have been Hodges.

Notice how Killian did NOT sign the two "personal memos" - CYA and the Bush conversation - because they were simply going into his own files.

[n2mark]

99. Killian memos

I am new to the DU.... thanks for the great info.


I've not read the explanation for the subject on the last memo with the subject CYA --- doesn't this mean "cover your ass?"

[indie_voter]

14. Agreed, but wouldn't he put the carbon copy in his file?

Or would he have his secratary type two copies, one for the file and one to be sent?


I don't know?

[indyjones1938]

17. Well

It doesn't look to me like a carbon copy, but I may be wrong. But even if it were, the secretary still would've stamped it "Sent" or "To File" or something.

[indie_voter]

25. It doesn't look like a carbon copy to me either n/t

[janx]

57. The documents have been scanned. There's no way to

tell whether they are carbon copies or not. But I think you're right in that some of the copies were not signed and were probably file copies. They would not necessarily have to have been stamped as such.

[King Coal]

27. LOL! They had copiers then.

[indie_voter]

31. LOL!! I know but

I remember using carbon paper, but then I was lowly grade school kid at the time (I am 40 ) who didn't have easy access to a copy machine. So I made the rash assumption that everybody used carbon paper when typing.

You're right though, why use carbon if you have a copy machine?

[starroute]

47. Copy machines had not really superseded carbon paper by 1972

I could be wrong about some of this, but these are my recollections:

- Even though the first Xerox plain-paper copier came out in 1959, the older heat-sensitive paper copiers, which produced a blurry grey image, remained most common throughout the 60's.

- Real Xerox copiers were still fairly expensive in the 1970's -- both for the machines themselves and on a per-page basis. They were not used casually but only when absolutely required.

- Carbonless copies were extremely popular around the 1970's precisely because they were cheaper than xeroxing. You still see some of them around -- typically, there will be two or three sheets attached at the top, with the second and third copies in colors like yellow and pink. Typing comes through on the copies fairly clearly, but signatures do not.

- Secretaries continued routinely making carbon copies of letters until the 1980's. It was only when computers replaced typewriters, making carbon copies almost impossible, that xeroxing became the standard means of producing file copies.

[Prodemsouth]

55. In lower level, schools, yeah copiers were not around memo graph machine

and carbon. But in offices in Military they were there- My dad who was in the Air Guard (GA) ran some copies for me around 1970 one Sunday for a school assignment. I was in the 5th grade at the time.

[wryter2000]

63. Not so sure

My first office job was in 1969. A small district office for an oil company. We didn't use carbons at all by then but used an ancient Xerox machine that looked kind of like a huge desk. The operator actually sat at the thing.

On edit: Killian's typewriter was quite sophisticated for the time. I can't believe he didn't use a copier.

[Blue Wally]

86. Military correspndence

Used to be typed using carbons. The original was on bond paper and was signed and went to the addressee. Depending on the procedures for the office, remaining copies were on white or colored "flimsies". To save time, the flimsies came with a piece of "one use" carbon paper attached to them. As I recall, our office procedures were to provide a bond original and a flimsie white "courtesy copy" to the adressee. There was a yellow record file copy to which was attached all supporting documents. There was a pink "correspondence file" copy (retained for a couple of months to provide a chronological file of outgoing correspondence). Other offices put a green or blue copy into a daily folder going to the commander. In other offices, there was a copy for the writer to keep in his own "personal correspondence" file.

[joefree1]

7. Turn up the heat

Great post. We need to get aggressive progressive on these neo-con slime balls.

[Clinton Crusader]

9. Thank you for putting this all together

Cause I gotta admit, my head was freakin SPINNING trying to figure this all out.

I have a question. What if Hodges CONTINUES to say they are forgeries, doesnt back down, sticks to that? ALL the media will pick up is Rather's chief source says it's all a lie. Maybe this is blantantly obvious, but I overslept...:boring: and as just starting to really wake up.
:kick:

[Doosh]

10. good analysis

[King Coal]

11. I wish I could understand why #5 means that.

Hodges had to be the source.

And won't BFEE just claim these memos are fakes too? I hope you are right. And maybe the blow angle will help too.

[indyjones1938]

15. See above

Memo #5 had to have come from the recipient's files because it was a SIGNED letter. This was the recipient's copy of the letter. And the recipient could only have been Hodges.

Killian's copy of the letter wouldn't have been signed. His secretary would've stamped it "Sent" ot "To File" or something along those lines.

[King Coal]

18. But why does the recipient have to be the source?

What if a secretary or someone had made a copy? Wouldn't Hodges have had an original? Which is what we really need.

[Hepburn]

20. I see that you and I are asking the same question...

...and I am hoping that #5 came from the files of the person who received it.

[King Coal]

21. Me too, but I think our question is valid.

[Hepburn]

24. Maybe it is because we are both oldtimers....

....I used to do secretarial work back in the pre-computer/word processor days. I am thinking of what my routine was when I did a letter and made a file copy. I am almost positive I put the original out for signature and when it was returned to me with a signature, that is when I made the file copy. The reason: Because if the letter had to be corrected and was not signed because of this, I had wasted my time making the file copy BEFORE the boss signed. I am about 99% positive on this.

So...the above is why I am having problems with the concept that a signed copy of a memo/letter to a third party had to come only from the files of the person who received the same. Now, if it were an original, that is an entirely different ball game.

[King Coal]

26. LOL! Yeah, it was a little different when you had to completely

retype a page rather than just open up a file and make a little change. But. But. A secretary would be a great source!

[Hepburn]

37. Exactly...

....things have changed sooooooo much in 30 years. Who runs to the xerox and makes a copy???? A duplicate original is just run on the computer and marked "File Copy." If the original is signed, the unsigned dup goes in the file...if not signed and corrections need to be done, the first original and dup are tossed and the corrections are made and a new original and dup are made. That is why to me that the fact that #5 is signed cannot lead to the conclusion that it came for the file of the person who received it. Things were just done differently 30+ years ago.

[Hepburn]

19. A question....

....I would hope this analysis is correct, but I have a question: What if the secretary had Killian sign the original and then made a copy for Killian's file before sending out the original? Unless the new memo (#5) is an original - which, of course, would have had to have come from the person who received it - then the new #5 could have just been a file copy from Killian's files as well and we are back to the same forgery issues. Is there some way anyone can rule out what I am asking about? I hope, I hope, I hope....

[indie_voter]

29. I have the same problem

If it came from the receipient then that person would have the originals, which would mean USA Today might have access to the originals?

If it is a copy then it could be a file copy.

I would also like to understand if these are copies from the 70s or recent copies of the documents.

If this came from Killian's file (and is the original), it should be easy to test ink/toner, etc and date it back to the 70s.

[Hepburn]

33. Dating the materials...

....hoping some originals appear. There are places where old paper stock can be bought, but as far as I know, there is no way to age what is on the paper.

[indyjones1938]

42. Copies and originals

The tone of your posts is very odd. I won't say anything, because it's against the rules, nor will I alert, but I have a gut feeling that something just isn't kosher.

Anyway, I am operating under the assumption, as has been posted extensively here and elsewhere, that secretaries in those days usually stamped the file copy. I have copies of old military file documents from the 1950s-60s, and most of them are stamped in one way or another.

Do you see where I am going with this, Hepburn?

If this were Killian's copy, it most likely would have been stamped in some way or another. Let's make the signature point moot for now.

If this were the recipient's copy, it most likely would not have been stamped, and indeed, this copy is not stamped. It looks like the original.

And I guess, when it comes down to it, who CBS's source is really doesn't matter. These two new memos prove that Rather has other documents. It shoots down the claims for forgery.

And the mention of James Bath in this memo, combined with Rather's persistent questioning of "WHY Bush didn't take his physical," seems quite prophetic. I think Rather has proof of Bush's cocaine use.

[Hepburn]

51. I simply asked the question....

....because I did not want the Bushies and the righties to have a way out that we had not considered. They spin everything and since I had done a lot of typing on Selectrics and other electric typewriters during that time, I wondered about file copies and thought of what I had done way back when. I realized that AFTER a letter, etc., had been made that is when I made the file copy. So that could have accounted for the signature in a manner other than the copy came from Hodge's file.

[gollygee]

84. If they used a photocopier

he probably would have signed it and then the copies would have been made. So all copies would have the signature.

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

34. Could they be from Harris' estate?

Is it at all possible that the 'Y' in CYA refers to Harris, and that Killian was giving him these documents as some kind of cover, just in case?

In other words, could the recipient of these be Harris, and some of these copies of cc:'s.

I hail from 1972, and even I remember typed memos with cc:/fcc: lines and abc/ABC notations.

[indie_voter]

12. This is confusing to me

If Hodges was the source why would he impune his own character to play the media? This sounds too convoluted a scheme for both Rather and Hodges.

The BFEE getting to Hodges makes more sense if he is indeed the source.

[diddlysquat]

16. Kick

[Nimble_Idea]

22. Amazing!

Down down down they go.

[Wakeup_America]

23. It is doubtful that Hodges is the source

Hodges has stated in several interviews that he thought the documents were fake and that he had never seen them before they were released.

If he'd been the CBS source, then by making those claims he would have implicated himself of committing forgery because CBS could easily proven that he was the source.

[librechik]

28. I hope he's not the source, because a) he is a lying SOB

and b) he is a Bush-loving Texasbot, and will do us no good as a witness.

[Myrina]

35. And of course nobody's ever done THAT before ....

:eyes:

[wryter2000]

64. Hodges as the source or not

It's neat if Hodges is the source. But the fact is that another news organization has found more memos that back up what Rather has been saying. This gives the story much credence, no matter who the source is.

[BrendaStarr]

30. Newsweek says source of memos is probably Bill Burkett

Where did the documents come from? CBS won't say. But the trail pieced together by NEWSWEEK shows that in a sulfurous season like this one, the difference between obscurity and power is small, and anyone can get a hearing. A principal source for CBS's story was Bill Burkett, a disgruntled former Guard officer who lives in Baird, Texas, who says he was present at Guard headquarters in Austin in 1997, when a top aide to the then Governor Bush ordered records sanitized to protect the Boss. Other Guard officials disputed Burkett's account, and the Bush aide involved, Joe Allbaugh, called it "absolute garbage." Burkett may have a motive to make trouble for the powers that be. In 1998, he grew gravely ill on a Guard mission to Panama, causing him to be hospitalized, and he suffered two nervous breakdowns. He unsuccessfully sued for medical expenses.

Still, in theory, Burkett may have had access to any Guard records that, in a friend's words, "didn't make it to the shredder." Fellow officers say he wasn't a crank, but rather a stickler for proper procedure—a classic whistle-blower type. Burkett was impressive enough to cause CBS producer Mary Mapes to fly to Texas to interview him. "There are only a couple of guys I would trust to be as perfectly honest and upfront as Bill," says Dennis Adams, a former Guard colleague. The White House, through Communications Director Dan Bartlett, called Burkett a "discredited source." Indeed, Bush strategists are convinced—or have convinced themselves—that the issue will backfire on its purveyors.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5974040/site/newsweek/

BTW it couldn't have possibly been Hodges because he claims to never have see the memos and has some idea that they were memos Killian wrote to himself.

Of course, that is not after talking to some other Texas Republicans---no! /sarcasm

A former National Guard commander who CBS News said had helped convince it of the authenticity of documents raising new questions about President Bush's military service said on Saturday that he did not believe they were genuine.

The commander, Bobby Hodges, said in a telephone interview that network producers had never showed him the documents but had only read them to him over the phone days before they were featured Wednesday in a "60 Minutes" broadcast. After seeing the documents on Friday, Mr. Hodges said, he concluded that they were falsified.

...

He said he had not authenticated the documents for CBS News but had confirmed that they reflected issues he and Colonel Killian had discussed - namely Mr. Bush's failure to appear for a physical, which military records released previously by the White House show, led to a suspension from flying.

A CBS News spokeswoman, Sandy Genelius, indicated that Mr. Hodges had changed his account.

"We believed General Hodges the first time we spoke to him," Ms. Genelius said. Acknowledging that document authentification is often not an iron-clad process, she said, "We believe the documents to be genuine, we stand by our story and we will continue to report."

A spokeswoman for the CBS anchor Dan Rather, Kim Akhtar, said that Mr. Hodges had declined to appear on camera. As a result, Ms. Akhtar said, he was read the memos and responded that "he was familiar with the contents of the documents and that it sounded just like Killian." He made it clear, she added, that he was a supporter of Mr. Bush.

He specifically pointed to a memo theorizing that the Texas Guard's chief of staff, Col. Walter B. Staudt, was pressing Mr. Hodges to give Mr. Bush favorable treatment. Mr. Hodges said that was not the case and that Mr. Staudt had actually retired more than a year earlier, though he acknowledged that Mr. Staudt might have remained in the Guard in some capacity after that. Mr. Staudt has not answered his phone for several days.

Mr. Hodges said he had also begun taking a dim view of the memos after hearing disavowals of them from Colonel Killian's wife and son.

The son, Gary Killian, said Saturday that he initially believed the documents might be real, if only because the signature looked like his father's. He said he had since been persuaded by the skepticism of some document experts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/politics/campaign/12guard.html

Of course the right wing's document experts cases have been busted.

So Hodges relies on G. Killian who might have cause to white wash his father's image.

Killian relies on 'experts' hired by right wingers who may or may not be picked by Karl Rove and have been shown not to have much of a case.

Their biggest card for declaring the docs false is flipping Hodges.

That is called circular reasoning.

[Clinton Crusader]

32. I go more wit Burkett than Hodges

WHY would he continually say they're fake, in a scheme with Rather? Doesnt make sense
:kick:

[Tsiyu]

87. Welcome Brenda Starr

How does your hair stay so gorgeous!

Great post, btw

[louis c]

36. From your lips to God's ears

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pintobean]

40. or 2 copies from one source

[Must_B_Free]

39. Interesting that James R Bath is now drawn into the mix

in memo 1.

[SayitAintSo]

41. God bless you ... I was getting depressed - this is great news...

I was reading all the other 'sky is falling' posts and sinking to the nadir .... I come to DU to look for good news that the worm is turning. I hope you're right !

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

43. Dan Rather, an old school journalist...you don't put it out there

if it doesn't pass the "sniff" test...i.e. stench of b*lls*t. He KNEW his sources were good, and he definitely spun this beautifully. Thanks for the summary, looking forward to watching this play out. MKJ

[Bolo Boffin]

45. Some problems with your analysis, but overall great

1. Bush was "talking to someone upstairs" back in May of 72. He didn't start after the June 73 memo. However, it's possible that the "talking upstairs" continued fast and furious after the June 73 letter.

2. Technically, Bath and Bush aren't suspended at the same time. Their suspensions are noted on the same document, but Bush was suspended August 1, and Bath September 1.

Otherwise, Rather's release of new memos is a master stroke. It's all coming apart...

[AmerDem]

46. Anyone else think 60 Mintues is working on another show

To put the final nail in shrub's coffin on this subject? I personally do!

[Must_B_Free]

48. I wonder what "technical difficulties" will arise when that airs?

[Kimber Scott]

49. They didn't have to come from Hodge, they could have been Killian's

copies. That's why they only have copies, no originals. The original letters would have been sent to Hodge.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

50. Dammit instead of dicking around with who wrote what when

why isn't ANYONE in the fugging media just point-blank ASKING bush (not McClellan's ass, BUSH) these questions:

1. WHY were you suspended?

2. WHY did you not show up for the physical?

3. WERE drugs involved?

4. Outline your relationship with James Bath over the years.

5. WHERE WERE YOU in 72-73, when you were supposed to be in Alabama?

6. Etc etc etc.

Dammit someone just ask the toad these questions and watch him SQUIRM.

[Hepburn]

52. I agree...

...and those IMO are the questions that Bush needs to answer.

[Bunny]

54. Oh come now, Moonbeam_Starlight!

They can't ask these kinds of questions! They'd be thrown out of the Kool Kids Klub! Maybe have their nickname taken away! You can't honestly expect them to risk that, can you?

[Mixxster]

53. I'm having a really hard time getting the USA Today docs.

Either one comes up but I can't scroll down or use the arrows OR nothing comes up at all.

Anyone else having trouble?

[gordianot]

56. Macihavellian Media

I think you have it. Don't you suspect that this is not a new development that this information has been sitting in someones vault for a long time? I wonder how many hours and hands went into planning this execution.

My trust in CBS has really gone up.

[RadiDem]

58. is there a link to a USA Today STORY re the 2 new memos ?

Thanks !

[wryter2000]

59. OMFG!

I knew it! I knew it! The cries of forgery have backfired on * et al. in ways we could only dream of. They took a story that would have blown over in a couple of days and made it into a major federal case. Now, they have to face the fact that they've created a story that is going to kill the campaign for weeks, if not right up until 11/02.

I swear to God, if I ever meet Dan Rather, I'm going to plant a big, sloopy kiss anywhere the man will let me.

Can we start the comparisons to Edward R. Murrow and Joe McCarthy now?

[Ladyhawk]

61. LOL...many predicted this would happen. GOOD ON YOU!!!

I just hope this is all real and does what we need for it to do. Dan Rather, if you're listening, play it cool, man. You're in the chess game of your life (and ours).

[wryter2000]

66. What can I say?

I have a keen sense of the obvious. Besides, we're all geniuses here. :)

[hexola]

62. Sounds great - but how does this prove they are not forgeries?

The may corraborate the story nicely - but are these going to subject to the same scrutiny that the first batch was?

[Spazito]

68. It is up to those who cry forgery to prove forgery, not the other way,,,

around. The issue has now gone past the faux forgery crap and back to content where it belongs, that is good news, right?

Oh, and here is a little more and it is NOT attached to the memos, adds even more to the evidence of the glaring inconsistencies in bush's military record:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1151&slug=Bush%20Guard%20Flights&searchdiff=2&searchpagefrom=1

[seemslikeadream]

65. I just put this in LBN

because it is!

[Catherine Vincent]

67. You can bet Dan the Man has more memos.

You could see it on Rather's face when he was iterviewed on CNN. It was the look of "FORGERY, MY ASS"!

[wellstone dem]

88. That''s what I thought too

and he said "I believe, No, I know the memos are not forged." He was so strong about changing "believe" to "know". It really stuck in my mind.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

73. Yep, the" memos fake?" story has them coming out of the woodwork

MKJ

[Spazito]

71. The key words being "most likely" fakes, no one has proven them

to be fakes and now the media is starting to concentrate on the content and all the other relevant facts regarding the glaring inconsistencies in bush's military record, that's good news, right?

[King Coal]

72. Does everyone here know who Bath is?

Remember, he is the one who gave Bush ties to Saudi money. That is from F9/11.

[King Coal]

75. Come to think of it, Rather can use this to introduce Bath

to many Americans. And explain where he fits in. Rather has generated a small amount of publicity after all. LOL!

Way to go Dan!

[JP Stormcrow]

74. All 6 memos have been on the USA Today site since at least Friday evening

I first noticed the 2 new ones sometime on Friday evening at the USA Today website.I downloaded the PDF at 7:45 PM.

Later that night I posted it on a Washington Monthly thread.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004672.php#262715

It was pretty much ignored - and I began wondering if anyone else had noticed - or if USA Today even knew they were there or if some technician had just posted them without really looking at them.

A few points:
1) The USA Today memos lack several underlines (May 19 doc) and the black swath over the address (May 4). Otherwise on casual inspection they look the same to me as CBS's. If USA Today got them from CBS, then CBS either has several copies or sloppily posted a version that had their own markings (although the attempted address redaction may have been intentional) ... or USA Today got them from someone other than CBS. I looked at several other versions on other news orgs and at MSNBC they show the Fax info at the top indicating it came from CBS - and the memos do not have the underlines - so it appears that CBS either posted a version with their own markings (very sloppy) or have several versions.

2) Trivial but odd. The current USA Today pdfs have a very apparent smudginess around the text (looks like a scanning artifact) - the ones I downloaded absolutely do not have this, but appear otherwise identical. Just kind if odd - I do not know if there is a way to make a file available here - but I will do so with the earlier pdfs if there is.

I sent an inquiry to both CBS & USA Today - so far have only gotten back an autoreply from USA Today.

BTW - although interesting and consistent with the emerging story, I do not see where the "Hodges is source" conclusion follows from these 2 - but it is clear there is certainly more to this than has come out to date.

JP

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[janx]

77. I wouldn't spend too much time examining smudges, dots,

swaths, etc. if I were you.

They've been scanned, faxed, copied, and emailed many times, no doubt.

There are certain things that just can't be ascertained without seeing the originals, or at least a second copy. Every time a document gets as much as copied once, it becomes distorted. Add subsequent faxing, copying, and scanning onto that, and there's no way that anyone can make an accurate analysis.

That's why the forgery rumor falls on its face so fast. If it had been based on almost anything other than the typography of the memos, it may have stayed around longer. But people were looking at some very distorted renditions of documents and speculating based on the assumption that they looked like the originals.

[Protected]

78. The "smudginess"

That's called lossy compression, probably of the DCT type, which was used so that the images in the PDF file add up to only 90kb instead of many megabytes. It looks like USA Today went overboard with the amount of compression that was applied (or it has been compressed multiple times), but perhaps that's a good thing so that there's not enough detail available for all of these so-called experts to analyze these images.

[JP Stormcrow]

79. Yes - the file size is smaller than Friday's version

That is undoubtedly the cause.

The Friday evening version was 485K, while the current is 88K.
So they probbaly just changed to a more "download-friendly" version.

Did not think there was anything too significant about the change - just could not understand why the change to a messier version.

Agree that the study of these copi/faxed/scanned versions is not fruitful - but if you follow sites like dailyKos etc, it is amusing to see that in their diligence to prove fakery - the LGF etc. keep inadvertently providing ammo for their authenticity.

[JP Stormcrow]

80. Update from Washington Monthly

Drum just posted the USA Today, 2 new memos item.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004678.php

The new info he has is that he contacted one of the authors and ...

"I spoke to Moniz a few minutes ago and he confirmed that he obtained the documents from his own sources after CBS initially aired them. (Although note that his source may be the same as CBS's. There's no way to know at this point.)"

[Spazito]

81. Thanks for the link!

This is getting better and better!!

I noticed the entry about DU's front page as well with the flyer! Wonderful!

[ArnoldLayne]

82. kick

:kick:

[goddess40]

83. Killian retired?

My cousin said she heard on FOX that Killian was retired at the time the memos were written. I haven't heard or seen that anywhere, has anyone? I told her to quit watching FOX because all you get are lies and spin.

[Protected]

85. Newsweek claims the source was Bill Burkett

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x822061

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[airron]

91. Um, no.

"But have you looked at them. Anyone who was of school age in the 1970's knows these weren't typed on any commonly available machine"

Wrong. Wrong.

"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."

The "th" is also in other Bush documents of the era. Times New Roman has been around since 1931. Microsoft, Adobe, and Apple all worked very hard to mimic it. Proportional typing was a feature since at least the 50's blahblahblah.

Why won't Bush answer why he was grounded? If he knows the content is bogus, why will he not say so?

This is your first post? Troll, anyone?

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[obiwan]

94. The Media Whores are really quiet this morning...

... about the Bush Guard memos, except for Fox of course. Maybe they see the inevitability of the thing or maybe they have gotten all the mileage they can get out of it and have decided to move on.

Fox's flogging of this story will go the way of the 13-year old WMD shells "found" in a river bank in Iraq.

Nobody likes shit on the bottom of their shoe, except for Fox.

It's our job, and CBS's, to not let this memo thing go away. It's sad that we have to play like the repubs/retards, but that's all they seem to understand.

I like to use reason and logic, but with these repubs, it's time for the water cannon and the Rottweilers.

Sorry to get so brutal; it's survival time.

[obiwan]

95. Not necessarily related, but good news...

... at Barnes & Noble:

Kitty Kelley #2, Swift Boat Liars #5.

Of course, the Kitty Kelley book is trash; don't buy as many copies as you can afford.

[Trajan]

97. YOU read it ? ....

[obiwan]

101. It gets better today...

... at Barnes and Noble.com; Kitty Kelley #1, Swift Boat Liars #7.

Remember, do not buy any more copies than you can afford and BURN THEM ALL (after reading them first, of course!)

[catbert836]

96. Youre right

But I wouldnt start popping the champaigne corks until that happens.

[OverThere]

98. USA Today Story

Has anyone seen USA Today's feature story today? They seem to be going after CBS and adding fuel to the fire with some new sources suggesting the Guard memos are fake. The media tendency will be to eat their own no matter what.

[n2mark]

100. Killian Memos

I am new to the DU.... thanks for the great info.


I've not read the explanation for the subject on the last memo with the subject CYA --- doesn't this mean "cover your ass?"

It is also not unusual for this type of memo to not have a signature.