G.W. Bush service documents

[Kbob]

Kbob,

Somalia? I'm not sure how to interpret your answer. You did go to Somalia, you didn't stop the carnage. And after the "Black Hawk Down" fiasco, you packed up and left. I'm not sure about your answer.

Look at your quote: "the US has done NOTHING . . ." The fact is that we did do something. On Larry King Live a few weeks ago Clinton expressed that his greatest regret as president is that he didn't do more to stop the slaughter in Rwanda, so this isn't a partisan debate.

 

[RRocket]

Rwanda, yes..was a missed opportunity, and Somalia the help came late. But the US had no oil to gain in either place..so....

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

??? Have we put to bed the issue that the CBS documents that Dan Rather used to beschmirch President Bush were indeed fakes.

If you would like to see some proof, here you go....
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged

[ 9/9/2004: Bush Guard Documents: Forged
I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft’s Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date “18 August 1973,” then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.

And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as “authentic.”

A screenshot of the “original” document as found at CBS:

__________

A screenshot of my Microsoft Word document:

__________

The spacing is not just similar—it is identical in every respect. Notice that the date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same. And I did not change a single thing from Word’s defaults; margins, type size, tab stops, etc. are all using the default settings. The one difference (the “th” in “187th” is slightly lower) is probably due to a slight difference between the Mac and PC versions of the Times New Roman font, or it could be an artifact of whatever process was used to artificially “age” the document. (Update: I printed the document and the “th” matches perfectly in the printed version. It’s a difference between screen and printer fonts.)

There is absolutely no way that this document was typed on any machine that was available in 1973. ]

THIS is what all this flap is over? Well, I'm not "forensics expert", and the self-proclaimed person who asserts that the above "evidence" is "proof" that this document was forged using MSWord is smoking some good stuff. These two examples are NOT identical and were NOT created using the same method.

PROOF: The "7" and "9" drops below the character line in the "original", not so in the "Word forgery". While very similar, it is not the exact same font set.

PROOF: The bottom of the characters do not all fall on the same horizontal line in the "original", whereas they do on the "Word forgery". This proves that the "original" was created on a machine that does not posess the mechanical precision that a computer and laser printer do. In fact, it leads more credence to the IBM Selectric as they were not as precise in this regard as say a daisy-wheel printer/typewriter or a fixed-font typewriter.

The claim that the superscrips did not exist prior to the advent of word processing equipment is yet another smokescreen thrown up by the GOP that remains in denial about the real GW. It was not uncommon to have font "balls" for the Selectric that contained "st", "nd", "rd" and "th" superscript characters. I've even seen fixed-font typewriters with those characters. THAT is the reason the height of the superscripts are different between the "original" and the "Word forgery". A typewriter creates those superscrips w/ a single strike whereas Word creates them by shrinking the font and raising it above the character line (which is probably adjustable as well).

This "evidence" that these documents were forged would simply not stand up. Clearly these claims about the documents being forged is motivated by the GOP running block for GW so that he doesn't have to come forth and actually LIE by denying the allegations. I'm glad CBS is sticking to its guns on this one.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Who cares? It is not like he went in front of the Unites States Congress and committed an act of treason like Kerry did, casuing the loss of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people.

How come all the lefty sympathizers don't sympathize with that fact?

MAN, you are so blinded by your right-wing bias!! TREASON? Them's fighting words. How easily you ignore the fact that the reason Kerry testified was to help bring the END of the war in Vietnam. Any loss of life was a result of the US govt's refusal to act in that direction and pull the troops out, NOT Kerry's testimony. TREASON? :bsflag: All Kerry did was tell the TRUTH so that Congress would be aware of what was ACTUALLY going on in the jungle. All this BS about treason is yet ANOTHER GOP-inspired, mis-applied word to slander Kerry. He DID NOT COMMIT TREASON (else he would've been court-marshalled, right?), what he DID was tell the TRUTH. What happened after that was some people's feelings got hurt ('cause they were busted) and they are now turning against him w/ all these lies.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

No, that is not it. We just feel it is better and safer to control our own destiny and we have a moral obligation to be the policemen of the world.

Who died and put the US in charge of running the world?? I suppose your next statement would've been....... "and we also have a moral obligation to shove our ways, our religion, our currency, our justice system down everyone else's throats too."

 

[Lincolnman]

Who died and put the US in charge of running the world?? I suppose your next statement would've been....... "and we also have a moral obligation to shove our ways, our religion, our currency, our justice system down everyone else's throats too."

Go Johnney,go Johnney,go johnney :dj:

 

[driller]

THIS is what all this flap is over? Well, I'm not "forensics expert", and the self-proclaimed person who asserts that the above "evidence" is "proof" that this document was forged using MSWord is smoking some good stuff. These two examples are NOT identical and were NOT created using the same method.

PROOF: The "7" and "9" drops below the character line in the "original", not so in the "Word forgery". While very similar, it is not the exact same font set.

PROOF: The bottom of the characters do not all fall on the same horizontal line in the "original", whereas they do on the "Word forgery". This proves that the "original" was created on a machine that does not posess the mechanical precision that a computer and laser printer do. In fact, it leads more credence to the IBM Selectric as they were not as precise in this regard as say a daisy-wheel printer/typewriter or a fixed-font typewriter.

The claim that the superscrips did not exist prior to the advent of word processing equipment is yet another smokescreen thrown up by the GOP that remains in denial about the real GW. It was not uncommon to have font "balls" for the Selectric that contained "st", "nd", "rd" and "th" superscript characters. I've even seen fixed-font typewriters with those characters. THAT is the reason the height of the superscripts are different between the "original" and the "Word forgery". A typewriter creates those superscrips w/ a single strike whereas Word creates them by shrinking the font and raising it above the character line (which is probably adjustable as well).

This "evidence" that these documents were forged would simply not stand up. Clearly these claims about the documents being forged is motivated by the GOP running block for GW so that he doesn't have to come forth and actually LIE by denying the allegations. I'm glad CBS is sticking to its guns on this one.

My counter argument to your amateur mico-analysis is copy integrity. I remember years before computers, doing sketches, copying, whiteout, change styles or versions, re-copying, etc... until after a while the copy of the copy of the whiteout of the second version of another copy looked like it had been done by a grade schooler. :F

MY contention is not analysis - I find it impossible to believe that someone manually typing a personal memo for file thirty years ago was so meticulously trained as to coincidently format the text, line breaks, spacing, etc... in the same exact style as produced by the default version in today's most widely used software. Screw the obvious semantics of font and superscripts - you've got to go no further than the surface of this to see this as what it is. argue2

I indirectly supervise dozens of employees and I certainly don't have time to sit down and do memos to file on everyone. What memos I have are due to exceptional circumstances that demand documentation. Not some random thoughts about how I felt someone else was interfering with this and that... geesh.

Maybe this is the journalistic equivalent of 'If you're gonna tell a lie, tell one so big no one will believe it'. If you're gonna make up a story, make one up so incredulous no one will believe it?

 

[redman]

 

[MonsterMark]

Are the CBS National Guard Documents Fake?

INDC Exclusive. Must Credit INDC.

Based on Powerline's suspicions of forgery over the documents put forth regarding George W. Bush’s National Guard service, I decided to do some legwork and track down the opinions of forensic document examiners that may have an expertise in old typefaces.

After contacting several experts, a rather notable Forensic Document Examiner named Dr. Philip Bouffard took the time to examine a pdf of the documents and perform an initial visual analysis of their authenticity. Dr. Bouffard has a PhD in Chemistry from the University of Michigan, but got involved in forensic examination of typefaces after working in “graphics” with NCR until 1973 and taking a two-year Certification Program in Document Examination at Georgetown University. After completing the program, he became specifically interested in typewriter classification and went to work for a prosecutor’s crime lab in Lake County, Ohio.

Using something called the Haas Atlas, the definitive collection of various typefaces, Mr. Bouffard (and other forensic document examiners) examined the veracity of various documents for over 30 years. Beginning in 1988, Mr. Bouffard hired a programmer to write a computer database program that catalogues the nearly 4,000 typefaces that appear in the Haas Atlas. This computer program is now a forensic standard that is sold as a companion to the Haas Atlas by American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE). Though semi-retired, Dr. Bouffard is one of the top two experts in forensic document examination (regarding typefaces) in the country.

UPDATE: The name of the program that Dr. Bouffard developed is called "The Typewriter Typestyle Classification Program" (C:\TYPE).

What did Dr. Bouffard think of the documents?

First, the necessary caveats:

• The pdf document is of poor quality. It seems to have been copied and recopied several times, blurring letter characteristics.

• Also, certain types of analysis can only be done on the original documents, which don’t seem to be available, even to CBS.

So Dr. Bouffard is very clear that his analysis is not 100% positive. That being said …

“It’s just possible that this might be a Times Roman font, which means that it would have been created on a computer. It’s very possible that someone decided to create this document on a computer... I’ve run across this situation before … my gut is this could just well be a fabrication.”

The reasons why?

• Right off the bat, Dr. Bouffard noted what others in the blogosphere have been talking about – something called “proportional spacing,” which means that each letter does not take up the same amount of width on the page. On old typewriters that do not have proportional spacing, the letter “i” would be as wide as the letter “m.” Except for professional typesetting, proportional spacing was only available on a very few models (an IBM model, "Executive" and perhaps one or two other models Mini-Update: Dr. Bouffard e-mails to correct me that it was seven or eight possible models, not one or two - Ed) that were not widely available in 1972-73; the vast majority of typewriters did not have proportional spacing. Because of this, Dr. Bouffard’s computer program immediately eliminated “over 90%” of the possible fonts from typewriters that could create such a document, narrowing it down to perhaps 15 fonts used by a very few models.

• Next, Dr. Bouffard began entering individual characters in an attempt to match them to the remaining fonts that were available on proportional spacing typewriters of that era, focusing on numbers. Thus far, one character stood out, the number “4.” In the document provided by CBS News, the number 4 does not "have a foot" and has a “closed top,” which is indicative of Times New Roman, a font exclusive to more modern computer word processing programs. Other characters matched the old proportional spacing fonts (available on only a small few typewriters of the era), but this number did not (please note that this is only an initial analysis with numerical characters).

Dr. Bouffard ran this number and could not find a match in his entire database of over 4,000 typewriter fonts that have been maintained and collected into his computer database since 1988. Otherwise, the font is very indicative of Times New Roman, the font that is only available on computer word processing programs.


The final word?

Once again, let’s not forget the qualifications: it's a bad copy of a copy and we have no original document for review, but, based on the initial analysis of the documents by an industry expert with over 30 years of experience in typesetting and forensic document examination, the documents “could just well be a fabrication.”

In light of this information, I think that it would be highly appropriate for CBS News and the Boston Globe to attempt to obtain a copy of the original document for more thorough vetting, and run a correction/addendum to the story.

I still have two other forensic document examiners that are examining the pdf file, and I will update if/when they get back to me. I also plan to ask Dr. Bouffard more detail about the nature of the "th" on the end of dates, though in our first conversation he indicated that some typewriters had the capability to do something in that format.

UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard called me again, and after further analysis, he says that he's pretty certain that it's a fake.

Here's why

* He looked through old papers he's written, and noted that he's come up against the inconsistency of the "4" several previous times with forgeries that attempt to duplicate old proportional spaced documents with a computer word processing program.

* Regarding the small "th" after the date, Dr. Bouffard told me that it was possible to order specialty keys that would duplicate the automatic miniaturization completed by word processors after a numerical date, but it was certainly not standard, and wouldn't make a lot of sense in a military setting. "That by itself, while suspicious, is not impossible, but in conjunction with the (font irregularity of the) number four, it is really significant," he said.

* Dr. Bouffard said that signature analysis isn't that relevant because the signature could have easily been copied and pasted onto one of the photocopied forgeries from another document.

* He said that he didn't know who CBS contacted to verify the document's authenticity, but that there is really only one other man that may be more qualified to determine authentic typefaces than himself. I think that the burden of proof may be on CBS to reveal this information.

I asked him to put a percentage on the chances that this was a fake, and he said that was "hard to put a number on it." I then suggested "90%?" Again he said it's "hard to put an exact number, but I'd say it's at least that high, sure. I pretty much agree that that font is Times New Roman."

I hesitate to render verdicts, but based on an initial visual analysis by one of the country's foremost forensic document analysts that specializes in old typefaces, it looks like CBS was duped.

UPDATE: Apologies for the hasty error on Dr. Bouffard's first name - it's Philip.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

• Next, Dr. Bouffard began entering individual characters in an attempt to match them to the remaining fonts that were available on proportional spacing typewriters of that era, focusing on numbers. Thus far, one character stood out, the number “4.” In the document provided by CBS News, the number 4 does not "have a foot" and has a “closed top,” which is indicative of Times New Roman, a font exclusive to more modern computer word processing programs. Other characters matched the old proportional spacing fonts (available on only a small few typewriters of the era), but this number did not (please note that this is only an initial analysis with numerical characters).

I still have two other forensic document examiners that are examining the pdf file, and I will update if/when they get back to me. I also plan to ask Dr. Bouffard more detail about the nature of the "th" on the end of dates, though in our first conversation he indicated that some typewriters had the capability to do something in that format.

* Regarding the small "th" after the date, Dr. Bouffard told me that it was possible to order specialty keys that would duplicate the automatic miniaturization completed by word processors after a numerical date, but it was certainly not standard, and wouldn't make a lot of sense in a military setting. "That by itself, while suspicious, is not impossible, but in conjunction with the (font irregularity of the) number four, it is really significant," he said.

Funny, I see no "4", nor any "th" following any date in the "evidence" you have given. This "expert" is obviously looking at a different document altogether. Your argument holds no water.

 

[MonsterMark]

As a coincidence, there are 4 documents. What a hoot. 4 documents, the Number 4.

I will try to get my hands on the other 3, but with Dan RatherNot viewing them in the stall right now, hopefully they'll come out without too much Rather on them.

There is so much more if you would like me to post more on this issue.

Bush can't be beat on any issues, so this is what the Democrats have had to stoop to. And yes, this came from the slimy DNC and forwarded to Kerry and signed off with his approval.

Commander Killian hand wrote almost all his personal docs. Isn't it convenient they picked a dead guy to use against Bush, one that is unable to defend his own good name?

 

[MonsterMark]

Here they are. Plenty of 4's for you to peruse at your leisure.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/091004_bush_service.pdf

 

[Lincolnman]

Funny, I see no "4", nor any "th" following any date in the "evidence" you have given. This "expert" is obviously looking at a different document altogether. Your argument holds no water.

Somebody call a plumber!

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Here they are. Plenty of 4's for you to peruse at your leisure.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/091004_bush_service.pdf

Thanks. But I'm still not convinced that these documents are outside the realm of '72 technology. It may be impossible to prove they are legit, but even harder to prove they are fakes unless someone fesses up. I'd much rather hear GW either confirm or deny the claims. While he doesn't have much credibility with me, at least I'd respect the fact he responded to these allegations. Until then, this whole issue makes him look suspicious.

 

[Kbob]

Until then, this whole issue makes him look suspicious.

And that was the whole intent of the bogus story. Neither Bush nor the Republican party ever attacked Kerry on his service record, but several came out to decry the 527 attacks on Kerry's service record. Where are those same people to defend Bush against the direct accusations of Kerry and the Democratic party? You want to talk about hypocritical, there it is.

 

[MonsterMark]

I'd much rather hear GW either confirm or deny the claims. While he doesn't have much credibility with me, at least I'd respect the fact he responded to these allegations.

What!!! Respond to what. Fabrications? Dreams? Nightmares? I can't beleive you expect him to even give it the time of day.

Every major news organization has come out and called them fakes. Everybody but CBS, which is single-handedly showing the mainstream national bias for liberal ideology and is doing great harm to the whole industry of reporting.

I hope CBS keeps on denying. Dan Blather was a TOTAL JOKE last night on the evening news. Rome is burning and he is sitting there playing his fiddle. Thank the good Lord this guy was finally exposed after all these years, months before his retirement. The whole 60 Minutes crew needs to be exposed for all the years of b.s. they shoveled on the American people..

Remember his softball interview with Saddam. That was also a joke. He is a joke. No need for Bush to respond to anything Dan Rather EVER has to say again.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Neither Bush nor the Republican party ever attacked Kerry on his service record............

WHAT? I guess Cheney is not a part of the Bush adm or the GOP? :bsflag:

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

What!!! Respond to what. Fabrications? Dreams? Nightmares? I can't beleive you expect him to even give it the time of day.

This is no different than the SBVT issue. Initially Kerry refused to stoop DOWN to that level, but when cornered he defended himself. So far Bush remains aloof on this issue........... as well as many others...................

What's wrong GW? Shoe hurts when it's on the other foot?

I can't wait to see the debates and watch GW squirm when he finally gets cornered on these issues. However, he'll probably have the debate questions rigged....... like he has any other encounter w/ the press.

 

[Punisher]

This is no different than the SBVT issue. Initially Kerry refused to stoop DOWN to that level, but when cornered he defended himself. So far Bush remains aloof on this issue........... as well as many others...................

What's wrong GW? Shoe hurts when it's on the other foot?

I can't wait to see the debates and watch GW squirm when he finally gets cornered on these issues. However, he'll probably have the debate questions rigged....... like he has any other encounter w/ the press.

Your not goin to get anywere, to republicans its totally different. If there is an attack on Bush its false period, if there is a attack on Kerry, its true until totally proven false, then they will admit it.

 

[MonsterMark]

This is no different than the SBVT issue. Initially Kerry refused to stoop DOWN to that level, but when cornered he defended himself.

Kerry hasn't answered 1, not even 1 Swift Boat claim. Over 250 decorated Vietnam Veterans, soldiers and officers put their lives on hold and their reputations on the line to come out and reveal Kerry for who he is. Over 60 of them signed sworn affidavits stipulating that Kerry is Unfit for Command. Do I believe the words all of these gentleman, or the word of one pathological liar and self-delusional waffler? Humm, tough choice.

 

[Punisher]

Kerry hasn't answered 1, not even 1 Swift Boat claim. Over 250 decorated Vietnam Veterans, soldiers and officers put their lives on hold and their reputations on the line to come out and reveal Kerry for who he is. Over 60 of them signed sworn affidavits stipulating that Kerry is Unfit for Command. Do I believe the words all of these gentleman, or the word of one pathological liar and self-delusional waffler? Humm, tough choice.

Yea like the swift boat guys have made no money from this lol.

 

[MonsterMark]

Yea like the swift boat guys have made no money from this lol.

Not a dime. John O'Neill, author of the book, has donated all proceeds to a war memorial fund.

O’Neill: Zero. I gave away every penny. My total royalty from this book has been given to a military charity. I think I prefer not to name the charity until they formally accept the donation. But I have given every penny away and I won’t accept a penny from this book. [On Monday, August 23, O’Neill identified the charity as the Navy & Marine Relief Fund.]

 

[Punisher]

Not a dime. John O'Neill, author of the book, has donated all proceeds to a war memorial fund.

O’Neill: Zero. I gave away every penny. My total royalty from this book has been given to a military charity. I think I prefer not to name the charity until they formally accept the donation. But I have given every penny away and I won’t accept a penny from this book. [On Monday, August 23, O’Neill identified the charity as the Navy & Marine Relief Fund.]

Thats 1 person, out of what? you said 250? Come on now thats like saying no one in america smokes weed cause you know someone who doesnt!.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I gave away every penny. My total royalty from this book has been given to a military charity. I think I prefer not to name the charity until they formally accept the donation. But I have given every penny away and I won’t accept a penny from this book. [On Monday, August 23, O’Neill identified the charity as the Navy & Marine Relief Fund.]

Oh, I see. Well THAT explains your......, uh...... "strong convictions" against Kerry. :Bang

 

[Kbob]

Thats 1 person, out of what? you said 250? Come on now thats like saying no one in america smokes weed cause you know someone who doesnt!.

The 250 haven't been paid anything.