CBS Hangs On To Sinking Ship
CBS News is still standing by its story in spite of mounting evidence that the Bush Memos were forgeries. CBSNews.com had this to say:
In classic coverup fashion, they represent only half the critiques and resolve them and then just not mention the rest. For example, the issue isn't that the font, New Times Roman, wasn't around in the 70s, it was the fact that most typewriters didn't have the ability to use it, not being a fixed width font. If CBS wants to truly get to the bottom of this, as a news agency should want, they should release the documents, release the names of the people that authenticated it, and release the source.
Nevertheless, in the end, it doesn't matter. We are trying to determine who would be a good president. With Bush, we know what kind of president he would be. We've seen him for the past 4 years. With Kerry, we're guessing. We have to take what we know about him from his past to try and determine whether he would be better than the sitting president. That's what makes Kerry's voting record relevant. That's what makes his service relevant. That's what makes his past statements relevant. This smear on Bush using forged documents is just trying to cloud the issues, the very thing Kerry claims he's trying to focus on.
GOOD LINKS:
Powerline has so many posts about this, I'll just link the main site.
Blogs For Bush lists experts that claim they are forgeries.
Captains Quarters claims that Dan Rather thinks the memos are forged as well.
In a report on Friday night's "CBS News Evening News," Dan Rather reported that many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th."
Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did, Rather reported. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript - including one from as far back as 1968.
Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.
But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style told CBS News that it has been available since 1931.
In classic coverup fashion, they represent only half the critiques and resolve them and then just not mention the rest. For example, the issue isn't that the font, New Times Roman, wasn't around in the 70s, it was the fact that most typewriters didn't have the ability to use it, not being a fixed width font. If CBS wants to truly get to the bottom of this, as a news agency should want, they should release the documents, release the names of the people that authenticated it, and release the source.
Nevertheless, in the end, it doesn't matter. We are trying to determine who would be a good president. With Bush, we know what kind of president he would be. We've seen him for the past 4 years. With Kerry, we're guessing. We have to take what we know about him from his past to try and determine whether he would be better than the sitting president. That's what makes Kerry's voting record relevant. That's what makes his service relevant. That's what makes his past statements relevant. This smear on Bush using forged documents is just trying to cloud the issues, the very thing Kerry claims he's trying to focus on.
GOOD LINKS:
Powerline has so many posts about this, I'll just link the main site.
Blogs For Bush lists experts that claim they are forgeries.
Captains Quarters claims that Dan Rather thinks the memos are forged as well.
posted by Josh Ferguson at 9/13/2004 10:57:00 AM
<< Home