Support NeoGAF

[Makura]

"Oops."

Index of RatherGate over at LGF:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12582_CBS_Killian_Document_Index

more:
http://www.presenceofmind.net/2004_09_12_archive.html#109509891069546650

Animated gif of memo and Word document replication:
http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/combo-high-res.gif

Selectric Typewriter buff weighs in:
http://www.selectric.org/selectric/

..and does an experiment:
http://www.selectric.org/selectric/fonts/prestigeelite72.gif

 

[Phoenix]

Check your sources not once, not twice, but thrice.

If you can't find corroberating evidence for something that looks too good to be true and you're the only one running it - put your source on the spot, not your own reputation.

Its better to be second and accurate than first and wrong.

 

[levious]

Was CBS also the network that faked the exploding vehicles in some expose on the dangers of exposed gas tanks?

 

[Phoenix]

No. That would be NBC's Dateline.

 

[Mike Works]

err, huh? can someone explain to this Canadian what's going on here?

 

[Diablos]

I'm confused. Why is Dan Rather on BBC and what the hell is this about anyway?

 

[Phoenix]

err, huh? can someone explain to this Canadian what's going on here?

CBS ran an exclusive story about some documents related to Bush's service during Vietnam. They made a big commotion about it and some speakers came out in Congress using those same documents to attack Bush's character. These documents appear to be forgeries created with Microsoft Word and only show age because they were faxed. This pretty much damns CBS' credibility for gathering information and will likely sit with them for a while.

 

[MIMIC]

If someone wants to persecute an entity for forged material, why isn't everyone pointing fingers at the Bush Administration for peddling their faked uranium report that was used to lie us into war?

 

[StoOgE]

correct me if Im completely wrong on this.. but I thought that CBS told the whitehouse they allready had the docs and the whitehouse released them..

I dont watch CBS news generally, and caught something to this effect on NPR's morning edition.. which means my memory of it is fuzzy/barely existant.

This is still a MASSIVE blow to CBS, and furthermore it will work in Bush's favor big time.. now anytime you bring up his war record to anyone that isnt that up to date on stuff they will simply write it off as 'being a forgery' even though there are still very real questions about it.

 

[Phoenix]

If someone wants to persecute an entity for forged material, why isn't everyone pointing fingers at the Bush Administration for peddling their faked uranium report that was used to lie us into war?

Because we can's prosecute people for classified information gathering - unfortunately. First off the sources are classified so we'll never really know who got the information. Second, it wouldn't be the first time that we either got incorrect or 'faulty' counter intel from someone else.

 

[MIMIC]

Because we can's prosecute people for classified information gathering - unfortunately. First off the sources are classified so we'll never really know who got the information. Second, it wouldn't be the first time that we either got incorrect or 'faulty' counter intel from someone else.

Yeah, but the Bush Administration was TOLD about the questionable authenticity of the documents, and then lied about not knowing.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

correct me if Im completely wrong on this.. but I thought that CBS told the whitehouse they allready had the docs and the whitehouse released them..

The copies the White House released had "CBS News" at the top of the page, so presumably they spread the copy CBS sent them.

 

[Phoenix]

Yeah, but the Bush Administration was TOLD about the questionable authenticity of the documents, and then lied about not knowing.

So who in the administration (and its affiliated organizations) do you prosecute, under what authority, and with what evidence?

 

[MetatronM]

If someone wants to persecute an entity for forged material, why isn't everyone pointing fingers at the Bush Administration for peddling their faked uranium report that was used to lie us into war?

Hey, now. That's dangerous thinking.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

CBS = Pathetic.

 

[Celicar]

I like CBS. They've got some great shows. CSI, The Amazing Race, Survivor, Without a Trace, etc.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

The copies the White House released had "CBS News" at the top of the page, so presumably they spread the copy CBS sent them.

So....the white house release documents given to them by the press about the president's history? Bwah?

 

[MIMIC]

So who in the administration (and its affiliated organizations) do you prosecute, under what authority, and with what evidence?

1. Everyone in the Bush Administration who received information.
2. The United Nations/Security Council
3. The evidence that it was a known forgery before they tried to sell the story to the world. The were told that the information was "bogus and unrealistic" and still used it as truth (and wound up appearing in Bush's State of the Union Address, 10 months after the revelations).

 

[Drensch]

The funny thing is, Bush still can't get a person, a document, a photo to show that he showed up for service.

 

[Alcibiades]

If someone wants to persecute an entity for forged material, why isn't everyone pointing fingers at the Bush Administration for peddling their faked uranium report that was used to lie us into war?

The US didn't forge any report, they got info from inside British intelligence.

In fact, British intelligence say that the authenticity of those documents was still unconfirmed.

 

[Drensch]

CBS didn't forge any report, they got it from a source.
In fact, CBS say that the authenticity of those documents was still unconfirmed.

 

[tedtropy]

CBS should make up for this by setting up a 900 number that, when called, delivers a small electrical shock to pinchers attached to Dan Rather's testicles. People would forget about the whole thing in no time!

 

[Mustang]

The funny thing is, Bush still can't get a person, a document, a photo to show that he showed up for service.

The funny thing is, that this story has been going on now for what, 4 plus years now and where has it actually gone.

The funny thing is, its gone pretty much nowhere, much to the chagrin of Kerry and his cronies.

 

[Drensch]

The funny thing is, that this story has been going on now for what, 4 plus years now and where has it actually gone.

Bush used his father to keep him out of a war he supported, and he continually claims he served, and he didn't even manage to show up for his cake position. Meanwhile pos like John O'Neil and Karl Rove have slung untold amounts of mud and lies at a guy who actually volunteered for service. I'd say that about shows where it's gone.

 

[MIMIC]

The US didn't forge any report, they got info from inside British intelligence.

In fact, British intelligence say that the authenticity of those documents was still unconfirmed.

I didn't say the U.S. forged the report. I said that they KNEW that it was a forgery and continued to pass it off as an indictment against Iraq.

And if you say that the British intelligence questioned the veracity of the document's allegations, wouldn't it still be considered disingenuous for the U.S. to pass it off as fact? Either way, the U.S. knew that the document's claims were spurious during the time the revealed this information to the world.

(and just for the record, I'm sick of hearing about both Kerry and Bush's past)

 

[KingV]

I didn't say the U.S. forged the report. I said that they KNEW that it was a forgery and continued to pass it off as an indictment against Iraq.

And if you say that the British intelligence questioned the veracity of the document's allegations, wouldn't it still be considered disingenuous for the U.S. to pass it off as fact? Either way, the U.S. knew that the document's claims were spurious during the time the revealed this information to the world.

(and just for the record, I'm sick of hearing about both Kerry and Bush's past)

You clearly haven't been following the news on this issue. The British have released a report saying that they still believe that the former Iraqi Government tried to buy uranium from Niger and that this intelligence was not based upon the forged documents from Italy.

More here: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=222

The really telling part is the credibility implosion of Joe Wilson, the guy who originally said it was not true. That is not incredibly well documented there, but the guy's credibility subsequently went to hell shortly after his book was written, I cannot remember all the details as this happened a couple of months ago. Widely available information on the Internet, however.

Note: I don't mean this as absolute proof that Iraq did or did not try to buy Uranium from Niger, just that it was a reasonable assumption that they did. Few things in the intelligence community are "concrete".

 

[Ripclawe]

So....the white house release documents given to them by the press about the president's history? Bwah?

CBS faxed them copies for their "exclusive" stories, White House then gave copies to the rest of the press corp in Washington.

 

[KingV]

The funny thing is, Bush still can't get a person, a document, a photo to show that he showed up for service.

Except for pay stubs and fitness reports? It's not like his whole National Guard time is being questioned, it's like 3 months.

 

[MIMIC]

You clearly haven't been following the news on this issue. The British have released a report saying that they still believe that the former Iraqi Government tried to buy uranium from Niger and that this intelligence was not based upon the forged documents from Italy.

More here: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=222

The really telling part is the credibility implosion of Joe Wilson, the guy who originally said it was not true. That is not incredibly well documented there, but the guy's credibility subsequently went to hell shortly after his book was written, I cannot remember all the details as this happened a couple of months ago. Widely available information on the Internet, however.

Note: I don't mean this as absolute proof that Iraq did or did not try to buy Uranium from Niger, just that it was a reasonable assumption that they did. Few things in the intelligence community are "concrete".

So you're saying that British intelligence still stick by their story, even after clearly being wrong? That's remarkably similar to Bush's stance on the WMD deal: "I couldn't justify my reasoning for invading Iraq, but hey, who cares? He tried to kill my daddy!"

Nevertheless, U.S. intelligence was still told that the whole uranium deal was untrue, and still trumped it as fact. Furthermore, they LIED about not knowing that there were doubts about the credibility of the uranium report.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Yeah, but the Bush Administration was TOLD about the questionable authenticity of the documents, and then lied about not knowing.

Sorry, lying to go to war, and killing thousands of people in the process aren't good enough reasons. I mean, that isn't like getting blowjobs in the oval office or anything.

 

[Phoenix]

Nevertheless, U.S. intelligence was still told that the whole uranium deal was untrue, and still trumped it as fact. Furthermore, they LIED about not knowing that there were doubts about the credibility of the uranium report.

They were told it was untrue? Earlier you said

Yeah, but the Bush Administration was TOLD about the questionable authenticity of the documents, and then lied about not knowing.

So I'm confused, point me to your leader... er I mean links of evidence showing the timeline and evidence which backs this position.

 

[KingV]

So you're saying that British intelligence still stick by their story, even after clearly being wrong? That's remarkably similar to Bush's stance on the WMD deal: "I couldn't justify my reasoning for invading Iraq, but hey, who cares? He tried to kill my daddy!"

Nevertheless, U.S. intelligence was still told that the whole uranium deal was untrue, and still trumped it as fact. Furthermore, they LIED about not knowing that there were doubts about the credibility of the uranium report.

One of two things is going on here, either you didn't read the factcheck.org link, OR you're willfully ignoring the facts at hand. The UK sticks by their intelligence because they think it's true, it's NOT, I repeat *NOT* based upon the forged documents that people commonly thought it was. It was corroborated by a few sources.

The being told it was untrue was by Joe Wilson, who, went down in a flaming ball a couple of months after his book was released due to credibility issues. The facts of the situation are that in 1999 an ambassador from Iraq was sent to Niger to discuss trade. That is admitted by both sides of the issue. The other fact, via World Bank is that Niger's primary export is Uranium (about 1/3 by total value), and the only other export listed by World Bank is livestock.

Look for yourself: http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/aag/ner_aag.pdf
Here's more information for you to ignore: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/004151.php

If Iraq wasn't trying to buy Uranium, what were they trying to buy?

 

[MIMIC]

They were told it was untrue? Earlier you said



So I'm confused, point me to your leader... er I mean links of evidence showing the timeline and evidence which backs this position.

We did not know at the time--no one knew at the time, in our circles--maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that [the evidence of Iraq seeking uranium from Niger] might be a forgery.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
NBC's "Meet the Press"
June 8, 2003

vs.

On March 9, 2002, details about the ambassador's investigation [regarding the uranium report] were relayed to the White House, the secretary of state, the U.S. Central Command and British officials via a classified cable.

The cable said senior officials in Niger said they were unaware of any contracts being signed with Iraq or the sale of yellowcake [an unprocessed form of uranium] and that the Nigerien officials said they thought it was unlikely any yellowcake was leaving their country and going to places that it not ought to go.

[...]

On Sept. 24, in a classified briefing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, an intelligence official testified that the CIA had "concerns" about the allegations that Niger was selling uranium, ABCNEWS has learned.

ABC News
June 16, 2003

One of two things is going on here, either you didn't read the factcheck.org link, OR you're willfully ignoring the facts at hand. The UK sticks by their intelligence because they think it's true, it's NOT, I repeat *NOT* based upon the forged documents that people commonly thought it was. It was corroborated by a few sources.

You need to take a look at this.

 

[Incognito]

fucking CBS. goddamn worthless; what the fuck were they thinking? i hope this really fucking burns them, and the DNC chairman should be ashamed of himself, too.

i pray this doesn't hurt john kerry, but knowing the machines behind bush and his reelection campaign, i'd be surprised if it DIDN'T.

 

[KingV]

We did not know at the time--no one knew at the time, in our circles--maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that [the evidence of Iraq seeking uranium from Niger] might be a forgery.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
NBC's "Meet the Press"
June 8, 2003

vs.

On March 9, 2002, details about the ambassador's investigation [regarding the uranium report] were relayed to the White House, the secretary of state, the U.S. Central Command and British officials via a classified cable.

The cable said senior officials in Niger said they were unaware of any contracts being signed with Iraq or the sale of yellowcake [an unprocessed form of uranium] and that the Nigerien officials said they thought it was unlikely any yellowcake was leaving their country and going to places that it not ought to go.

[...]

On Sept. 24, in a classified briefing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, an intelligence official testified that the CIA had "concerns" about the allegations that Niger was selling uranium, ABCNEWS has learned.

ABC News
June 16, 2003



You need to take a look at this.

Ok, the story has changed a lot in the last year. Did you look at the articles and notice that the date is July-August 2004, not 2003? So what was Iraq trying to buy anyway?

edit: sorry, that was unclear. I meant the articles I posted. The British investigation is all within the last 3 months. The forged documents that these articles mention are the ones that both the US and British intelligence agencies say that they did not use to come to the conclusion.

Edit2: Oh yeah, one more thing I forgot to mention, this Ambassador that they're talking about is Joe Wilson, the guy with the credibility problem.

 

[LuckyBrand]

i think if nobody comes out with proof of it being forgeries, like.. the guy who did them, it will stall and not hurt anyone... bush or kerry... some will think they are forgeries (probably more than not) and some will think tehy arent... right now it seems that everyone BUT cbs thinks they are forgeries, but CBS standing by their claim will actually save face at this point as the story will eventually die and people will only remember that i was never figured out what to make of those papers..

regardless of that, the actual story of it being forgeries or not is a BIGGER story than what bush did for 3 months while in the national guard...

 

[KingV]

i think if nobody comes out with proof of it being forgeries, like.. the guy who did them, it will stall and not hurt anyone... bush or kerry... some will think they are forgeries (probably more than not) and some will think tehy arent... right now it seems that everyone BUT cbs thinks they are forgeries, but CBS standing by their claim will actually save face at this point as the story will eventually die and people will only remember that i was never figured out what to make of those papers..

regardless of that, the actual story of it being forgeries or not is a BIGGER story than what bush did for 3 months while in the national guard...

I think they're pretty much proven to be forgeries at this point. CBS is just looking dumb. Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that Bush could have grounds for a libel/slander lawsuit in this case, if he were so inclined.

 

[Ripclawe]

Washington Post kills them tonight with this, the bigger picture here is this paints a broad brush over all the media, NO ONE is backing up CBS/ Dan Rather at this point.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html

Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers

By Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A08

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.


A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated documents on Bush's National Guard service reveals dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from conflicting military terminology to different word-processing techniques.

The analysis shows that half a dozen Killian memos released earlier by the military were written with a standard typewriter using different formatting techniques from those characteristic of computer-generated documents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word.

"I am personally 100 percent sure that they are fake," said Joseph M. Newcomer, author of several books on Windows programming, who worked on electronic typesetting techniques in the early 1970s. Newcomer said he had produced virtually exact replicas of the CBS documents using Microsoft Word formatting and the Times New Roman font.