Six, Four, Or Maybe More!

Four, Six, any more tricks?

CBS has been promoting the Fab Four documents that may be "fake but accurate". Mickey offers a thoughtful contribution to our global dialogue - why did USA Today have six documents, but CBS only four?

Well, the answer is, CBS did have six, according to their latest smokescreen:

Procurement of The Documents

The 60 MINUTES Wednesday broadcast reported that it obtained six documents from the personal files of Lt. Col. Killian, four of which were used in the broadcast.

So why did we only hear about four of them? C'mon, guess - Charleston 1 did. Briefly, two of the documents couldn't pass the laugh test. Hmm, mightn't that affect your assessment of the other documents? Not in CBS World! Shouldn't they disclose this to their viewers, who might like to form an opinion based on key evidence? Why vex them!

Apparently the Fab Four were fake, but accurate. We eagerly await word from CBS as to the status of the remaining two - "fake but fake" would be my guess, but I am not a big-time journalist whose credibility has never been questioned. (Hmm, perhaps a new category - "fake but painfully obvious"? But wait - if the tone and content of these two docs reflected Killian's thinking, why should CBS drop them on simplistic technical grounds, hmm? Did the "character witnesses" for the other four docs reject these two on that basis, or did CBS shift their standards? That is a good question...)

The situation with the six documents becoming four demonstrates conclusively that CBS jettisoned inconvenient evidence - they were making a case, not telling a story. Now a real news operation needs to take a serious look at this.

Here are some places to start:

The newly disclosed examiner is James J. Pierce, 111 Via Quito (?), Newport Beach, CA, 92663. His web presence is invisible, to me anyway - loose the hounds!

The CBS summary of Pierce's opinion is another comic gem:

Pierce believes that the documents in question are authentic as best as he can determine, given that they are copies and not originals.

Emphasis added, and no, I have no idea what CBS thinks that means. But I have a guess! Since CBS considers Marcel Matley to be an expert (he authenticated one signature for them, but no documents), let's wave him in with a quote from 2002:

In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity is possible.

Do tell.

Recapping - CBS had six documents, two of which their experts tossed. Rather than tell us that, they proceeded with the remaining four, even though their experts could not authenticate copies.

Some speculation - if CBS dropped documents that did not fit their storyline, maybe they dropped interviews as well.

Prior to airtime, CBS had interviewed Strong, the company clerk, and Hodges, an officer, both of whom agreed that the tone of the memos was about right (Hodges has since retreated). They did not report on conversations with Killian's widow or son. Did they interview them, and toss the interviews? Who knows? Someone should ask these two whether they had any contact with CBS, even years ago - apparently, the producer, Mary Mapes, has been working this story for five years.

In fact, one wonders whether CBS talked to other people that said "these memos are BS", before they hit on Strong and Hodges. Troubling. Someone who knows how a TANG unit is organized might want to speculate as to who else in the organizational structure might have been privy to conversations about Young Bush. CBS showed us the clerk, the secretary (belatedly!), and the group commander of Bush's squadron (Maj. Gen Hodges) - who is missing? Who might CBS have deliberately dropped? For example, did Killian report directly to Hodges, or was there someone in between? Was there some sort of personnel chief who should have been involved? (This may become a point in favor of CBS, BTW, if their roster is reasonable.)

CBS has been *very* selective in their use of evidence. Break it down.

MORE: I suspect the credentials of the other "experts" will be widely discussed. And Josh, for placing his credibility before his partisanship - Courage!

UPDATE: USA Today, no doubt on a salvage mission, finds another Guard officer who remembers problems with Bush, and the CYA file. Same question for them - how many people are they chatting with that say something different?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Bizarro E-mailer Nivek Murd provides an entry for the "What A Difference A Week Makes" file, with his thoughts on the importance of these documents:

Sept 8: "These four memos are pretty close to a smoking gun."

Sept 15: "...there was really nothing in them that told us anything new."

Ahh! The silent, smoking gun.

MORE: CBS version of statement.

UPDATE: Good job by Victor of the Dead Parrots.

UPDATE 2: Rkayn Knowledge tells us that CBS interviewed Killian's son, who inconveniently said good things about Bush. Wait, we didn't see that in their broadcast - I guess they decided he was "authentic but inaccurate".

Comments

[Jim Glass]

Breaking news coming from Dan Rather!

~~~~
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01

CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush's National Guard record last week on "60 Minutes."

"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html
~~~~

Ummm.... You're a little late, Dan.

[JM Hanes]

Mary Mapes, whom CBS characterizes as a veteran reporter, worked on this piece for five years, and the only thing she's managed to add to the story is 4 (make that 6) fraudulent documents? Things are worse than we thought!

My fav from the secretary's testimony (talk about leading a witness) on 60 Minutes tonight was the part where she said Bush got preferential treatment -- like so many other guys did at the time.

[J_Crater]

Does this James J. Pierce ever read the newspapers ?

[seeken]

SO we have two presidential candidates who's old commanders don't or didn't like them much.

[TM]

Does this James J. Pierce ever read the newspapers ?

Does CBS read the newspapers? Looks like they hired the wrong guy:

Plaintiff's expert Pierce, a handwriting analyst, testified that plaintiff signed all of her physical therapy treatment logs on different occasions. He did not believe that the physical therapy signatures were fraudulent. The defense expert, John Cerlanek, a document examiner, testified that the physical therapy logs signed by plaintiff pm 29 occasions revealed strong evidence of fabrication and fraud. There were 29 physical therapy sessions with 29 signatures from plaintiff. Cerlanek was able to determine from habitual analysis and more importantly through scientific analysis that plaintiff signed in blocks, i.e., four or five signatures at one time, possibly all at once. The jury commented after the trial that the handwriting presentation by defendant was credible and showed strong evidence of fraud on the part of the plaintiff.

Well, considering what they were working with, maybe CBS hired exactly the right guy.

[Bob]

That has to be the guy's home address. It's Lido island and any professional office wouldn't be on the island. If I had a car and hadn't drunken 5 beers tonight, I would be all over that( besides I'm 40 miles away right now, plus NB cops aren't kind). It's absolutely a home address, a blogger should show up to ask questions!

[joe]

"Did they interview them, and toss the interviews"

CBS *did* interview Killians son before they ran the story, maybe the widow too. He relayed that on Hannity last week. He told them that it didn't reflect his father sentiments, and also gave the name of other former guardsman they could contact who would have info on the subject. The CBS producer said she had to check if the were "Bush supporters" before she could use them. (I guess Bush supporters a strict no no in CBS stories) That point was also made right before that CBS guy made his now semi-famous "Pajama" comment about bloggers on the O'Reilly show. I believe Tony Snow was filling in though. The CBS guy thought it was an example of 60 minutes "check and balances" that they wouldn't use republicans.

[Calliope]

I wonder if he was actually stupid enough to type them at the Kinko's.

Surely not. Right? I mean....everyone in this comic episode has at least demonstrated minimal intelligence. Right?

If he did there should be at least traces on their computers. What MSM outlet is down there now checking this out I wonder? All it would take is a cooperative Kinko's manager. And if there is any question that there is criminal behavior a DoJ atty could have those hard drives in about 1 second flat.

[Mitch H.]

I have to say, I'm respecting Josh Marshall for the first time in many, many months. I had written him off as hopelessly partisan; I guess he's just mostly partisan.

[Dan]

Every bit of evidence and every statement CBS has made about this issue has failed to stand up to even modest scrutiny.

The documents are, beyond a reasonable doubt, forgeries.
CBS misrepresented the opinions of at least 3 of the 4 document experts they used.

CBS claims that the content of the documents is consistent with the memories of many people they spoke to. However, we know that some that they spoke to disputed the content. CBS ignored this testimony. Some they spoke to had no first hand knowledge about the content, but because they were willing to say that the content was probably true or might be true, they were quoted.

Ben Barnes, a man of dubious character, claims to have pulled strings for Bush. His daughter says he lying. I wonder if CBS asked Barnes, a Democrat, to name the sons of other Republican families he pulled strings for? For that matter, how many sons of prominent Democrats was he able to get into the guard, prior to his own elevation to Lt. Gov. Also, whose strings did he pull? Were those officers interviewed; what did the say?

Finally, Mary Mapes is said to have been all over this for 5 years. So why was she unable to locate Killian's secretary in all that time? In 5 years, why has she not talked to (or at least reported the statements of) the numerous TANG officers who have disputed the content of these documents.

Bottom line, CBS was not "had". They are active participants in this fraud.

[George]

"They did not report on conversations with Killian's widow or son. Did they interview them, and toss the interviews?"

Another source on this point:

Guard commander's son thinks memos are bogus
By Jack Douglas Jr.
Star Telegram Staff Writer
Posted on Sat, Sep. 11, 2004
...
Gary Killian said that he was interviewed last week by a Dallas based producer for CBS and that he tried to pass on the name of another person who knew Bush well when both were in the Guard. He said the producer told him the network had already talked to the individual.

"She told me point blank, 'We don't want to use his commentary because we think he's too pro Bush,' " Killian said.
...

Not sure if this link is still good:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/9641114.htm?1c

[Dan]

Another aspect of this story is that CBS (or, more likely, Dan Rather) realizes that this story has a "use by" date. They can't back off now and come back again before the election; and after Nov. 2, the story, true or false, is no longer of any interest to anyone. That in itself is telling.

The SwiftBoat guys and Kerry's Viet Nam exploits, are at least interesting and amusing. No matter what happens in November, there's probably another good book to be written about this whole controversy. But I doubt anyone is really interested in Bush's TANG service.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Even apart from its general risibility, the "fake but true" fallback position doesn't line up any too well with the specifics of the story. One of the few new charges on last week's show, remember, was that we now have this memo which shows that Bush defied a direct order to get his flight physical. What does this equate to in fake-but-true land-- that Bush defied a direct chuckle behind his back? That he defied a direct note which his CO wrote to himself and stuck in a locked drawer without showing to anybody?

And how does general office chatter about the special privileges given to officers from VIP families substantiate the charge that Bush was removed from flying status not just for skipping the physical but for unspecified other failures to meet ANG standards? Here again, without the specific language of the forged document what's left of the story?

[Pouncer]

There's too much focus on Shrub. We need context.

Do we have any memos from Killian or other commanders about other TANG slackers like John Connally III or Lloyd Bentsen III. Ms Knox, Killian's secretary, indicates scorn for, and names, several individuals besides Shrub whom, she says, got preferential treatment. So, in Killian's personal file, did this careful man deposit some "CYA" memos on THOSE guys?

How many TANG pilots finished their complete contract of six years? Is Shrub the only slacker or was he another average schlub in a pack of such schlubs?

How many pilots simply transferred in and out of TANG each year circa 1666 -- 1974? Is it unusual for Shrub to do so, or par for the course?

The MSM is providing a real dearth of context on these questions.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"Do we have any memos from Killian or other commanders about other TANG slackers like John Connally III or Lloyd Bentsen III."

They weren't pilots. That's what everyone is missing about Bush. He didn't join the Guard, he enlisted to become a fighter pilot. That was his goal, the ANG merely a route to it.

[Jim]

The most important figure where personnel issues are involved in most military units is the top-ranking non-commissioned officer. In an Army company that person is the First Sergeant, an E-8 at the time in question. I think the same term is used in the Air Force.

The Guard unit had civilian staff, so the First Sergeant might not have been as involved as in an active duty unit, but he should be able to light up some of this stuff -- if he's still alive. There may have been several such First Sergeants during Bush's tenure.

Other possibilities: The squadron maintenance officer, the Operations officer and their senior NCOs.

These names and titles should all be listed somewhere.

Jim

[Dacotti]

It just occured to me that Dan Rather in particular, but probably the rest of CBS in general, probably don't realize how deep of water they are in simply because of how seriously they understimate the blogsphere and especially the qualifications of the Pajamahadeen. Since they think you are all just a bunch of unemployeed right-wing-nuts they undoubtedly don't appreciate that they have a thundering herd of lawers, law professors, electronic type setting experts, etc. Individually, many bloggers can put a serious dent in CBS: Collectively, they make his research department look like a bunch of college freshmen cribbing encyclopedia articles for a term paper. Too bad you can't just expell them for gross misuse of their source material.

PS - As a request, the next time a bunch of bloggers cover a major event like the conventions, please oh please everyone come in pajamas!

[Bill]

Look for the squadron XO (Executive Officer.) He would be the one most closly involved with Killian on a day-to-day basis. In fact, it is generally the XO who is the primary interface to the other officers in administrative matters. Every single evaluation I ever had as an officer was screened and edited by the XO before being sent to the CO for signature. The CO's primary job is squadron operations. The XO's primary job is administrivia!

[Lloyd]

Check out Kerry Spot at NRO where an enterprising interviewer got through to Pierce who indicates there were not 4, or 6, but many many more documents he was/is in process of checking! He also (surprise) takes issue with CBS' portrayal of his assesment.