Sunday, September 12, 2004
Bush AWOL: Winger celebration premature ejaculation
Of course, in a massive circle jerk, that's bound to happen.
So after working all that tedious issues stuff, like the continuing clusterfuck in Iraq, the increasing likelihood that election 2004 will be outright stolen, the mushroom cloud from North Korea—thanks, Dear Leader—and the top ten reasons Bush shouldn't be elected, let's get down to the serious stuff: Times New Roman and kerning.
Let's review the state of play. There are three essential points to the original CBS story (back) (I'm leaving aside the "sugarcoating" stuff, and the facts everyone on all sides accepts: that Bush used his family connections—not that there's anything wrong with that—to get into a TANG "champagne unit" and avoid serving in Viet Nam).
Point 1: The actual content of the documents.
Point 2: The documents themselves (the "Killian memos")
Point 3: The confirmation of the document's content from a new witness (Hodges).
Let's start with point 1: The actual content of the documents is unchallenged. The essential point of the Killian memos is that Bush disobeyed a direct order to take the medical exam he was required to take in order to keep flying. (As a result, he was grounded, and never flew for the Guard again (after the taxpayer's paid a million dollars to train him).
a. The fact that Bush blew off his medical exam and was grounded is well-attested (back). Granted, the White House's Bartlett said Bush "didn't need to" take the exam (here), but that's weak: in the military, you don't get to make that kind of decision for yourself.
b. Documents that are not contested show that Bush was guilty of payroll fraud (Paul Lukasiak, back), since he didn't actually perform the service he signed on to perform. That well known extreme liberal publication, US News and World Report comes to the same conclusion, based on its own reporting.
c. Reporting that is not contested shows that Bush blew off his obligation to seek out a new unit when he went to Harvard (here) and wasn't punished for it.
d. The single witness to say that Bush served his missing year in Alabama is a Republican activist, who gets his dates wrong. Other witnesses from that time say that Bush did not serve in Alabama (Linda Allison). Republican activist "Bill" Calhoun says that Bush served on dates that don't match payroll records. In any case, Calhoun didn't apparently doesn't think much of his own testimony; at least he never claimed the $10,000 reward for giving it.
So the essential Killian memo—the one that says Bush refused a direct order to take a medical exam—is icing on the cake. All it does is vividly confirm facts that we have gleaned from other sources. And here again, we can make the usual and obvious point: Why does AP have to sue to get Bush's military records if there's no problem with them?
Now to point 2: The documents themselves are not credibly challenged. Sure, there was a massive winger frothing and stamping on this point over the 9/11 weekend, but it all boils down to a demonstration of the fearsome efficiency of VWRC meme transmission.
The wingers argued that if they could reproduce the Killian memos themselves using the typographic features of Microsoft Word in 2004—"kerning", "superscripts", "Times New Roman"—that the Killian memos could not have been created in the 1970s. Of course, this argument is easily refuted by example, and when actual, as opposed to amateur, typographic experts entered the fray, that is exactly what happened. Here again, the winger sound and fury signified nothing. Via the essential Atrios (here) we find this from PC Magazine: Go try for yourself). Clearly, all of the typographic features that the wingers say couldn't have been created in the 1970s could have been and were. QED.
In fact, the entire winger focus on the typography is wrong: CBS (alas) has only copies of the documents, not the originals (back). Therefore, in authenticating the documents, CBS's expert Marcel Matley relied on an examination of Killian's signature, not on the typography at all. (Such examinations are valid evidence in court, remember.)
Bringing me to the point 3: The human element. The White House's Dan Barlett says that he "can't read the mind of dead man" so I'll leave the theories from Killian's family and friends off the table. What is important is that Hodge, Killian's associate at the time the memos were written, has recanted. But how plausible is the recantation? The answer is: Not very. Here's how ABC covers the Hodge recantation:
Presumably, CBS has tapes. Being an experienced newsgathering organization, they would. Reading the text, it seems clear to me that Hodges picked up the "computer-generated" meme very early, and seized the opportunity to back out of a statement he regretted making.
Bottom line: The Killian memos only offer vivid confirmation of what we already know:
1. Bush blew off his medical exam and was grounded (uncontested)
2. Bush was guilty of payroll fraud (uncontested)
3. Bush blew off reporting to a unit when he went to Harvard (uncontested)
4. Bush has no credible witnesses to his "missing year in Alabama.
It's really no wonder that the wingers want to talk about kerning, superscripts, and Times New Roman, is it?
NOTE A horrible example of premature triumphalism here. The LA Times manages to write about blogs without mentioned Atrios, who gets as many hits as anyone, and in addition is a grassroots fundraising player for Democrats.
UPDATE Limbaugh is already claiming that the documents are the products of DNC oppo research. So this is a fight we can't walk away from.
UPDATE Time has a reasonably even-handed review of the story here.
So after working all that tedious issues stuff, like the continuing clusterfuck in Iraq, the increasing likelihood that election 2004 will be outright stolen, the mushroom cloud from North Korea—thanks, Dear Leader—and the top ten reasons Bush shouldn't be elected, let's get down to the serious stuff: Times New Roman and kerning.
Let's review the state of play. There are three essential points to the original CBS story (back) (I'm leaving aside the "sugarcoating" stuff, and the facts everyone on all sides accepts: that Bush used his family connections—not that there's anything wrong with that—to get into a TANG "champagne unit" and avoid serving in Viet Nam).
Point 1: The actual content of the documents.
Point 2: The documents themselves (the "Killian memos")
Point 3: The confirmation of the document's content from a new witness (Hodges).
Let's start with point 1: The actual content of the documents is unchallenged. The essential point of the Killian memos is that Bush disobeyed a direct order to take the medical exam he was required to take in order to keep flying. (As a result, he was grounded, and never flew for the Guard again (after the taxpayer's paid a million dollars to train him).
a. The fact that Bush blew off his medical exam and was grounded is well-attested (back). Granted, the White House's Bartlett said Bush "didn't need to" take the exam (here), but that's weak: in the military, you don't get to make that kind of decision for yourself.
b. Documents that are not contested show that Bush was guilty of payroll fraud (Paul Lukasiak, back), since he didn't actually perform the service he signed on to perform. That well known extreme liberal publication, US News and World Report comes to the same conclusion, based on its own reporting.
c. Reporting that is not contested shows that Bush blew off his obligation to seek out a new unit when he went to Harvard (here) and wasn't punished for it.
d. The single witness to say that Bush served his missing year in Alabama is a Republican activist, who gets his dates wrong. Other witnesses from that time say that Bush did not serve in Alabama (Linda Allison). Republican activist "Bill" Calhoun says that Bush served on dates that don't match payroll records. In any case, Calhoun didn't apparently doesn't think much of his own testimony; at least he never claimed the $10,000 reward for giving it.
So the essential Killian memo—the one that says Bush refused a direct order to take a medical exam—is icing on the cake. All it does is vividly confirm facts that we have gleaned from other sources. And here again, we can make the usual and obvious point: Why does AP have to sue to get Bush's military records if there's no problem with them?
Now to point 2: The documents themselves are not credibly challenged. Sure, there was a massive winger frothing and stamping on this point over the 9/11 weekend, but it all boils down to a demonstration of the fearsome efficiency of VWRC meme transmission.
The wingers argued that if they could reproduce the Killian memos themselves using the typographic features of Microsoft Word in 2004—"kerning", "superscripts", "Times New Roman"—that the Killian memos could not have been created in the 1970s. Of course, this argument is easily refuted by example, and when actual, as opposed to amateur, typographic experts entered the fray, that is exactly what happened. Here again, the winger sound and fury signified nothing. Via the essential Atrios (here) we find this from PC Magazine: Go try for yourself). Clearly, all of the typographic features that the wingers say couldn't have been created in the 1970s could have been and were. QED.
In fact, the entire winger focus on the typography is wrong: CBS (alas) has only copies of the documents, not the originals (back). Therefore, in authenticating the documents, CBS's expert Marcel Matley relied on an examination of Killian's signature, not on the typography at all. (Such examinations are valid evidence in court, remember.)
Bringing me to the point 3: The human element. The White House's Dan Barlett says that he "can't read the mind of dead man" so I'll leave the theories from Killian's family and friends off the table. What is important is that Hodge, Killian's associate at the time the memos were written, has recanted. But how plausible is the recantation? The answer is: Not very. Here's how ABC covers the Hodge recantation:
Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Guard, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."
Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud".
CBS responds: ""We believed Col. Hodges the first time we spoke with him. We believe the documents to be genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it."
(via ABC)
Presumably, CBS has tapes. Being an experienced newsgathering organization, they would. Reading the text, it seems clear to me that Hodges picked up the "computer-generated" meme very early, and seized the opportunity to back out of a statement he regretted making.
Bottom line: The Killian memos only offer vivid confirmation of what we already know:
1. Bush blew off his medical exam and was grounded (uncontested)
2. Bush was guilty of payroll fraud (uncontested)
3. Bush blew off reporting to a unit when he went to Harvard (uncontested)
4. Bush has no credible witnesses to his "missing year in Alabama.
It's really no wonder that the wingers want to talk about kerning, superscripts, and Times New Roman, is it?
NOTE A horrible example of premature triumphalism here. The LA Times manages to write about blogs without mentioned Atrios, who gets as many hits as anyone, and in addition is a grassroots fundraising player for Democrats.
UPDATE Limbaugh is already claiming that the documents are the products of DNC oppo research. So this is a fight we can't walk away from.
UPDATE Time has a reasonably even-handed review of the story here.
