corrente

You know, this election has always been about character, but until I scanned the blogosphere today, I hadn't realized how much it was about characters—specifically, the ^t and the ^h. [Rim shot. "Thanks. I'll be here all week!"]

And I have to say (as I said before, more politely, back) that it's fucking amazing the level of cluelessness in the wingerly tempest over the Killian memos.

Forensic Document Examination 101: It isn't possible to determine the authenticity of a paper document by examining a digital copy of it! If that were possible, every winger on the face of the planet would be taking digital copy of a ten dollar bill to the package store and loading up the new cooler they got with their GOP Gauleiter Points. And that's all the wingers have been doing.

Making it even more fucking amazing the savage efficiency with which the winger attack machine operates. Guy like Paul Lukasiak devotes months of his life to serious analysis of the Bush payroll record punchcards (why, oh why, didn't CBS go with this?) and we crow that we manage to get him mentioned in Froomkin's column. Then some winger shows it's possible to make one digital document look kinda like another digital reproduced document using software (wow!) and in 12 hours they're in the Standard, and in one news cycle they've got the network anchors repeating their talking points. "Liberal" "news" media my sweet Aunt Fanny.

Anyhow. CBS News didn't cave. Maybe Unka Karl shouldn't have left a horse's head in their bed over that Reagan biopic after all. Here's what CBS says:

"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read.

In other words, CBS not only has documents, CBS has witnesses. Contrast Bush—we will, since His hapless apologists won't— who is missing documents, constantly finding them when they are "lost," and has no witnesses (not even for $10,000, back).

"In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."

And now we come to the first winger talking point: the famous superscripts:

CBS News Anchor Dan Rather says many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th."

Critics [now that's being generous!—Ed.] claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript – including one from 1968.

It would be nice if CBS mentioned Josh Marshall (back), who first pointed this out, but we'll take what we can get.

And now we come to the second winger talking point: The Times New Roman.

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 says it has been available since 1931.

"Times New Roman" is a red herring. It isn't possible to tell from the PDFs online what typeface is being used (look for yourself). Serifs, sure, but not only Times, a particular brand of Times? Forget it. Note also that many of us have enough experience to remember the days before desktop publishing, and plenty of us can remember IBM typewriters with both kerning and serif fonts, from the early 70s. In fact, I owned one.

Making the next point all the more crucial: The only way to authenticate a document is to examine the document, not a copy of it; that's Forensic Document Examination 101, as we say above. And that's why all the "experts" making pronouncements on copies of the documents are violating their own professional ethics (as we show here). CBS puts the same idea in words that are far more polite:

Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. But he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed [Heh.—] outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.

Translation: All the wingerly analysis and footstamping about "forgery" is "sound and fury signifying nothing" because they aren't working from the originals.

Matley did this interview with us prior to Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. He looked at the documents...

Note once more that if the documents were created with impact technology like a typewriter, this instantly destroys the wingerly argumentation, since all their claims of forgery depend on digital reproduction.

Note to CBS: It would be nice to hear you take up this point.

Note to readers: A tip of the Ol' Corrente Hat to the first reader to link to wingerly frothing about Marcel Matley's French-sounding name.

...and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.

"We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person."

Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence.

Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures."

Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the documents have come up.

"I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it."

Don't go up in any small planes, Marcel.

And now the witness:

Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real.

"They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved."
(via CBS)

In a world where Enlightenment values like "evidence" and "reasoning" counted for something, CBS (modulo conspiracy theories, of course) has a strong prima facie case that the documents are real. (Note that what the documents reveal goes to character and unlawful acts, since they show that Bush disobeyed a direct order.)

1. The only examiner to have looked at the original, physical documents confirms their authenticity to CBS.

2. Independent witnesses confirm the content of the documents to CBS.

3. Independent researchers (Paul Lukasiak) reinforce the context of the Killian memos—that Bush was given special treatment—besides

4. proving that Bush was guilty of payroll fraud (never addressed by wingers) and didn't meet his sworn commitments.

In addition, 5, the White House never disputed the authenticity of the Killian memos. This could be, of course, part of the pattern of Bush always letting others do the dirty work. But it could also mean that the reason the White House didn't claim forgery is that they thought that the memos were true.

Finally, 6, the essential point of the story—now in the process of being covered up by wingerly frothing and stamping—is not that Bush disobeyed a direct order, juicy though that is. The essential point is that Bush disobeyed a direct order to take a medical exam, after the medical exams began to include drug testing. Why didn't he? The Bush answer is that He didn't need to, but in the military, the person being given the order doesn't get to decide whether or not to follow it. Eh?

Now, I know there are lots of people—Xan among them (back)—who want to talk about "the issues." The worthy Canadians think we've gone nuts.

I disagree. The wingerly response to this story is the sharp end of the Republican sword. This is how they govern, and if we don't stop it, it's only going to get worse.

Further, Digby makes the excellent point (citing a New Yorker article) here that people often use stories as proxies for reasoning. Expecially undecided people:

These little dramas in campaigns, which seem to be about everything but what we informed voters believe are the essential issues, actually serve as character and issues proxies for the electorate to come to its gut reasoning.

That is why blunting the Swift Boat Smear was so important—heck, if we can't blunt a political smear, how can we defend the country? That's the proxy style of reasoning, and who's to say it isn't good enough?

With the Killian memos, we have a great, great story. Not only did Bush pull strings to get into the Guard, he disobeyed a direct order once he was in. Oh, what was the order? To take a medical exam. Heck, why didn't we want to do that?! And Kitty Kelley has the answer to that. And now he's commander in chief?! Get out!

We have a great story. It could tip the undecideds, who use proxy reasoning, to us. The wingers know that. That's why they're trying to take it away from us.

Worse, the story they're trying to replace it with is a tale of forgery, and the Mighty Wurlitzer is constantly pumping that line out.

So, if we don't want President Superscript to win in 2004, we have to win this one.

UPDATE I think Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall have gone native on us. Asking Hodges whether he was pressured is exactly not the right question, since it's back to he said/she said. The right question is: Were the original documents created on a typewriter? If so—and it's hard to believe that CBS and a professional document examiner, under contract, would have missed this—then all the winger claims collapse. When they do, then it's case closed that Bush disobeyed a direct order. Then, we can ask why He did that? (Snort!)

And The Poor Man has it exactly right:

Let me save everyone a whole lot of time. They are genuine. How do I know? Because the internet is currently awash in wingnuts claiming the memos are fakes. Ergo, they are for real. Q.E.D.

UPDATE Hunter at Kos nails the font arguments with solid technical analysis. Go read. Winger meme sounds good on first look, falls apart when Enlightenment values like "evidence" and "reasoning" are applied. Film at 11.
As Hunter says in the update:

A number of people point out that this debunking of a debunking is a colossal "waste of time". Perhaps, perhaps not. But one of the points of the cooperative blogosphere, and of political blogs in particular, is that different individuals can choose their targets. A very few people managed to track down irrefutable evidence that the rationales underpinning the "forgery" cries were simply false, and were able to do so in a short time. The rest of the blogosphere didn't have to lift a finger.

And I don't like lies. And I especially don't like lies that make it into the mainstream media with such astonishing ease. And I choose to do something about it.

There are more interesting things coming out of this than merely the full and certain knowledge that conservatives can't perform either logical analysis or basic Google searches. We also have been given a prime example of how the mainstream media obtains its information, and where they get it from.

UPDATE Eesh.

Mr. Matley, the documents expert, said in an interview after the program, that he had examined documents and handwriting since 1985 and had testified in 65 trials. Mr. Matley said the documents the network sent him were so deteriorated from copying that it was impossible to identify the typeface. As a result, he said, he focused on the signatures.
(via The Times

One the one hand, all the winger font analysis is out the window. On the other, it would have been nice to have the orignals (where are they?) So what we have now—and notice that this would be admissible in court—is the signatures and the testimony of witnesses. The case is still prima facie in CBS's favor.