The "forgery" claim on the Bush Guard documents

I'm providing a number of links in this post to items on the "forgery" claims related to the documents CBS produced in its story on Bush's Texas Air Guard service this past week.  In my following post, I'll provide some links dealing more with the substance of the story.

Short version: it sounds to me like CBS is on solid ground and, so far, the "forgery" claims look like the same old Republican slime machine at work that gave us the Swift Boat Liars.  With, of course, our sad excuse for a press corps handling the Republicans' smoke-and-fog claims with their usual sloppiness.

The more I look at the "forgery" aspect of the story, the more it looks like a potential case study for Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler.  I can just imagine him saying of this one, "Gaze on the empty soul of your press corps..."

Josh Marshall 09/09/04
Josh Marshall 09/09/04 fretting about the "th" superscript

Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush by Michael Dobbs and Mike Allen (with Howard Kurtz and Lucy Shackelford contibuting) Washington Post 09/10/04

Josh Marshall 09/09/04 on the Dobbs/Allen/Kurtz/Shackelford Washington Post article.

Guard commander's memos criticize Bush USA Today 09/09/04.  Kevin Drum (More Killian Memos 09/12/04) comments on this article and notes that USA Today's Web site (*.pdf file) provides two additional Killian memos not among the CBS lot.

This is a sloppy article from Slate that includes some links to the key conservative players in the "forgery" hype: Rather Suspicious: Searching for answers in the Killian memo controversy by Josh Levin 09/10/04

Swift boat flacks attack CBS by Eric Boehlert Salon.com 09/10/04. Boehlert has been keeping his eyes on the core of the story:

The disputed Killian documents represent just a fraction of what is known aboutBush's Guard duty. To date, the voluminous information about the issue comes from Bush's own Texas Guard file, none of which has been called into question. And in fact, the veracity of the contents of the Killian memos remains undisputed. For instance, one memo dated May 4, 1972, ordered Bush to obtain a physical exam. There has been no controversy whatsoever about the fact that Bush was required to take a physical that year and failed to do so.

Josh Marshall 09/10/04 on being half-convinced of the forgery charge

Steve Gilliard Useful Idiots 09/11/04

CBSNews.com CBS Stands By Bush-Guard Memos 09/10/04

Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. And 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 outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.

I did a quick Yahoo! search on Marcel Matley.  I didn't turn up any obvious links to partisan Democratic groups or Nazi war criminals.  (See my earlier post on "experts".)

Geraldine Sealey at Salon's War Room '04 blog provides additional information on CBS' defense of its story: Rather feeling Freeped, but standing by his story 09/10/04.  "Freeped," for the non-political-junkie types, refers to the rightwing FreeRepublic.com site though it has come to refer to hardcore rightwingers in a more general sense, as well.

At this point, I'm convinced that the documents CBS found are legitimate.  The criticism has been dubious to say the least.  The documents are not only authenticated by direct examinationbut by supporting evidence on the contents and consistency with other established facts about the material.

It's also a lesson in how the Internet can be used to blow smoke around a story.  Not one worthy of emulating directly, I would add. 

However, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post illustrates once again why liberal bloggers often refer to him in such ways as "the contemptible Howie Kurtz," as he loyally flaks for the Republican party line of the day, while blithely neglecting to report the vacuousness of most of the technical controversy: Rather Defends CBS Over Memos on Bush by Howie Kurtz Washington Post 09/11/04.

And even keeping in mind it's Howie Kurtz, it's still makes me shake my head in amazement to see what he wrote.  It's yet another example of the pathology of today's press, which allows the GOP spinmeisters to play them shamelessly:

On last night's "CBS Evening News," Rather defended the piece against what he called the "counterattack." He interviewed Matley, who said he concluded after comparing Killian's signature on the memos to other undisputed documents that "yes, it's the same person."

Rather noted the critics' claim that typewriters in the Vietnam War era could not produce a raised superscript, such as the letters "th," but he maintained: "Some models did." As for contentions that the memos were written in a more modern font called Times New Roman, Rather said: "The company that distributes this typeface says it has been available since 1931."

This is not a "he said/she said" issue.  It's not an ideological dispute.  It's not a dispute about values or priorities.  Either the superscript wasavailable, or it wasn't.  Either the font was available, or it wasn't.  Treating it as a "this side says, the other side says" story without checking the easily verifiable facts is the kind of phony "balance" that allows hacks like Kurtz to give publicity to the most dishonest claims of Republican operatives.

Kurtz was clearly bending over backwards to cast doubt on CBS' credibility.  He quotes CBS employees "who asked not to be identified while questioning their bosses' actions."  But he doesn't quote them actually questioning their bosses' actions" on the claims at issue.  But only on GOP-friendly talking points, like this mindless sample:

Others at the network noted that the producer on the Texas Air National Guard segment was the highly regarded Mary Mapes, who helped "60 Minutes" break the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq.

"It's hard to separate legitimate concern from political blowback and propaganda," Heyward said.

Kurtz does manage to come up with a useful piece of information on Marcel Matley at the end, which seems to suggest he's a well-regarded and independent expert.  This is a more solid piece of information than the vapid nonsense he quoted earlier to try to cast doubt on the CBS reporting.  That's probably why it's buried in the last paragraph.

Matley, who told Rather last night thathe knew the Bush documents would be professional "dynamite," has been involved in high-profile cases, including a 1997 controversy over purported John F. Kennedy documents. After "60 Minutes" cast doubt on those documents, the man who unearthed them, Lawrence Cusack III, retained Matley in a suit against CBS that was rejected in court. Matley could not vouch for the documents' authenticity.

This story is a genuinely bad piece of work.  But readers of the prestigious Washington Post seeing this and not following the details of the story would come away with the impression that CBS' entire story was borderline useless.  To quote the Daily Howler for the upteenth time, if we didn't have a press corps like this, you couldn't invent them.

The Boston Globe did a much better job: Authenticity backed on Bush documents by Francie Latour and Michael Rezendes Boston Globe 09/11/04.  They note matter-of-factly, "reporters and political figures focused much of their attention yesterday on the suggestion that CBS might have been the victim of a hoax."

But Latour and Rezendes did what that pathetic Howie Kurtz could not be bothered to do. They reported the "this side says/the other side says" part of the story.  And then they checked the relevant facts.  It's not that the American press is totally bankrupt.  Here are two working reporters at a major paper who actually do journalism:

Those who doubt the documents say those typographical elements would not have been commonly available at the time of Bush's service. But such characters were common features on electric typewriters of that era, the Globe determined through interviews withspecialists and examination of documents from the period. In fact, one such raised ''th," used to describe a Guard unit, the 187th, appears in a document in Bush's official record that the White House made public earlier this year.

And they let William Flynn destroy himself by sticking to a story about proportional spacing that has benn debunked.  And then they let this document expert explain that he was working with versions of the document that are not usable for verification!

But William Flynn, a Phoenix document examiner cited in a Washington Post report Thursday, said he had not changed his mind because he does not believe that the proportional spacing between characters, and between lines, in the documents obtained by CBS was possible on typewriters used by the military at the time.

Flynn told the Globe he believes it is ''highly unlikely" thatthe documents CBS has obtained could have been produced in 1972or 1973.

Flynn said his doubts were also based on his belief that the curved apostrophe was not available on electric typewriters at the time, although documents from the period reviewed by the Globe show it was. He acknowledged that the quality of the copies of the documents he examined was poor.

There was a time, not so long ago, when reporters for major news outlets working on national stories did this sort of journalism routinely.  Now it seems like a near-miracle when you see it done.

Look at what this says.  William Flynn, the document expert that the Washington Post in the Dobbs/Allen/Kurtz/Shackelford article cited above describe as "a forensic document specialist with 35 years of experience in police crime labs and private practice."  And they quote him as saying:  "It would be nearly impossible for all this technology to have existed at that time."

Apart from his otherwise dubious history, shouldn't it have been a clue for Dobbs/Allen/Kurtz/Shackelford when they documents expert says,  "It would be nearly impossible for all this technology to have existed at that time."  Isn't this the kind of stuff that we would expect a documents expert to know?  Or at least to find out before he gives quotes like that to the national press?  And when the Globe did some actual reporting,  they managed to tell us, "He acknowledged that the quality of the copies of the documents he examined was poor."  Did Dobbs/Allen/Kurtz/Shackelford even bother to ask?

Dobbs/Allen/Kurtz/Shackelford follow their Flynn "nearly impossible" quote with this:

Other experts largely concurred. Phil Bouffard, a forensic document examiner from Cleveland, said the font used in the CBS documents appeared to be Times Roman, which is widely used by word-processing programs but was not common on typewriters.

Now, I read a lot of newspaper articles.  I'm think I'm safe in saying that I'm a relatively critical reader.  This sounds to me like Phil Bouffard is endorsing Flynn's "nearly impossible" comment.

But Latour and Rezendes also interviewed Phil Bouffard the Globe.  And Bouffard there isbasically recants everything he told the New York Timeswhen he expressed skepticism about the authenticity of the Killian documents.  He was mistaken, he said, about the letters and formatting, about military use of the Composer (one of the arcane issues that had been raised), and about the famous ''th".

''You can't just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer," Bouffard said.

One thing we can learn from all this:  if you need a good documentexpert, William Flynn and Phil Bouffard should probably not be high on the list of people to call.

Meanwhile, the New York Times entertains us with cheap detective fiction: An Ex-Officer Now Believes Guard Memo Isn't Genuine Ralph Blumenthal and Jim Rutenberg New York Times 09/12/04.  In this one, we're treated to Bobby Hodges pulling back from his supportive information that he gave CBS about the contents of the Killian memos.  Now, the reporters should be talking to Hodges.  He's mentioned in one of the Killian memos as being pressured by Col. Walter B. Staudt on a Bush-related matter.  Since both Hodges and Staudt are still alive, interviewing them on the content of the memo makes sense.

But what Blumenthal and Rutenberg give us is yet another "this side says/that side says" account.  Look at what Hodges says about how he was alleged tricked by CBS (my emphasis):

Mr. Hodges, 74, who was group commander of Mr. Bush's squadron in the 147th Fighter Group at Ellington Field in Houston in the early 1970's, said that when someone from CBS called him on Monday night and read him documents, "I thought they were handwritten notes."

He said he had not authenticated the documents for CBS News but had confirmed that they reflected issues he and Colonel Killian had discussed - namely Mr. Bush's failure to appear for a physical, which military records released previously by the White House show, led to a suspension from flying.

A CBS News spokeswoman, Sandy Genelius, indicated that Mr.Hodges had changed his account.

Say what?  CBS News reported that Hodges confirmed the content of the memos as something Killian could indeed have written, and he even now says "that they reflected issues he and Colonel Killian had discussed."  In other words, he still confirms the content, which is what CBS apparently asked him about in the first place.  In addition to the examination of the documents for internal evidence of authenticity, they used Hodges as a confirming source for thecontent.  And Hodges still confirms the content as being plausible.

But Blumenthal and Rutenberg play pulp detective-story writers and explain to us that Hodges now has doubts about the documents, saying "he had not authenticated the documents for CBS News" and that he had originally "thought they were handwritten notes."  In other words, Hodges has now become an overnight document expert, too!  There is no indication that Hodges is, in fact, a document expert.  Even one of the caliber of William Flynn and Phil Bouffard.  But his doubts about the documents are based on, on what?  He still confirms that the content sounds plausible for Killian to have written, which is the supportive information that CBS claimed he provided.

And why does Hodges now say he has doubts about the story?

Mr. Hodges said that he had not spoken with anyone from the Bush administration or campaign about his views and that he was basing his belief now that the records are fakes on "inconsistencies" he had noticed. ...

Mr. Hodges said he had also begun taking a dim view of the memos after hearing disavowals of them from Colonel Killian's wife and son.

In other words, he's read the press accounts where Important Experts like William Flynn and Phil Bouffard held forth on their professional judgments of documents they had not examined, and he's seen that it's a big messy story, and he's he doesn't want to be in the anti-Bush side of this now.  Even though he still says "that they reflected issues he and Colonel Killian had discussed."

It's worth noting again that the fact of Bush's having missed a required flight physical and therefore losing his flight authorization - the key element of the story - is not a matter of factual dispute.  The Killian memos add detail and advance the story.  Are the memos genuine?  Hodges the non-document-expert has doubts after hearing the Republican echo chamber sound forth on the matter.  But he still thinks "that they reflected issues he and Colonel Killian had discussed."

While we're poking around in the pulp detective-story realm, what does the "paper of record" New York Times say about Killian's family's story?  Blumenthal and Rutenberg:

The son, Gary Killian, said Saturday that he initially believed the documents might be real, if only because the signature looked like his father's. He said he had since been persuaded by the skepticism of some document experts.

Compare to the Globe's account:

Also suspicious is Killian's son, Gary D. Killian of Houston. ''I still contend that my father would not have written these documents. I know the type of man he was -- if he felt he wasbeing pressured, he'd confront it head on, not write a memo about it," Killian, 51, said in a telephone interview. His father died in 1984.

The Globe gives us a couple of pieces of useful information on this.  Killian died 20 years ago.  His son is 51 today, which means he was 19 in 1972.  What kind of confirming or debunking information could Killian's family provide?  They could say, oh, the date on this memo is the time my father was in the hospital in a coma for a month after an automobile accident.  They could provide names of confidants of the elder Killian with whom he might have talked.  They might have a diary of his, or they might remember his talking about it.

But how much did 19-year-old Killian know about his father's work habits n the National Guard in 1972?  And what does the younger Killian's debunking statement quoted here amount to? "I know the type of man he was -- if he felt he was being pressured, he'd confront it head on, not write a memo about it."  Apart from the fact that writing memos is in normal course of one's official duties in the military is normally not a character issue, isn't writing a memo like the one to which he refers a form of "confronting it head on"?

The way this story looks to me right now, the "forgery" charges are going nowhere, and theissue of Bush's Guard service will remain a significant irritant for the Republicans in this campaign.  They are also providing us yet another look at how today's American press corps can be led around by the nose by Republican hacks.

On that note, there's this article: The X Files of Lt. Bush by Amanda Ripley Time 09/20/04 issue (accessed 09/12/04).  Ripley also hones in on the core of the story:

The biggest blot on Bush's record may be his failure to take his required annual physical in 1972. As a result, he was suspended from flying — an embarrassment for serious pilots. In years past, the Bush campaign claimed he missed the physical because his personal physician was in Houston. Now the White House says Bush did not need to take the physical, since he did not intend to fly during his stint in Alabama.

But she also did some actual research on the "forgery" issue:

So far, forensic and typewriter experts consulted by TIME and other major media organizations have not reached a consensus on the authenticity of the memos. Some insist it would have been nearly impossible for a 1970s-era typewriter to produce the memos because of the letter spacing in the documents and the use of a raised and compact th symbol. But Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York City who worked for IBM repairing typewriters from 1973 to 1985, says those experts "are full of crap. They just don't know." Glennon says there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key — the likes of which he says were not unusual — could have created the superscript th.

Pontificator at Daily Kos comments on this story 09/12/04, not without a touch of bitterness.

Gee, I'm really shocked that a bunch of hyper-partisan internet writers with no relevant expertise whatsoever were wrong on this.  Good thing the mainstream press kept their wits about them and never gave them any credence.