I said it before and I'll say it again: Good Job Bill!

Thanks.

"Carelessness"? How many months did it take to come up with this? Pathetic. And it shows CBS has yet to realize their main problem is not that they were caught red-handed with forgeries or even that a network news anchor tried to sway a Presidential election. Their problem is that nobody believes a word they have to say and this bit of puffery does nothing to change that.

While the panel balked at declaring the docs an "outright forgery," the report directs readers to the conclusions reached by "New York typewriter expert" Peter Tytell:

Tytell concluded, for the reasons described below, that (i) the relevant portion of the
Superscript Exemplar was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian
documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, and (iii) the Killian documents
were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle . Tytell acknowledged that
deterioration in the Killian documents from the copying and downloading process made the
comparison of typestyles "to some extent a subjective call." However, he believed the
differences were sufficiently significant to conclude that the Killian documents were not
produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s and therefore were not authentic .

Exhibit Appendix 4

Tytell apparently was the primary or sole technical expert consulted by the panel.

It's about an 60-70% whitewash, although it does contain a lot of additional incriminating facts.

Notably, its analysis of the authenicity is limited to how well the contents and format of the forgeries "mesh" with the known Bush 70's era documents. No real discussion of the forensic typographical disproof; the only mention of Newcomer's report is in connection with it being quoted in the Washington Post. Interestingly, the CBS notes that Emily Will basically did the LGF experiment and found that the Killian memos matched up to Microsoft Word, but just drops the matter after noting there was a dispute over whether she communicated her results to CBS. The only discussion of Bouffard's finding is in connection with his reported "recantation" regarding whether the documents could have been done on an IBM Selectric (the panel notes faults CBS for reporting this absent evidence that such a model was available at the TxANG).

The report's handling of Glennon and Katz is a little ridiculous. While it puts the word "experts" in scare quotes when referring to them and questions whether their credentials were adequately checked, it does with"without suggesting in any way that Glennon and Katz lacked qualifications." Given that the report reproduces verbatim their testimony on the later CBS cover-up broadcasts, what other information did it need?

The issue of the documents' authenicity is a rather basic question in this matter. CBS was faulted for failing to obtain properly-credentialed experts to resolve it. The investigators commit the very same omission.

- Theres just too much liability exposure to expect anything other than total deniability on outright political jurymanding or bias. CBS also has to hope that throwing the usual suspects to the wolves will placate all of the players effecting by their duplicitous reporting. This really isn't surprising and is probably the exact game plan their lawyers layed out for the report amd release....

Dan Rather had no political agenda -- but how about the bloggers? The panel doesn't mince words about THAT, of course: "This [Buckhead's Free Republic analysis] was followed on the morning of September 9 by further attacks, mostly by bloggers with a conservative agenda." (Note that the 60 Minutes report is never referred to as an "attack" on President Bush).

Note that the panel blithely applies the conservative label, as if it were a given, without supplying the facts underlying its finding of conservatism. I don't dispute that most bloggers analyzing the documents had a conservative agenda, but if the panel had a sufficient factual basis to reach that definitive conclusion, it certainly had enough evidence to label Rather's leanings. But the closest they get to that, hilariously, is by using the C word again: "Rather has long been accused by some conservatives as being emblematic of the liberal news media."

Actually, the more I read the report, the more I'm beginning to like it. The panel does trash CBS at length for calling Burkett "unimpeachable." And what's the first line of their executive summary? "The stated goal of CBS is to have a reputation for journalism of the highest quality and unimpeachable integrity."

Don't tell me that wasn't intentional. Those guys have a sense of humor.

cBS News makes five attempts to investigate George W. Bush TexANG service and zero attempts to investigate John Kerry Vietnam service, VVAW record or Senate lies, yet the report concludes that cBS is not biased.

Sure!

David

Hey Bill, link to me, too: HEADS ROLL

I'll link up to you and everyone else, as well.

Hey, I reposted my original Killian memo comic that you guys liked over at defeatjohnjohn.com. Enjoy, and keep up the good work! It's nowhere near as whitewashed as we feared.

Did CBS use a fraudulent report to try and influence the Presidential election? Thornburgh only regurgitated what we already knew. Does not look like
"independent" is the right word for his report.

Bill, have you been interviewed by major media yet?

Nope.

The report has had a strange effect on me.

I’ve developed an unusual craving for a rum drink.

The Panel's analysis of eth factual background is an interesting read.

I fault the Panel's analysis of the potential for political bias playing a part because it is too simplistic a look at the issue:

1. The Panel notes the belief of many that Rather has a bias, but discounts that and accepts at face value his denioals fo a bias. If this is how lawyers from that firm conduct their cross examinations, I'll hire someone else when I have a problem.

2. The Panel fails completely to address the timing issues. They claim that the length fo time spent on the investigation is evidence that political bias played no role. They do not mention that the investigation allegedly began in the heat of the 2000 election and was revived in the midst of the 2004 election. I think that's pretty strong evidence that political considerations played a big role in the reporting, but the Panel closes its eyes to that fact.

3. The Panel also fails to comment on the fact that the story was reported coincidentally with a Democratic campaign initiative to attack Bush's service record, "Operation Fortunate Son." Thus, a book attacking Bush's record appeared the same day as news stories regarding his record and the same day the Kerry campaign was trying to tmake this a campaign issue. The fact that the sources for the story (Barnes and Burkett) had strong ties to the Democratic Party and to the Kerry cmapaign underscores the fact that this is not a coincidence.

4. Finally, teh panel omits any reference to the known politics of Mapes and Rather, both of whom are self-professed liberal Democrats.

Without adderssing these and other facts, the Panel simply sidesteps the real questions regarding whether the story had its roots in a Democratic "dirty tricks" smear campaign.

It makes a good novel, but the analysis is sorely lacking. Thornberg is either stupid or is whitewashing the real import of what happened.

Dean,

This is a fascinating story of the fall of the MSM dominance as the trusted provider of the news of the day.

See my comments over at Roger Simon's site:

Roger,

Do these folks actually get paid for all this smoozing and distorting the facts? Don't they realize the important significance of the Blogos here to independently fact check what in the past has been the MSM'S sole perogative as to what the news is?

Mapes and Rather were "outed" for running a story that was an attack piece on President Bush (doesn't mater who you were rooting). They wanted to believe this so badly, they ignored all the red flags along the way. This is what makes con games so successful. The marks want to believe and lose their common sense. The only thing is that they got caught with their hands "red handed" in cookie jar and exposed their true motives.

[...]

The important lesson is the emergence of a new medium of human thought that has the power to transcend political boundaries and filtering of editoral and congolomerate boardrooms. This medium is almost free and does not have to pander for readers and audiences by senstationalizing the news which inherently causes it to be out of proportion and perspective.

[...]

Now here's my challenge to the Blogos. Here's a much bigger story that needs to be reported to the American people and let them decide what the is the truth and/or fiction.

The MSM is sitting on this story and not reporting it because they are too scared to put their foot in the water. Go figure you'd think they would be all over this like flies on poop!

THERE IS DIRECT FORENSIC EVIDENCE THAT AN ADDITIVE IN THE DOD's ANTHRAX VACCINE IS THE CAUSUL AGENT FOR GULF WAR SYNDROME.

FURTHER THE DOD'S LIL SHOPPE OF HORRORS, ALONG WITH THE NIH, AND THE PHARMA INDUSTRY ARE RUNNING EXPERIMENTAL CLINICAL TRIALS ON OUR BRAVE MEN IN WOMEN IN UNIFORM WITHTOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE.

In my book this is nothing more than premeditated murder. Oh well what do I know?

OK bloggors[sic] go and prove me wrong. This could affect everyone of us in that the vaccines we depend upon to protect against real pathogens like "smallpox" will be compromise

read More Here

Ron Wright
www.hspig.org

That reminds me, it is now time to put Wright in my banlist.

Jeez.

To think that I was actually worried that I was wasting Bill's bandwidth with my worthless comment.....

You should see the e-mails. I'll leave the comment up as an example of what not to do.