As I look over the arguments regarding the CBS News memo controversy, I see a recurring theme: more attention given to the validity of the memos, and no attention to the content of the memos. It makes sense if you are a Bush strategist, as you want to discredit the documents themselves and then no one will care what the memos say. But I have to wonder if anyone, from Karl Rove to Al Franken, actually disputes the content of the memos. But it is true, if the documents were forged, then the content is immaterial. So lets review the arguments regarding the validity of the memos.
Right now, CBS News can no longer vouch for the authenticity of the memos and apologizes for using them in their story. Many a pundit has taken this admission as evidence that the memos were fake, but that is premature. Were the documents forged? Was the text made with a computer and not a 1970's era typewriter? Is Burkett, a man who has long tried to discredit George W. Bush, being honest about not forging the memos? Are the Democrats somehow behind this? Is Rove somehow behind this?
Lots of questions, but unfortunately the answers will not come easily, if ever. The first question I have is, could the documents have been created with a 1970's typewriter or not. This seems to be the biggest reason for doubt regarding the memos. Looking at the first memo for May 4, 1972, http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf , a lot of discussion centers around the "th" in 111th. On the top of the memo, the "th" is normal, but in the body of the document, the "th" is raised, bringing to question whether or not this could be accomplished by a 1970's typewriter. Let's dispell this question right now. Yes, an older IBM typewriter of that period has this capability as well as the ability to compose in Times New Roman and platelets were available to provide the raised "th", so it is within the realm of possibility that Killians typewriter also had this ability. The argument that the document looks like MS Word makes sense, as MS Word was designed to look like type created by a typewriter.
Since the document type cannot be questioned adequately, lets look at Burkett. First, he has bias, in that he is an anti-Bush pundit and has been for years. This does call his credibility into question. In fact, all we have is his assurance that the documents are real.
"Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, also admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents’ origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source.
Burkett originally said he obtained the documents from another former Guardsman. Now he says he got them from a different source whose connection to the documents and identity CBS News has been unable to verify to this point. Burkett’s interview will be featured in a full report on tonight’s CBS Evening News with Dan Rather."
So, where did they come from? When that question is answered, maybe then can we proceed to determine if the documents are real. If they are, then the content of the memos will simply confirm what many of us have already assumed, that this president who has taken us to war, using National Guardsmen who are doing their duty, couldn't even fulfill the obligation himself. And to add salt to the wound, he shirked his duty even when he was given preferential treatment to get into the National Guard in order to get out of going to war in Veitnam!
If the documents are fake, then we are left with the knowledge that the President was a child of priveledge, who was admitted to the Guard after college to avoid the draft. And so we are left with the same question as before: Is this the kind of man we want to lead us to war.
The Restless Progressive
We've turned the corner as Kerry is now on the attack. For better or worse, Kerry is now trying to change the momentum and choose the topics that are discussed. His speech today at NYU, and his previous comments last week, are a welcome change to a strategy in July and August that seemed to be playing defense all too much.
Today, Kerry proposed his plan for Iraq, and explained his stance on the decision to go to war. It is amazing, though, how the media continues to take his comments out of context, or maybe they just don't understand. For instance, I am still hearing on t.v., and not just Fox, that Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. This is not accurate. Bush was given the authority to use force against Iraq if the UN inspectors were not allowed to do their job. Force does not equal war. War should have been the last resort, but for this administration it appears to have been the first option.
Kerry attacked bush, and his comments rang true. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/kerry.iraq/index.html
It is about time that we start to hear Kerry take the fight to the incumbent.
Perhaps now we will start to see the "Anybody But Bush" contingent start to say, "Kerry for President".
Today, Kerry proposed his plan for Iraq, and explained his stance on the decision to go to war. It is amazing, though, how the media continues to take his comments out of context, or maybe they just don't understand. For instance, I am still hearing on t.v., and not just Fox, that Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. This is not accurate. Bush was given the authority to use force against Iraq if the UN inspectors were not allowed to do their job. Force does not equal war. War should have been the last resort, but for this administration it appears to have been the first option.
Kerry attacked bush, and his comments rang true. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/kerry.iraq/index.html
It is about time that we start to hear Kerry take the fight to the incumbent.
Perhaps now we will start to see the "Anybody But Bush" contingent start to say, "Kerry for President".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)