| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| WaPo/Kurtz Report on Rathergate |
| 2004-09-11 |
| EFL. Juicy parts only. Rather Defends CBS Over Memos on Bush By Howard Kurtz Rather said that CBS's lead expert was Marcel Matley of San Francisco, a member of the National Association of Document Examiners who has taught, lectured and written about his field, testified in numerous trials, and consulted for government agencies. Matley said last night that a "60 Minutes" executive had asked him not to give interviews. The Dallas Morning News cast fresh doubt on the documents by reporting last night that the officer named in one memo as exerting pressure to "sugarcoat" Bush's military record was discharged a year and a half before the memo was written. The paper cited a military record showing that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972, while the memo cited by CBS as showing that Staudt was interfering with evaluations of Bush was dated Aug. 18, 1973. Picked that up, did they. Wonder when the Dallas folks will get the Rather Barnes connection established. It would sell a lot of Sunday papers. The White House is raising doubts for the first time about the documents' authenticity. "I think there's a big question mark, like major news organizations are suggesting," communications director Dan Bartlett said last night. "Obviously, we |
| Posted by:Mrs. Davis |
| #11 "On the other hand, if the documents came from a trusted source... Just one more crouton to toss on the salad - let's don't forget that Terry "the documents are real, and if they aren't, it's a Karl Rove plot" McAuliffe was installed as DNC head by the Clintons. As the wise man said, "never mind the wizard...watch the man behind the curtain!" |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2004-09-11 10:18:05 PM |
| #10 One point arguably supporting the Clinton scenario is that CBS/Kerry (what's the difference?) didn't really vet the documents, to put it mildly. As biased as CBS is, it's hard to believe they would not have vetted documents handed to them by some guy off the street. On the other hand, if the documents came from a trusted source... |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-09-11 8:49:05 PM |
| #9 "Does ANYONE think that ol' Piano Legs wants to wait until 2016?" Nope. And the outlook for Hillary isn't any better if Kerry turns out to be a one-termer, either: Kerry would very likely turn out to be such a disaster as President-- Jimmeh Carter redux-- that it would be a long, LONG time before another Donk makes it to the White House. If the Clintons still have any pull in the party, I can't see them allowing Kerry to win. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-09-11 8:18:23 PM |
| #8 Let me throw one other little nugget onto the pile...has anyone noticed that this happened after some top Clintonistas (I'm specifically thinking |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2004-09-11 7:59:43 PM |
| #7 the same Abu Grahib propaganda expert |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-11 7:42:36 PM |
| #6 If Rather is "gone" when will CBS announce it? They got to 86 that sleazy woman producer in Texas as well. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-09-11 7:37:07 PM |
| #5 Two Matley items from the National Review's Kerry Spot: Now we also hear that in an interview with The Los Angeles Times, Marcel B. Matley, CBS' document examiner "said he had only judged a May 4, 1972, memo — in which Killian ordered Bush to take his physical — to be authentic. He said he did not form a judgment on the three other disputed memos because they only included Killian's initials and he did not have validated samples of the officer's initials to use for comparison." The only expert cited by CBS in this case,Marcel Matley, wrote in the September 27, 2002 issue of the journal, "The Practical Litigator": In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity is possible. Emphasis added. |
| Posted by: GK 2004-09-11 7:27:11 PM |
| #4 It's out of Rather's hands now, the CBS corporate mouthpieces have it, and Dan is following their instructions. Vigorously defend your unwinnable position re the forgeries, so that we can say we were innocent dupes. The lawyers aren't concerned with Dan, he's gone already. They're trying to disconnect CBS from the disaster. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-09-11 4:26:34 PM |
| #3 MATLEY! If you talk, we are all in hot water! Especially your friend Dan. . . . |
| Posted by: CBS News 2004-09-11 4:03:25 PM |
| #2 RC, of course because CBS has to 'rescan and replace' the original PDF file each time someone 'takes' it by downloading. Just ask the RIAA... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-09-11 11:24:08 AM |
| #1 But Rather cautioned that the memos become less clear as they are downloaded and photocopied. I wonder if he thinks they get distorted each time someone downloads them. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-09-11 10:30:57 AM |