Riddled with inaccuracies, a recent Washington Post article by Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz is flagged with the deceptive headline, "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers." (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html)
The signature expert, Marcel Matley, didn't say the memos were fake. He simply explained that he is a handwriting analyst by profession and thus not qualified to prove the typewritten portion is authentic. But this clarification is being spun in cable media as him "backing off".
One weak point of contention the Washington Post raised--and this is so damning for Bush, they must be getting desperate--is that the address on one of the memos is one Bush would not have used until "late 1973". It was the address of one George H.W. Bush, whom you may remember is the father of the young man in question. If the younger Bush was not showing up for duty, it would make sense to escalate to the parents, who would certainly know how to contact him to help him avoid a court martial. It certainly is not inconceivable that Killian would use a stable address to notify a man moving from one address to another about such an important matter as
reporting for duty. Some have even suggested that he was having problems with drugs during this time, a period which is blurry by any investigative standards. Such a theory might explain his mysterious appearance at his father's address.
Killian's personal secretary, who may or may not be a Kerry supporter ;), came out to say she would have been the one to type these documents for him, but doesn't remember doing so. Memories aside, why is it inconceivable that Killian would type such a sensitive letter himself? Especially when it concerned the son of a prominent ambassador to the U.N.?
Matley did say that in his opinion,
Killian's signatures on the documents were genuine. The question is, how did Killian's signature get on the documents if they were faked? Killian has been dead since 1984. The only theory to account for this is that a genuine original signature was obtained, cut out and pasted perfectly into a document containing accurate accounts of real events in Killian's writing style using available equipment, and recopied on available copy equipment. That's pretty far-fetched, as one would need to be an expert in early 70's typographic capabilities, able to imitate the writing style of Jerry Killian, and knowledgeable about the intimate details of Bush's missing period. Not even the CIA is that good.
I call Occam's razor; the more likely scenario is that the documents are genuine, and Rove is really pissed. Naturally, he wants us to question the documents and ignore the allegations they make.
But Killian was signing an affadavit for us. These documents are the equivalent of Killian's sworn testimony from the grave. Those who are spreading the previously debunked talking point that they are forgeries are giving his effort a disservice. He has given us a gift here. Look at the facts in the documents. They accurately reflect what happened. Even the secretary does not dispute that. And the White House has yet to give a straight answer for any of it.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
