|
(The first few seconds are missing from my source)
Transcript of an excerpt from tonight's CBS Evening News with Dan rather. The first few seconds of the segment are missing from my source.
RATHER (VO): ...Bush refuse a direct order from his commanding officer? Was Lt. Bush suspended for failure to perform up to Air Force standards? Did Lt. Bush ever take a physical he was required and ordered to take? If not why not? And, did Lt. Bush, in fact, complete his commitment to the Guard?
RATHER: These questions grew out of new witnesses, including documents written by Bush's squadron commander. Today, on the Internet and elsewhere, some people,
including some who are partisan political operatives, concentrated not on the key questions of the overall story but on the documents that were part of the support of the story. They allege that the documents are fake.
RATHER (VO): Those raising questions about the CBS documents are focusing on something called superscript: a key that automatically types a raised "th." Critics claim that typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did. In fact, other Bush military records, already officially released by the White House itself, show the same superscript. Here's one from 1968.
Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s. But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style says it is available since 1931.
Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says they are real, but he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of people now questioning the documents. Because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced, and the documents being examined outside of CBS have been photocopied, scanned, and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with, which were also photocopies.
Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley did this interview with us prior to the 60 Minutes broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Col. Jerry Kilian, comparing known documents with the Colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.
MATLEY: We look for what's called significant features to determine whether it's the same person or not. You see I have no problem identifying them. I would say, based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person.
RATHER (VO): Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence. We talked to him again today, by satellite.
RATHER: Are you surprised that questions come about these? We are not, but I wonder if you were surprised.
MATLEY: I knew going in that, uh, this was dynamite, one way or the other, and I knew that, potentially, it was far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit to me. And, uh, I knew that. And, uh, but we seek the truth. That's what we do, And you know, you're supposed to put yourself out to seek the truth, and take what comes from it.
RATHER (VO): Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Col. Jerry Kilian, the man credited with writing the documents, and paperwork like these documents was his specialty. He is standing by his judgments that the documents are real.
RATHER: When you read through these documents, is there any doubt in your mind that these are genuine?
STRONG: Well, they are compatible with the way business was done at the time; they are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Kilian being. I don't see anything in the documents that are discordant with what were the times, what were the situation, and what were the people that were involved.
RATHER (VO): Strong says the highly charged political atmosphere of the guard at the time was perfectly represented in the newly revealed documents.
STRONG: It verged on outright corruption, in terms of the, um, the favors that were done, the power that was traded, and it was unconscionable. From a moral and ethical standpoint, it was unconscionable.
RATHER (VO): It is the information in the new documents that is most compelling for people familiar with President Bush's record in the National Guard. Author Jim Moore has written two books critical of President Bush and his service in the Guard.
MOORE: So there's no doubt in my mind that these documents are stating accurately what we know took place from the records that *are* available.
RATHER: Put it in historical context for us. The story and the, what we'll call the counterattack on the story. Where are we right now?
MOORE: Well I think what, I think what has happened is that some incriminating documents have come out. The White House, you should remember, has not discredited the documents. They're relying on the blogosphere and other people to do that, because the White House probably knows that these documents are, in fact, real.
RATHER: The 60 Minutes report was based not solely on the recovered documents, but on a preponderance of evidence, including the documents that were provided by what we consider to be solid sources, and interviews with former officials of the Texas National Guard. *If* any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
