MSNBC : Hodges thought the notes (memos) were hand written...

[hexola]

Rosilind Jordan reporting...

[Sparkle]

1. Surely, CBS told him they were typewritten.

[hexola]

3. Not according to what Rosilind Jordan just reported...

She had just interviewed him...

[Protected]

2. Does it really matter?

He vouched for the contents after having them read to him over the phone. I'm sure CBS would have faxed them to him if he asked them to.

[ibegurpard]

4. Yeah, we've already heard this.

And so what? The fact that they were typed somehow means that they no longer reflect what the guy meant, which is what he was corroborating in the first place? Please.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. and he agreed because it jibed with what he knew

about AWOL. End of story.

[hexola]

6. Then why do we need these memos?

So why do we even need the memos??? - this guys testimony is enough...if I follow your logic...

[IndianaGreen]

7. Hodges told the MSNBC reporter that the memos were manufactured

This is like choosing to believe a typewritten suicide note over one that is written in the handwriting of the victim.

Some people want so badly to believe the memos are true that they have suspended their disbelief.

[saracat]

9. This is insulting not only to a journalist the caliber of Dan Rather

but to me and thousands of others who did some due dilegence to arrive at the conclusion that the documents are REAL.I had read the typewriter and word processor comparisons and the accounts by the handwriting anaylsts .There is NO evidence to collaborate forgery! That is why CBS is sticking to its story. And I would like to point out,they do have a handwritten signature.How dare you say that I or anyone else has "suspended our disbelief"!
I find it hpocritical that many posters will savagely attack the media and then when one of the last of the "real" journalists does some actual reporting, instead of supporting him, they join the opposition in bashing him.This is dangerous and I consider it collaberation in the elimination of the freedom of the press.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Dan Rather should have listened to the warnings of his own experts!

Dan rather should have listened to his own experts because they are quoted today in the Washington Post as having warned CBS about the doubts they had as to the authenticity of the documents.

Dan Rather did not check out the story properly and he has now become the story. A sad end to an otherwise distinguished career!

Document Experts Say They Warned CBS of Doubts

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 15, 2004; Page A10

A document expert retained by CBS News for the disputed "60 Minutes" story on President Bush's National Guard record said yesterday that she had warned the program that the memos involved "had problems" and that she had questioned "whether they were produced on a computer."

Asked whether CBS had taken her concerns seriously, Linda James, a forensic document examiner in Texas, told The Washington Post: "Evidently not."

A second document expert, Emily Will, told ABC News correspondent Brian Ross that she had cautioned CBS in writing that there were "significant" problems with the documents, which were used in a "60 Minutes" broadcast last Wednesday as evidence that Bush received favorable treatment while he was in the Texas Air National Guard.

"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will told ABC. A third document consultant, Marcel Matley, told The Post on Monday that although he vouched for the signature of Bush's former squadron commander, the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, there was "no way" he could authenticate Killian's purported memos because they were copies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21675-2004Sep14.html

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. Some people want so badly to believe the memos are forged

that they have suspended their disbelief.

Hodges agreed with the memos because the sentiment was in line with his knowledge of the situation, and he offered his concurrence with them.
When he discovered they were typewritten he became prejudiced against them.

End of story.

[Must_B_Free]

14. Not exactly

I think when he was shown the MS word output side by side with the CBS memos, then he suspended his belief.

What this suggests is that the MS word test is very compelling, at a glance, and he didn't want to take the blame for this shitstorm.

[Pirate Smile]

8. We need to get off the documents and get on the substance.

There are all kinds of problems with *'s story that don't require the CBS documents. We need to focus on that.

The US News and World Report article.
The Boston Globe article.
The Professor * told he got preferential treatment, etc.

This distraction is helping * avoid the real issue.

[Florida_Geek]

11. No officers back in those days typed anything

they had clerk typists to do that.... The memos were hand written at one point.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. That explains why the letters are skewed

due to the speed of the typist. This fact has been discussed.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. So he confirms what he hasn't seen, then confirms what he can't prove?

The big damned issue here, in case we've forgotten, is that the originals haven't surfaced. If this idiot is willing to vouch for something he hasn't seen, then he's useless; that means useless to us and useless to them.

If he hasn't seen the originals, he also can't say that they're a fake. The signature's been authenticated--at least, that it's his handwriting, in a photocopy--and it's been proved that selectrics were being used on that base and could have made this document.

There's no proof that they're fake. Yes, the burden of assertion is on us to prove that they are what they purport to be, but anyone asserting that they're faked has to prove that, and should be fought to a standstill if they can't.

[mbali]

17. Here it is, in a nutshell . . .

If you make an allegation about Kerry, its assumed to be true unless Kerry affirmatively disproves it.

If you make an allegation against Bush, you'd better prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or you will be attacked as a liar, a fake, a partisan hack, and worse.

If Kerry claims he did something good, he must prove conclusively that he did indeed do it and any allegation, even without any substantiation, that he did not is sufficient to completely rebut his claim.

If Bush claims he did something good, he did it, even if he has absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he did and, unless it can be conclusively proven that he did not do it - i.e., unless the negative is proven - Bush claim cannot be contradicted.

[mbali]

16. It's amazing how many people retract their stories about Bush once

they go on record, isn't it?

Fear is a powerful thing.