Lllaaaaaaaaame

[theducks]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

Basically, The White House and CBS released some documents from Bush's alledged military file, which are poorly done forgeries. Very lame.

I could have done better than that :P

Comments

forgeries?

[(Anonymous)]

Actually there is a great debate raging about whether they are in fact forgeries.

As soon as they came out several experts stated they were clearly fake because the technology to do at least of one of the following (depending on the expert) did not exist at the time:
1) superscript
2) curved apostrophes
3) proportional or varied spacing depending on the size of the letter.

These doubts have been dismissed by many other experts. It would appear that the doubters overlooked a certain type of typewriter available at the time that was able to do all these things. For example, there are memos from the late 1960's released by the White House that use superscript.

I suggest you read further, for example, for a balanced argument see [link=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backed_on_bush_documents].

But surely, in the end, if they are not true, the White House and/or Bush personally would have made a statement to that effect. Various people have confirmed that the content of the documents is accurate, including Killian's secretary. For independent verification of the content of the documents, see for example, [link=http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm], and for a visual depiction of his 'service record' according to documents released ONLY by the White House, see [link=http://simonwoodside.com/weblog/images/reserves/reserves.gif].