Topic: politics
The Washington Post demolishes the two experts who propped up CBS's Monday night defense of the forged documents - Marcel Matley:
The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.and Bill Glennon:"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.
In its broadcast last night, CBS News produced a new expert, Bill Glennon, an information technology consultant. He said that IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could produce superscripts and proportional spacing similar to those used in the disputed documents.This is CBS' odd response:Any argument to the contrary is "an out-and-out lie," Glennon said in a telephone interview. But Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online because CBS did not give him copies when asked to visit the network's offices.
Asked about Matley's comments, CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said: "In the end, the gist is that it's inconclusive. People are coming down on both sides, which is to be expected when you're dealing with copies of documents."What does this mean? Are they admitting that they don't even know if the things are real? Or are they saying, "Yeah, they're fakes, but go ahead and try to prove it"? Kausfiles notices some weasel-words in Rather's segment last night:
"What is in the '60 minutes' report CBS news believes to be true and believes to be authentic."Of all the people to walk the plank for, Dan Rather picked John Kerry???
Marc
Addendum:
Trace CBS' expert witness Bill Glennon's rapid ascent from typewriter repairman to "technology consultant" to "document expert".
And another authentic memo surfaces.