MORE ON THE FORGED(?) DOCUMENTS
Atrios finds proportional fonts in 1941.

Rising Hegemon finds a superscript "th" in another Texas Air National Guard document.

The personnel chief in Killian's unit says "They looked to me like forgeries. I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years." Killians wife and son also doubt the documents are authentic. "It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

CBS went from being convinced of their authrenticity to saying only that its expert was convinced.

Killian's wife "just can't believe these are his words" and says he'd "be turning over in his grave to know that a document such as this would be used against a fellow guardsman." In fact, she says that her husband thought Bush "was an excellent aviator, an excellent person to be in the guard and was very happy to have him become a member of the 111th". She also says her husband didn't type.

Killian's daughter says that her father "admired George Bush and was proud of the fact that he pinned his [flying] wings on him."

Spectator Online says the docs may have been provided to CBS by the Kerry campaign, but not created by them. See Powerline since Spectator is down.

Drudge says CBS is launching an internal investigation.

A member of Bush's guard unit says that General Standt, who allegedly pressured Killian to be favorable, was retired at the time.

National Review notices substantive inconsistencies in the CBS documents and other Killian documents from the same time.

The question for CBS now is, Where did you get the documents? If they were from Killian's personal files - and his family knows nothing about them - who had his personal files and why?

JOHN KERRY'S PRIORITIES
Well, it seems that perhaps George W. Bush was not very serious about some of his responsibilities in 1972. But John Kerry's running around the country showing he's not a very serious candidate now. From George Will:

In his speech last week to the American Legion convention, Kerry said that in Iraq he, as president, would have done "almost everything differently." The indisputable implication is that if he had been president since 2001, America would be in Iraq.

But when pandering to Iowa's Democratic activists last winter, Kerry placed himself among the "antiwar candidates." More recently he has said that even knowing what we do about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, he would still have voted to authorize force. But on Monday he said Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." He has said that "it would be unwise beyond belief" for America "to leave a failed Iraq in its wake" -- and that too few U.S. troops are there. But he has also said that he will bring some of them home -- "where they belong" -- in his first term. Then he said in his first year. Then in his first six months.

The New Republic, which supports him, says his position, which had been "inscrutable," is now "indefensible."

And my favorite comment of the day, from Mickey Kaus:

Spirit-crushing foolishness from my candidate, John Kerry. The nation is trying to figure out how to fight global terrorism and he's talking about having "not just a Department of Health and Human Services, but a Department of Wellness." How about a Department of F***ing Perspective? If Bush is smart he'll be ridiculing Kerry about this for the rest of the month. ...Thanks, Iowa! P.S.: Was this harmless "Kerrymeandering" or the more ominous "Kerrypandering"?

What a riot.

ARE NATIONAL GUARD/60 MINUTES MEMOS FORGERIES?
That's the theory galluping around the internet today - see Drudge, CNSNews and the first place I saw this, Powerline. It seems that new memoranda, which you can find at CBS's site, are dated 1972 but use a proportional font more common to today's Microsoft Word than to a typewriter in a 1972 Texas Air National Guard office. CBS describes the documents as "previously unseen documents from Killian's personal file." Killian was a Lt. Col. with the Texas Air National Guard. CBS says the docs must be authentic, because "60 Minutes consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic." Who was the expert, Terry McAuliffe?

Take a look at one of these documents, here. You will notice the superscript and smaller "th" in "187th in Alabama". That would be possible with sophisticated typsetting equipment in 1972, but unlikely for a desktop Air Force typewriter.

So, we did our own analysis. Compare this document that I created using Microsoft Word and Times New Roman font. You will notice that all of the line breaks are exactly the same using a 1 1/2" right and left margin (the default) - I did not force the line breaks. I have reduced the document to 93% of the original size to make it look more like CBS's document. You may notice how remarkably similar this is to the CBS "authentic" memo.

Also, you will notice in this memo from Col. Killian that was part of the DOD release, that Killian did have access to the type of typewriter that we would expect in 1972, complete with a non-proportional courier font and a superscript that doesn't look like a word processor's work. This is what we are used to seeing on old government documents.

So, where did the brand new memo come from? Did Killian have access to much better equipment than the Air Force at the time? You can review additional contemporaneous documents here, none of which show the advance typesetting capabilities you find in the CBS memo.

ATTACK BUSH WEEK


Allegation after allegation are rolling out this week against Bush, focusing on his National Guard Service. There are also allegations of cocaine use at Camp David from the ex-wife of the president's brother.

Of these attacks, the one that is the most potentially damaging is the cocaine allegation. Democrats and their buddies in the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy - from George Soros to Michael Moore to Terry McAuliffe to John Kerry himself - have thrown the unfulfilled-committment-to-the-National-Guard story at the wall so many times to see if it would stick, that it is unlikely to finally take now. This might have some relevance if this were 2000 and the voters were not familiar with Bush. Then they'd look at such things to determine his fitness to be Commander-in-Chief. But Bush has a 4 year record and polls indicate that the majority of Americans are comfortable with his performance in that role. There's little need to look back 30 years when you have solid, on-point evidence from last month or last year. Kerry, on the other hand, has made as his prime qualification for Commander-in-Chief his actions in the Mekong Delta in 1969 and has offered no other evidence of his qualifications. Thus, attacks on Kerry's past have more traction on this issue than attacks on Bush's, despite the best efforts of the Boston Globe and 60 Minutes, who are treating a rehash of allegations as "news".

But the cocaine issue, if it gets legs, could hurt Bush, because it would undermine the voters' views of Bush as a good guy they'd like to have a beer with - they certainly wouldn't want to do a line with him. People like Bush because he's direct and appears to be a straight-talker. And they've already dismissed his youthful indiscretions. But Kitty Kelley alleges that Bush used cocaine at Camp David while his Dad was president - when in his 40s. Will this get legs? I don't know. NBC is pretty much alone out there in hawking the Kelley book. And it appears the lone source of the allegations is riddled with conflicts of interest. And the publisher, Doubleday, is trying to prevent independent examination of Kelley's allegations - a sign of their fear they won't hold up. Read Captain's Quarters for an excellent analysis and to get up to speed on Kelley, her book and Sharon Bush. (And please read it before going off half-cocked on the comments board).

We'll know in about 2 weeks if any of this has softened Bush's support in the polls.

2 Out of 3
There seems to be a consensus among the campaigns that the winner of 2 out of 3 of the states Florida, Ohio, and Penn. will take the election. There are other scenarios, but this one seems to be the most likely according to those in the thick of it.

1,000 "MILITARY" DEATHS AND NONE IN VAIN
The Associated Press, and other news organs are soon to follow, is touting a number who's overall relevance to anything is no greater than 999 or 1,001. But that's fine. The Democrats have been anticipating this day and its potential use to demogogue the fight against terrorism for quite some time.

The AP jumps the gun a little by counting "998 US troops" and "three civilian contractors killed while working for the Pentagon". More sensationalism without context from the "journalists." The number includes combat and non-combat deaths, so expect more press hype when combat deaths alone reach 1,000 - though I hope it doesn't happen. And why the AP decides to throw in an unrealated Democrat talking point, I have no idea:

The Bush administration has long linked the Iraq conflict to the war on terrorism. The Sept. 11 Commission concluded that Iraq and al-Qaida did not have a "collaborative relationship" before the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, and some have questioned to what extent foreign terror groups are involved in the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq.

Just remember, the terrorists are still out there, but we are fighting them in Iraq and not Chicago right now. The President took the fight to the terrorists, just as the public demanded back in September 2000, when 63% of the public favored a broader war against terror rather than one limited to al Qaeda. A majority expected the War on Terror to take several years. And 73% said the danger of not taking military action against terrorists in general would pose a greater risk to the country.

Patience and resolve. Many have been liberated, and many more will yet be.

BUSH RETAKES ELECTORAL LEAD
Bush 51.1% – 289 EV | Kerry 46.5% – 249 EV
EV without Toss Up states (under 2% margin): Bush 247| Kerry 207| Toss 84

On August 17, the date of John Kerry’s largest lead in the Composite Poll’s Electoral Analysis, Kerry led in states worth 321 electoral votes and Bush led in states worth 217. There were only four states where the leader’s margin was less than 2%, and all were states that Bush one in 2000. That map was the worst electorally for the president, and some of us were feeling a bit negative about his prospects for reelection.

This week, Bush leads 289 to 249 and maintains the biggest lead yet for any candidate since we began the Composite Poll meta analysis of weekly polls on March 8. Bush leads by 4.6%. And the electoral map looks worse for John Kerry than it did for George Bush on August 17. There are currently 7 states where the analyzed margin is less than 2%, and five were won by Al Gore in 2000.

Click to see maps, charts, data, etc.

LIBERAL MEDIA III: THE SAGA CONTINUES...

What's up with the Associated Press these days?

First, their coverage of the Republican Convention contains more "Bush bashing" than a press release from Michael Moore, even going so far as to write stories from John Kerry's point of view.

Now they are manufacturing stories to make Republicans look bad:

On Friday the AP falsely reported that a crowd at a Bush rally booed the news that Bill Clinton had been hospitalized, and President Bush "did nothing to stop them."

Did George Soros buy the company lately and no one bother to report it?