Daily Kos is saying that although the CBS memo and the LGF memo show similar fonts when the words are shrunken down, the differences become apparent when you blow them up a bit.

So I performed an experiment on that point, and you can see the results at http://sobekpundit.blogspot.com/2004/09/forgeries-update.html

I should have said you can read the results, because I don't have a scanner.

You're right. I find the Clintonian parsing very wierd. When I first saw that Rather was defending the story, I figured his tactic was going to be "My expert v. your expert." With the implication that [begin wildly waving hands in the air] nobody really knows WHAT the "truth" is. [hands at your sides]

(cf. the moral status of the foetus, btw (by the way))

Rather probably could survive with that approach, since, as we obsessive cranks need to be reminded incessantly, this is, at its heart, a FONT SCANDAL. My bet is that few so-called normal people will be able to maintain any interest once the experts, counter-experts, and counter-counter-experts start Hardballing it up. The universal familarity (and annoyance) with Word's autocorrect feature MIGHT make me wrong, but I tend to doubt it.

That would be a sane (if deceitful) tactic to employ. This, "The story, based on the documents, which are forged, is true, even so," bullshit is "some of the people all of the time," when they need "all of the people some of the time"-quality stuff. Calling it Clintonian gives it too much credit. Clinton would handle this WAAAAAAAAAAY better.

Unless you think he handled it just the way he wanted to...

Did Clinton "pull a Sistani?"

Sorry, all. I blew it-- again.

Jeeze, I really can't crow about the triumph of the blogosphere and keep making these childish errors, can I?

I'm sorry.

Ace--

Don't kick yourself. I should have been more clear in my posting; I knew that Rather saw the documents as authentic. It's just that he also sees the story as authentic, regardless of the ultimate veracity of the documents. That's the point I was trying to get across-- and the point I think you ultimately made.

With a bit of loose shit in there, of course.

BTW-- that leads to another question of mine: who else did CBS News talk to? We already know they spoke with Killian's old CO, and he said they were accurate.

What I wonder is whether Dan has-- or just as important, THINKS he has-- an alternate source telling him the stories that these documents allege. Meaning, his ultimate point may be that he believes that even if someone went to the length of forging these particular documents, the story behind it still has witnesses.

Hey, I'm not saying it makes a damn lick of sense.
But that's why I'm not posting it on *my* website-- just yours ;-).

Cheers,
Dave
Garfield Ridge

No, your point works. My point was that he was standing behind "the story" but not the docs. He stands behind both, although, as you say, he feels one could fall and yet the other would remain true.

Ace,

Thanks for taking the trouble to comment on my blog where I linked to you. The fact that you didn't leave me twisting speaks volume about your intentions.

My intention is to one day be Mr. Ace O. Spades-Coulter.

I make no secret of this.

Dude, can't think of a loftier goal.

poker me up