So here is how it works:
A reputable source such as CBS News (not a political group like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (sic)) comes out with this major story casting negative light on the president's (sic) military record.
The White House counters with its own spin and partisan "experts" that say it isn't true.
Bush backers and probably a number of middle-of-the-roaders hear this spin and the CBS story immediately loses credibility.
Even though someone like Dan Rather vehemently defends the story and expert after expert is rolled out to defend it, that info never reaches a huge percentage of the people that have already dismissed the story.
Shouldn't the burden of proof rest on anyone that can verify that the typeface was possible?
On the "Evening News," Mr. Rather interviewed a handwriting expert who he said had helped CBS News verify the authenticity of the documents.
"But some models did, (have the ability to produce the superscript typeface in question)" he added, showing an old Guard record previously provided by the White House that such superscripts.
Dr. Philip Bouffard, a forensic document specialist in Georgia who has compiled of database of more than 3,000 old fonts, said people who bought the I.B.M. Selectric Composer model could specially order keys with the superscripts in question
A spokesman for I.B.M., John Bukovinsky, said he knew only that the company introduced proportional spacing to some typewriters in 1944, most notably in the Executive line.
Mark A. Robb, team leader of the type development group at Lexmark, ...said specific machines could be custom fitted with the superscript letters in question and that they frequently were.
Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York who worked for I.B.M. in Midtown Manhattan for 14 years and repaired typewriters throughout that time, said that the Executive had proportional spacing and that its typebar could be fitted with superscript characters
All right! Enough! It sounds to me like that clears it up. But how many people will ever hear that?"It's sheer speculation to say that you couldn't have done that until a computer came along,''
This is just another example of this dishonest strategy. This administration is perfectly okay with lying to the American public if it means that a large enough amount of people will believe the lies to offset the amount of people that are outraged. We've seen it before time and time again. It's like the Bush administration has completely written off the 40+% of Americans that know Bush is full of shit. "Well they aren't gonna vote for us anyway, but if by lying we can reach some of those swing voters, well golly that would be just fine I guess." That is some integrity there.
CBS News is not a partisan group. This isn't just the "liberal media" attacking the president. The kicker is, other than saying a bit about Bush's tactics (pot calling the kettle black, anyone?), which is really politics as usual; Bush's service record is really a non-issue. But instead of addressing the issue with honesty and integrity, the administration uses these horribly dishonest tactis, that cast way more negative light on the president than his record during Vietnam (30 years ago for God's sake) ever could.
I just hope that some of those people that haven't yet made up their minds will pay attention to the underlying issue here and realize that it is more important to have a leader with integrity, than a leader that is likable.
