...'cause I'm a ball,
and I go boo-bip-bip boo-bip-bip YEAH !!!

He may have lost the first debate, but President Bush hopes to regain some of his momentum after receiving the endorsement of former Michigan football coach Bo Schembechler. No word yet on whether Bush has picked up the all-important Earle Bruce endorsement, although football fans may remember the ideological contortions performed by Lou Holtz back in 1984, who may have been the only public figure in America to endorse both Walter Mondale and Jesse Helms.

And the conventional wisdom was supposed to be that having the first debate focus on foreign policy was to the President's benefit...Kerry started off nervous, but eventually took off, while Bush seemed ill-prepared, unable to improvise or think on his feet. More devastating for the President tonight was the fact that Kerry seemed more forceful, even, dare I say, tougher than his opponent. No obvious gaffes, for either candidate, but Kerry can't help but be pleased; foreign policy, and most importantly, Iraq, has been a drag on his campaign, but tonight went a long way towards neutralizing that Bush advantage.

On the way home from last night's Booze-and-Schmooze LA Press Club party in Beverly Hills, I drove by my old high school, Harvard (now Harvard-Westlake). There is now a gate surrounding much of the campus, an imposing castiron structure that, combined with the trees unnaturally planted along Coldwater Canyon Blvd., has seemingly cut the campus off from the rest of the planet. From the outside, it is almost impossible to see in (I can only imagine what it's like from the inside), so this beautiful school is now hidden away, its students shrouded more like convicts at San Quentin. Is this just a sign of the times, an attempt to keep out unwelcome visitors, or have the school trustees decided that their wards are best kept isolated from the rest of the world?

Read William Safire weeping about a "runaway prosecutor" trampling on the Constitution (including the "intrepid Judith Miller"), or Christopher Hitchens whining about "paranoid" October Surprise conspiracies, and try not to laugh...I guess we all just miss the day when the paranoid fantasies of pundits included the belief that the President of the United States was going after Al Qaeda in order to distract the public's attention from a semen-stained dress.

Another wacky poll from Gallup, this time showing Bush with an eight-point lead among "likely voters", but a thirteen-point lead with registered voters. There is no info provided about the partisan breakdown of whom they chose to interview, but since this is almost a reverse of their previous post-convention polls, which showed Bush with a larger lead among LV's than RV's, it stands to reason that in order to now give Bush a significant lead, Gallup has to find a sampling base where Republicans outnumber Democrats by close to a dozen points.

Or to put it another way, it is as if Gallup chose to poll only in the state of Montana, and use those results to extrapolate data for the entire nation. Now, it might well be that the national political landscape, post-9/11, now looks like Montana did four years ago, with a massive, historical partisan shift poised to give Bush a landslide victory reminiscent of FDR over Alf Landon, or Reagan over Mondale. Since Gallup's state polls (and other state polls, collected here by Donkey Rising) actually show a race similar to 2000, with Kerry comfortably ahead in California and New York, and swing states like Ohio and Florida within the margin of error, and since Gallup's national pre-election polling in 2000 also sucked, I'm going to stick my neck out just a little and predict that is not the case, and Kerry will probably pick up more than a dozen electoral votes.

Now, it may be easy to laugh off Gallup's quadrennial folly, but this poll (and others like it) have very serious tactical consequences. One of the ways in which polling data is used right now is to demoralize the side that's losing. If the punditocracy can convince enough people that Kerry is toast, or that he needs a miracle, perhaps in one of the debates, to turn around the election, the public perception that he can't win will set in. Through the use of rigged polling data, enthusiasm for the trailing candidate is diminished, his crowds dwindle, and his supporters marginalized and effectively silenced. And that is why the partisan breakdown of the polling sample is so important to know, and why any poll that doesn't provide that information be looked at with extreme skepticism.

In fact, the translation of the slogan on Hugh Hewitt's website is "The influence of Democrats must be destroyed". A bit fascistic, but not atypical for a conservative blog....

Bush Gets Swifted: Well, maybe correlation is causation, at least with respect to the recent focus on Bush's National Guard record: a new poll (by Fox, no less!!) shows that Bush's lead among veterans has been cut in half in the last month. By obsessing about Dan Rather for two weeks, it appears that conservative bloggers may have done the Kerry Campaign an invaluable favor by keeping the focus on a part of the Bush biography that does not redound to his credit. I guess that's just another example of the way the blogosphere is overturning the established order, challenging the hegemony of the Old Media in setting the terms for how the Law of Unintended Consequences can influence an election.

In perhaps the surest sign that the Presidential race is neck-and-neck, the latest Time poll shows Kerry cutting Bush's edge over in half, down to 6 points among likely voters. However, as with the Gallup poll published last week, the Time methodology includes a disproportionate percentage of Republicans; among both registered and likely voters, their sample has 6% more Republican respondents than Democratic, exactly matching the Bush lead, even though the actual party I.D. numbers in the electorate have slightly favored the Democrats over the years. Although it's entirely possible that the GOP suddenly has picked up ten percent in voter identification since the last election, in all likelihood their gains (if any) are far less than that, and the real state of the race shows a dead heat, or even a slight Kerry lead.

I know the adage about how correlation is not causation, but isn't it interesting how Bush's poll numbers have fallen since Col. Burkett "found" the Killian Papers three weeks ago. From a double-digit, post-convention lead to a dead heat: maybe the "fake but accurate" meme has caught on with the electorate. Or then again, maybe the polls several weeks ago showing the President with a suddenly commanding lead were a joke, taken too close to the convention to have any contextual connection with public opinion, and with too many Republicans sampled to reflect a true picture of the American Voter. I like the former suggestion better, since it shows how a determined set of bloggers, huddled around their terminals wearing their cotton jammies, fact-checking and document-scoping the asses of the lib'rul media, and thereby forcing the largely-irrelevant issue of Bush's service in the National Guard into the public limelight for three weeks. Advantage: Blogosphere !!!

One of the things striking about the ARG polling results is how low Bush's support is; the rule that any incumbent with below 50% in the polls is likely to lose applies not just nationally, but in each state as well. Even those states where Bush possesses a slight lead, such as Ohio, Colorado, West Virginia and Arkansas, as well as the Purple States won by Gore in 2000, such as Iowa and Minnesota, his numbers are under 50%, and falling ever-so-slightly.

For what it's worth, the latest poll from out here shows Kerry leading by 15 points in California, as clear a sign as any that he has the momentum (or rather, that Bush's post-convention bounce has gone the way of the LA Dodgers' NL West lead). Since Gore won the state by only 13 points last time, this bodes ill for the President.

Can you imagine being an airline passenger on a flight from London to D.C., no doubt having to fight exhaustion, boredom, the incessant whining of babies, and the discomfort of sitting in a seat designed for a person half your size, having waited for several hours at Heathrow to board your plane (United, btw, so you just know there was only a minimal delay taking off), then another six or so hours doing nothing on the plane except eating the gristle-and-gravy dinner with salad and watching an expurgated version of Catwoman, then having to delay being reunited with family and loved ones for another half the day after the plane gets diverted 1000 miles north to Bangor, Maine, because one of Ashcroft's weenies thought that Cat Stevens was a hijacker? If you want to punish the guy for "Morning Has Broken" or for his politically incorrect statements about Salman Rushdie, fine, but don't take it out on the commuters, to whom he wasn't a threat.

Three Debates: After weeks of negotiating, the campaigns have decided to do pretty much go along with what the presidential debate commission already decided, a series of debates between Bush and Kerry, with one debate slated to be "town hall" format before undecided voters. Considering that the undecided voters will be selected by Gallup, the polling outfit that just went out of its way to rig a poll to show Bush with a huge lead, don't be surprised if the President gets the same sort of soft ball questions he often gets at one of the potemkinesque "Meet the President" gatherings his campaign sets up.

In defense of CBS, it should be pointed out that it took them less time to conclude the obvious than it took the White House to acknowledge that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and which still claims, sans evidence, that the forged documents "detailing" Iraq's purchase of yellowcake from Niger were "fake but accurate". The whole debate about whether this story symbolizes the decline of "Big Media" and the rise of the blogosphere is unimportant to me, especially when one realizes that the same blogs that broke this story knowingly spread false stories from the "Swift Boat Vets" that were discredited after further review. What it should teach us is that anonymously-sourced stories should always be read with a jaundiced eye, but I think most of us already learned that moral from Judith Miller.

Europe 18 1/2, U.S. 9 1/2: Now that I've had further time to reflect, these guys aren't entitled to make the Iverson Speech. Never send rich white Republicans (and one Cablinasian) to do anything that entails representing the Stars and Stripes....

Here's another "hypothesis", from blogger Robert Musil, based on the assumption that the "disgruntled" ex-guardsman with an axe to grind against Bush was merely the "conduit" for the Killian Papers. He suggests that the actual creator was an insider with the DNC or Kerry campaign, which managed to bind Dan Rather into silence by a crafty non-disclosure agreement drafted by a "fancy lawyer". One problem: if the DNC or Kerry went to the trouble of drafting forged documents, wouldn't they also have taken the added burden of "pre-authenticating" them, let's say, with the assistance of their "fancy lawyer"? Putting these documents out into the public domain was an extremely risky move, especially if it could be traced back to them, so wouldn't it have been worth doing right? Assuming that whichever lawyer drafted the alleged agreement performed some sort of due diligence before sending them to their "conduit", wouldn't the same problems that made the Killian Papers so questionable from the outset have been spotted?

Musil also questions CBS' investigative zeal, defending the White House's initial response to the documents by suggesting that there was no way Dan Bartlett, the spokesman quoted by 60 Minutes II, could have vouched for the authenticity of documents. As I've mentioned previously, though, the White House can be excused for not immediately claiming that these documents were forgeries, but they could hardly be excused for not knowing if the contents of said papers were true or false. After all, these documents have been "proven" to be fake only to the same extent that the "Swift Boat Vets" stories about John Kerry's cowardice in battle have been proven to be "false"; there may be an overwhelming circumstantial case, but, theoretically, the Killian Papers could still be authentic.

However, Bush would know if he ever received an order to take a medical exam, and there was certainly plenty of time, in the twenty-four hours preceding the broadcast, for the White House to challenge the accuracy of those allegations. It is most telling that, unlike John Kerry's forceful denunciation of the "Swift Boat" charges, they did not do so.

Europe 11, U.S.A. 5: The stench emanating from Michigan grows worse. But we are doing better in singles this afternoon, so Tiger, Gagger, and the rest might not have to give the Iverson Speech (you know, where they say it's an honor just to play for your country, win or lose).

Literary Digest Revisited: It turns out the polls showing Bush with a significant lead over Kerry overweight Republicans in their sample by a significant margin. Registered Democrats narrowly outnumber Republicans by about three points, but the Gallup and NY Times pollsters are interviewing more Republicans, giving them a margin of between 4-7 points. In fact, the NY Times poll not only shows Bush with an eight-point lead, but does so from a sampling base that preferred Bush to Gore four years ago by the same margin, varying ever so slightly from the actual result, which saw Gore winning by a point. If you factor in the party bias in those polls, the race is suddenly dead even.

In fact, I would predict that if the hardworking people at Gallup were to arbitrarily oversample Democrats, lets say by between 10-15 percentage points, their results would show a dramatic shift by the voters, and Kerry would suddenly have a double-digit lead. The Chattering Class would suddenly be talking about how Kerry's staff shakeup has led to a resurgent campaign, while the continuing controversy about his National Guard service has put the President into freefall. On the other hand, they could simply interview only Republicans, and probably reveal a massive surge in support for the President, and a likely historic loss for the Democrats.

Europe 6 1/2, U.S. 1 1/2: I wonder if American golfers are going to slammed in the same manner as our men's basketball team in the Olympics.

Europe 3 1/2, U.S. 1/2: Horrible start for the American Ryder Cup team. Two of the four-ball sets were routs; a pairing of Tiger Woods and Gagger Vance flopped. This is becoming a familiar story.

Mickey Kaus, who was kind enough to bring my Grand Hypothesis to wider exposure through his weblog on Wednesday, referred me to the following e-mail, from an "RP". It's a bit on the longish side, but then again, so is my response, so if you want to skip to the next post, go here. The e-mailer has kindly consented to my publishing his thoughts, so here goes:

Grand Theory that documents are forgeries but transcribed from handwritten notes taken after viewing the originals has some flaws.

1) If true the documents shouldn't have any errors of style or jargon that have also come into question (e.g. OETR vs. OER, billet vs. a more appropriate word for slot in the air force). Presumably Killian wouldn't make those mistakes.

2) If true, isn't it possible that they still could be substantially or slightly embellished? Why bother to reproduce slightly incriminating documents when you can make them blockbuster smoking gun documents? I might change one to reflect a DIRECT ORDER rather than something less inflammatory. How can an accurate but fake document ever make us comfortable with all of it? In fact, why not take the liberty of creating one extra document just to seal the deal. If you are making a forgery, do you really have to be so morally pure as to recreate the original exactly, without changes, and without the addition of inaccurate info?

3) If true, why would Killian create errors of fact? Supposedly there are errors as to when a physical would be required, as in on his birthday. Also the question of Staudt's retirement or of his use of the phrase sugar coat hurts the theory as well.

NEW GRAND THEORY: Rumors of Bush's failure to follow orders, show for a physical, and complete his full requirements for National Guard service have been floating around for a long time in TX politics. The issue has been brought up in every one of his campaigns for office. Each time, opponents of Bush watch the issue not stick even though they know in their heart of hearts, that it has to be true and should ruin him. Someone finally fed up with Bush getting away with this for so long convinces them that evidence is required to take him down. After thoroughly reviewing Bush Guard documents released by the military, an individual Bush opponent decides to create some evidence. It seems easy enough and with the author of the documents deceased, no one can contest them. And if they feel they have stuck almost
entirely to the "word on the street" or "rumor" that exists about Bush's service, then it is believable and quite possibly accurate. Sorry to burst the theory bubble, but this one has fewer flaws.

BONUS PLOT TWISTER (trying to prove that I am a fair and balanced, not so alert reader): Possible that this is an elaborate Linda Tripp like trap for the President to fall into. The documents are in fact forgeries, but exact copies of real documents. The conspiracy is lying in wait with the originals ready to release them once the White House and the President categorically deny their validity. The conspiracy then puts the authentic documents out for verification, they are verified. So not only is the President a "duty-shirker" but also a liar. BUSH LIED AGAIN!!!

I think that this second theory is just as plausible as the Smith Grand theory, but much less than my new grand theory.

Obviously, I propounded the original Grand Hypothesis before Ms. Knox came forward on Tuesday. People who are engaged in a search for the truth cannot let themselves be tied down by speculations that have been proven false, and it's always a good idea to keep Occam's Razor in mind. Even Steven Hawking has to publicly disavow former viewpoints once the facts on the ground make them no longer operative. And if I'm wrong about other particulars, and if the Killian Papers are not what I believe, then I'd like to break that story as well....

The first point is clearly the most troublesome to my hypothesis, if it is correct that the errors of jargon and style referred to would not have appeared in a TANG memo (and since Marian Knox' other statements are the best support I have for the rest of the G.H., I have to reluctantly concede that these probably weren't "verbatim"). Deep ^throat could still have been working from transcribed notes derived from real documents, but made inadvertant changes to the style/format of the documents when he reproduced them later.

His other two points I don't buy, simply because whoever did this had to have known that the real Killian documents might be released at some point, making any embellishment or exaggeration extremely risky. As I posted, the documents themselves, with one exception, do not contain any bombshell evidence, and even the "Direct Order" letter was something that could have been presumed based on Guard policy regarding annual physicals. And if Killian's actual file contained factual errors, such as the exact date his subordinate was required to take his annual physical, Deep ^throat could not well correct those mistakes afterwards if he wanted to avoid getting burned in the event the real documents were released.

The New Grand Theory (and technically, it's a "hypothesis"; none of this has been proven under laboratory conditions yet) brings up a very interesting issue, which is the role of "rumor" (btw, it is not simply a "rumor" that the future President didn't show for a physical; he didn't show up for his physical, period. The controversy has been why he didn't show up, and/or whether his failure to do so was somehow excused.) Although it is unfair to base impressions on people based on rumor, there is often something in the background that gives credence to those rumors, especially rumors as specific as the ones mentioned here. In Bush's case, the "rumors" may well have derived from the documents kept by the TANG, including the Killian file, but which were heretofore kept from public view.

Even more importantly, the one "rumor" about George Bush from that period that doesn't show up anywhere in the doppelgangers is the one about his alleged coke habit. A forger unconcerned about the truth, and hungry to destroy the President at all costs, could have easily dropped a reference in, let's say, the August 1 Memo, alluding to his "recreational" activities, and made it seem just as credible as the other statements. In terms of the public reaction, such a charge would have been far more devastating to the B-C campaign than alluding to what Staudt (or whoever) was doing to Hodges in August of 1973.

In any event, thanks to all of you who responded in the last few days; I didn't get a single comment, even from those who probably believe that yours truly must enjoy a coprophilous existence to come up the idea in the first place, that could be considered rude, nasty, or unpleasant. I can only hope that some of you return in the future.

Nothing like spending eight hours at an amusement park in Valencia to painfully remind me that I'm about to hit 41. It used to be that roller coaster rides would simply frighten me; now, I ache just about everywhere in my body. The neck I possess is not in any condition to withstand the G-forces I imposed on it today.

The argument that I've read most frequently to counter my Grand Hypothesis is the view (summarized here by Tom Maguire) that Bush's "silence" on this issue is appropriate: when your enemy is doing his best to destroy himself, the adage goes, it's best to stay out of his way. As I noted below, however, the White House hasn't been silent. The immediate response assumed the memos were authentic, and attempted to explain away the President's actions at that time. If the Killian Papers were anything other than "fake but accurate", the more reasonable response would have been to immediately challenge the factual allegations contained within (and they were given copies of the documents in advance), but concerning the one document that the President would have had first-hand knowledge of, the letter ordering him to take a physical, he didn't do that. And regardless of what happens to Rather and CBS, he's stuck with this albatross.

In what may well be a nadir for Sports Illustrated, the magazine published a story today alleging that Kobe Bryant admitted to having an affair with ANOTHER WOMAN when he was interviewed by police investigating the now-discredited rape charge in Eagle, Colorado. Just a reminder, folks: rape is a crime; cheating on your wife isn't.

In reaction to the "fake but accurate" story in the morning's paper, Josh Marshall writes:

The word is out and about now that the CBS Bush National Guard memos are not forgeries but rather recreations of actual documents authored by Lt. Col. Killian.

(snip)

There's a word, though, for these sorts of recreations, if that's what they are: forgeries.

There's no sense or possibility of getting around that.

Actually, that's not quite true, either. The correct word for that sort of recreation is counterfeit, which Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary defines as something "made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive: FORGED". Forgery, on the other hand, is defined as "the crime of falsely and fraudulently making or altering a document (as a check)." While forgeries are always counterfeit, not all counterfeits are forgeries; the distinction is whether the creator of the document intended to defraud another, that is, to obtain some form of pecuniary benefit through his act of trickery, and not merely done solely to trick or fool someone.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the other "triumph" of the blogosphere this presidential campaign: the Swift Boat fraud. Bob Somerby hasn't....

The first confirmation of yesterday's Grand Hypothesis has come from a former secretary for the late Col. Killian, who states that the Killian Papers are forgeries (and she should know, since she was his typist), but that their contents accurately reflect real documents that she prepared in the course and scope of her duties. Also of interest in the Dallas Morning News article is the reference to a possible forger, who definitely did have a motive. And, of course, this is now the sixth consecutive day the President has refused to denounce the alleged fraud.

Doppelganger v. Forgery: So far, the dog that hasn't barked in the Killian Papers controversy has been any sort of non-denial by the President. In fact, the original reaction (and thus probably the more accurate reaction) by the White House was to a) dispute the meaning of the documents, by claiming that Bush was actually working to obey the direct order he received; and/or b) accuse the Kerry campaign of desperately trying to reverse its slide in the polls by dredging up old news. Even now, after the authenticity of the documents has been a matter of public dispute for four days, there has been no attempt by the White House to challenge the truthfulness of the contents. And that fact alone, no matter how advocates for the President try to shrink fonts in order to superficially derive a match with certain memos from the Killian Papers, is enough to keep this controversy alive.

I would like to posit another hypothesis, one that I believe is consistent with both sides in this matter. The Killian Papers given to CBS and USA Today, and released to the world by the White House, are documents that were created recently, by a third party from a computer, and did not come directly from any personal file kept by the late colonel. Everything about them, from the typesetting and fonts used to the signature of Col. Killian on two of the letters, are recent creations. However, they are verbatim reproductions of actual documents, documents that may still exist somewhere, probably with the Texas Air National Guard, in their original form.

There are several reasons to believe that this might be a more accurate explanation than anything else we have heard to date. The source for these documents was apparently a retired officer connected with the TANG. If Col. Killian actually had a "personal file", that officer may have had access to those documents. However, he might not have been able to remove those papers for photocopying, so he did what he thought was the next best thing: he transcribed them for posterity.

Perhaps nursing a grudge against the President, this officer may have approached other media outlets for years with the information he had obtained from the Killian file, but without solid evidence, reporters may not have had any desire to pursue something that was little more than a hearsay account of what a long-deceased colonel had written. So, out of frustration, he goes home one night, transcribed notes in hand, and recreates the Killian Papers on his home computer. Suddenly, 60 Minutes is interested, and the documents take on a life of their own. The officer with an axe to grind has people listening to him again. And the White House, knowing that the original Killian documents are identical in content to the doppelgangers provided to CBS, doesn't press the issue.

Why do I think this is a better explanation than what Bush's allies and foes have proferred to this point? Well, first of all, CBS has not yet presented a strong case for the authenticity of these documents. The expert they cited on Friday merely authenticated the handwriting, but I suspect it may not be that difficult to transpose a copy of an actual signature on a fake document, especially one that has been copied and re-copied several times. If they did use forensic typing analysts to authenticate these documents, they have not provided any information as to the names, qualifications, or services performed by those experts. The provenance of these documents has not been established to the satisfaction of anyone. And we do know that most of the experts who have studied these documents have concluded that there is a high probability that they were created by a computer, not an early-70's typewriter.

Second, though, is the fact that witness after witness has stated that the sentiments expressed in those documents reflect the actual state of mind of Colonel Killian during those months. Even his superior officer, who said on Friday that he now believes these documents are forgeries, who backs the President, and who states that he believes Bush was an outstanding pilot, affirmed that Col. Killian shared the opinions expressed in the memorandum, and that his earlier "authentication" was based on a belief that the papers in question were handwritten, not typed. Another officer who worked under Killian at the time stated that the memos were consistent with his normal practices, while the retired general who ran the TANG at that time said it was common practice for his officers to generate personal memos for the file.

And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the President, who is the one person who could give a categorical denial of these events, has not done so. The single most damning piece of information in any of these documents comes from the May 4, 1972 letter, giving George Bush a direct order to undergo an annual physical. The other stuff, from frustrating his superior officers with his lackadaisical commitment to his duties at that time to the fact that well-connected people were assisting him avoiding the consequences of his behaviour, has already been reported on at length, and the Killian Papers add little new to the discussion.

But his refusal to obey a direct order is a new charge, and, if true, one that should potentially disqualify him from remaining Commander-in-Chief during wartime. It is also a charge that he would have first-hand knowledge of its accuracy; he may not have known what "Staudt" or "Hodges" were doing on his behalf in August of '73, but he should definitely know whether he was given a direct written order from a superior officer that he didn't obey. If the May, 1972 letter is a fraud, and the information contained within is false, he should have said so by now. The fact that he hasn't, and that he has instead used surrogates over the last four days to try to explain away the substance of that charge, speaks volumes.

Anyways, that's how I see it. If you don't buy this hypothesis, let me know.

UPDATE: Dan Rather tonight did another report attempting to justify the story, finally introducing some forensic typing expert to buttress the authenticity of the Killian Papers. Perhaps the most significant evidence has to do with the use of the number "1" in place of the small case "L" (or "l") in some of the documents, something that is more difficult to pull off on a computer. Whatever. This story seems to be petering out; without a smoking gun one way or the other, we may still be arguing about this four years from now.

UPDATE (Pt. 2): Thanks to everyone who has put in their two cents, both in the comments section and through e-mail. The discussion has, for the most part, been civil, even where you disagree with me, and I appreciate that. I will respond in a new post shortly.

For those of you who still want to believe in the authenticity of the Killian Papers, here's an article from Media Matters, detailing how much of what has been reported about the capabilities of early-70's typewriters has been subsequently discredited. These posts, here and here, on the Daily Kos website, takes to task the amateur sleuths who've transposed the PDF files of the Papers with their own concoctions created by the computer in their mom's basement, and reveals discrepancies in the documents that could only have been created by a typewriter. And Jerralyn Merritt discusses the fallibility of "expert witnesses" in the field of forensic typing comparison. To that I would like to add that it is not uncommon for expert witnesses in any area to provide that testimony most desired by the side employing them, and that one of the experts used to challenge the authenticity of the Killian Papers received hate mail and threatening phone calls after he seemed to back away from that position to the Boston Globe. And, of course, the one person who could provide an account different than that contained in the Killian Papers, the President, remains silent.

None of this is to say that I remain any less skeptical of the Killian Papers. As usual, the digital brownshirts went over the top in their early posting, making claims about typing technology and the like that went way beyond the facts, and their efforts to play investigative journalists have merely shown what the level of quackery that pervades the fields of both blogging and forensic typing analysis. But something still tells me to be wary, especially since CBS has not been particularly forthcoming as to how it received these papers, where these papers came from, and (with one exception) who their authenticating experts are. Since it doesn't appear that 60 Minutes ever received originals, we may never get a resolution of this dispute.

From the outset, one of the more suspicious aspects of the Killian Papers has been its similarity to what can be produced using Microsoft Word programming. Using the default settings, some bloggers have been able to produce documents nearly identical to the May 19, 1972 and August 18, 1973 documents, at least to the untrained eye.

However, there is one distinct difference between the May 4 and August 1 letters and the documents generated via Microsoft, and is probably the best evidence for the authenticity of at least those two documents. The letterhead at the top is slightly askew, and doesn't match up with a document produced by the default setting. In both cases, there is an attempt to center the address of the memos, but using the default settings, the letterhead is one space to the right of the letterhead used in the memos.

Thus, in order to produce a letterhead that is centered where it is in the Killian Papers, the typist needs to change the default settings by one space in the letterhead, than return the margins to the default setting for the rest of the letter. That would be highly improbable, and it's probably the reason you haven't seen animated "superimposed" letters on websites seeking to debunk the Papers; the rest of the text may match, at least on a superficial level, but the centering is noticeably off. On the other hand, manually calculating the center of the letter for purposes of placing the letterhead, which was the centering process used with typewriters before it was done automatically with computers, could easily produce a letterhead situated exactly where it is in the two memos.

Anyways, Mr. Drum is right; this is the wrong day to play amateur investigator. Today, lets live our lives to honor the dead.

Increasingly, the argument about the Killian Papers has shifted to terrain more favorable to CBS. After two days of pretending the controversy didn't exist, CBS last night finally named one of their attesting experts, who verified the handwriting on one of the documents, while the Boston Globe obtained the statement of an outside witness who had previously doubted the veracity of the documents, but now thinks it possible that a specific typewriter from that period could have produced the fonts, subscripts and spacing that have been at the heart of the dispute. The Drum Questions, which are more concerned with the provenance of the documents, have not been answered, however, and until they are, further skepticism is warranted.

The fact that bloggers like Kevin Drum, Matthew Yglesias, Josh Marshall, and Ezra Klein have been willing to give credence to these claims has not gone over well with some other bloggers on the left. One such blogger went so far as to note sarcastically that "It's admirable that lefty bloggers are being duly skeptical of the CBS documents and diligently reporting it on their blogs. It means that we have more integrity than the other side and will probably go to heaven. Unfortunately, it also means that we are helping Republicans spin their lies and hurting our candidate. Again." He goes on to note that the "other side" plays hardball, and that if we want to win this election, we have to engage in the same tactics.

To which I reply, bullshit. First, to claim our skepticism about the authenticity of the Killian papers is proof of our moral superiority over our conservative counterparts is simply wrong. It is proof, rather, of our liberalism. Liberals are, by nature, people who question authority, who are skeptical of anything that might be defined as received wisdom. The ideology of liberals may have changed over the past two hundred years, from supporting laissez faire free market policies to backing an active governmental role in the economy, but the one consistency has been an aversion to being subservient to any sort of institutional authority, whether it be the sovereign, the church, the government itself, or, in this case, the Tiffany Network.

Second, while I can't speak directly for what motivates other bloggers, I know that I'm not doing anything here for the purpose of proving that I have more "moral integrity" over anyone else. I'm doing this because I happen to enjoy writing, and I find that this site is one of the few places I can really be myself. I'm most decidedly not doing this to advance my career, or because I think I'm this great undiscovered writer, or to elect some candidate, although people who read this site regularly have a pretty good idea as to whom I'm supporting in November.

And after the "Swift Boat Veterans" controversy of a few weeks back, to have "more moral integrity" than the bloggers who advanced that fraud is hardly difficult. On the one hand, you have dirtbags who congratulated themselves for having advanced a story of questionable veracity throughout the internet, complained when the "lib'rul media" didn't initially write up their claims, then wailed to high heavens that when they did investigate those charges, and found them wanting. On the other hand, you have writers like Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall, who, in spite of the questionable reputation of some of the right wing sources involved in questioning the Killian documents, nevertheless drew their own conclusions, and found that the claims of blogs like Powerline had some weight.

The fact that some wackjob is obsessed over what holiday Kerry was technically in Cambodia does not mean that we have to believe every negative thing said about President Bush; I think it has something to do with the adage about the blind pig and the acorn. And I'm quite content to play for the side that values the truth, even if it means we lose elections now and then.

CBS is sticking by its story, as well as the authenticity of the Killian Papers, but still has not provided any further information as to its "experts" or the basis for their conclusions. Until they do so, I'm sticking to my position as well.

UPDATE [3:56 p.m. PST]: Dan Rather has gone on the air tonight with a defense of the documents. About the only thing new is that one of their authenticating experts is finally identified, who posits that the difference in opinion with the others who have studied these papers may lie in comparing originals with 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation copies, which necessarily degrade the quality of the comparison. He also concludes that the signature of Mr. Killian on the documents is authentic, which has been a bone of contention with the skeptics. On other issues, particularly the Drum Questions, there is nothing new to report, and no reason to believe that anyone who has already arrived at an opinion on this subject will change his mind.

According to the NY Times, some of the same "experts" quoted by skeptics of the Killian Papers are now backing off somewhat from the earlier categorical conclusions, admitting it's possible that typewriters of that period could have generated the documents in question. I can go either way on this, although my trial lawyer-instincts tell me to be suspicious of CBS, at least until they come forward with more info. Kevin Drum, who has been wary from the start, asks the right questions, here.

Be that as it may, there is still one question that continues to nag at me: why didn't Bush denounce the veracity of these documents from the start? I'm not merely talking about questioning their authenticity, since I assume Dan Bartlett, et al., do not have any expertise as typewriting analysts. But Bush would had to have had some idea as to whether the contents of these documents were accurate, regardless of their authenticity. If, for example, he wasn't given a direct order by Col. Killian to take a medical exam, the May 4, 1972 letter could easily have been refuted by a White House denial, just as you, the reader, could deny a similar allegation made about your past. The White House received copies of these documents the day before the 60 Minutes report aired, so they had some time to get their story straight. Instead, the response has been that the Democrats are recycling old charges, and/or that Bush either didn't need to comply with said order, or was complying. Why hasn't the White House simply rejected the charge? What gives?

I am as partisan a Democrat as they come, and am not inclined to give the incumbent President any break in this campaign, so it pains me to say that the burden of proof is clearly on CBS to show that they were not the victims of a hoax concerning the "Killian documents". So far, the evidence that these documents were forgeries, generated decades after Bush left the T.A.N.G. and years after their purported author had passed away, seems compelling, and, as of right now, unrefuted. CBS has refused to reveal the names of its authenticating "experts", but those who have reviewed the copies have concluded, almost to a man, that the Killian documents were probably produced by a word processor or computer, not by a typewriter that existed in 1972-3. These documents may well reflect the thinking of Col. Killian, as his superior officer, a Bush supporter, confirmed, but that doesn't make the documents legitimate, and if CBS wishes to maintain any sort of journalistic credibility, it has to put up or shut up.

Of course, that then leads to the question of who forged the documents. It would have to be someone who knew the late Col. Killian's opinions about Bush's antics in the Air National Guard, who had some ability to imitate the style of military memos from the early-70's, and some background knowledge of George Bush and the Texas Air National Guard from that period, including Bush's address at the time. And, if the reporters acted in good faith in performing due diligence, the forger would have to had laid at least the groundwork for authenticating the provenance of these documents.

But the forger would also have to be either an amateur unaware of the difference between the font used by a typewriter and one used by a computer, or he would be someone who wanted the forgery to be easily exposed. Considering that the content of these documents was embarassing to the President, but not earthshattering (it's not like Col. Killian "drafted" a memo stating that he caught Lt. Bush snorting coke in a gay bar in Austin with John O'Neill), I suspect the latter possibility is more likely.

Lastly, it's also possible that only one of the documents (specifically, the August 18, 1973 "memo", which was a Saturday, FWIW) is inauthentic, tossed in with a set of authentic documents for some nefarious reason. Both of the family members to comment on this story have said it was not like Col. Killian to type memos of this nature; it may well be that these were transcribed from his handwritten notes by a third party well after his death, via word processor or computer. That might explain why the Bush White House has not attacked the authenticity of these documents; if the truthfulness of what's contained within the Killian papers is not at issue, there might not have been any reason to challenge their authenticity. Of course, that would still mean CBS has a lot of explaining to do.

Frank Rich, on George Bush:

Though pundits said that Republicans pushed moderates center stage last week to placate suburban swing voters, the real point was less to soften the president's Draconian image on abortion than to harden his manly bona fides. Hence Mr. Bush was fronted by a testosterone-heavy lineup led by a former mayor who did not dally to read a children's book on 9/11, a senator who served in the Hanoi Hilton rather than the "champagne unit" of the Texas Air National Guard, and a governor who can play the role of a warrior on screen more convincingly than can a former Andover cheerleader gallivanting on an aircraft carrier.

On the "Swift Boat Vets":

Democrats are shocked that the Republicans have gotten away with it to the extent they have. After all, John O'Neill, the ringleader of the Swifties, didn't serve "with" Mr. Kerry anywhere except on "The Dick Cavett Show." Other members of this truth squad include a doctor who claims to have treated Mr. Kerry's wounds even though his name isn't on a single relevant document and a guy who has gone so far as to accuse Jim Rassmann, whom Mr. Kerry saved from certain death, of being a liar. How could such obvious clowns fool so many? It must be Karl Rove's fault, or Fox's, or a lack of diligence from the non-Fox press.

To some extent, this is true. The connections between the Swifties and the Bushies would be obvious even if the current onslaught didn't mimic the 2000 Bush attack on John McCain, or even if each day didn't bring the revelation of overlapping personnel. When Marc Racicot, the Bush-Cheney chairman, says (dishonestly) that Mr. Kerry has called American troops "universally responsible" for Abu Ghraib, his message sounds coordinated with the Swifties' claim (equally dishonest) that Mr. Kerry once held American troops universally responsible for the atrocities committed in Vietnam.

And on John Kerry:

When the Democrat asks "Who among us does not love Nascar?" and lets reporters follow him around on a "day off" when his errands include buying a jock strap, he is asking to be ridiculed as an "International Man of Mystery." In the new issue of GQ, you can witness him having a beer...with a reporter as he confesses to a modicum of lust for Charlize Theron and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Presumably the only reason he excluded the demographically desirable Halle Berry is that her Catwoman outfit too closely resembles his own costume for windsurfing.

The flaw in Mr. Kerry is not, as Washington wisdom has it, that he asked for trouble from the Swifties by bringing up Vietnam in the first place. Both his Vietnam service and Vietnam itself are entirely relevant to a campaign set against an unpopular and ineptly executed war in Iraq that was spawned by the executive branch in similarly cloudy circumstances. But having brought Vietnam up against the backdrop of our 2004 war, Mr. Kerry has nothing to say about it except that his service proves he's more manly than Mr. Bush. Well, nearly anyone is more manly than a president who didn't have the guts to visit with the 9/11 commission unaccompanied by a chaperone.

It's Mr. Kerry's behavior now, not what he did 35 years ago, that has prevented his manliness from trumping the president's. Posing against a macho landscape like the Grand Canyon, he says that he would have given Mr. Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq even if he knew then what we know now. The setting may be the Old West, but the words do sound as if they've been translated from the French. His attempt to do nuance, as Mr. Bush would put it, makes him sound as if he buys the message the
Republicans hammered in last week: the road from 9/11 led inevitably into Iraq.

For some reason, the conventional wisdom holds that in order for John Kerry to reclaim control of the Presidential campaign, he must be willing to get down into the muck with the Bushies, put on his brass knuckles and to fight dirty, if necessary. Thus, we have seen him challenge the manhood of the Vice President the last two days, questioning whether someone who received five deferments during the 1960's can contribute anything to the national dialogue on fighting terrorism. In so doing, he has looked petty and small, forgetting that most American males of his generation stayed out of Vietnam with dodges similar to the Veep and the Commander-in-Chief, and giving off the air of desperation.

In fact, the more reliable post-convention polls show that Bush has a small lead, not surprising following a month in which Kerry was limited as to what he could spend, and Bush received the benefit of being in charge of the country during the Summer Olympics, when incumbent presidents always receive a significant boost. The gap, which Josh Marshall reports is close to four points, can be easily overcome without any dramatic change in strategy, simply by letting events in Iraq and the economy run their course.

Thus, the fact that Bush is about to have his own version of the "Swift Boat" book published should give liberals pause. Gossip Kitty Kelley is purportedly set to release a book that alleges, among other things, that the President has had a series of mistresses and a more significant drug habit than previously acknowledged. It also alleges that the President's mother is "almost a practicing witch", that the first President Bush may have a few incidents of statutory rape under his belt, and that the Anthrax mailings of 2001 were actually done by government agents to cover up embarassing photos of the President that were in the possession of the editor of the National Enquirer.

I really hope that this book gets the scorn it deserves, and not just because I believe that this campaign has already devolved into the sewer. The charges Kelley lays out are so wacky and bizarre so as to embarass Lyndon LaRouche, and will surely discredit her more serious allegations in the minds of most readers. In addition, Bush is pretty much innoculated against any attacks on his character prior to 1988, thanks to his religious conversion. His base does not hold his coke-snorting and boozing against him, for the simple reason that he has mastered the language of the born-again convert. Accuse him of living a dissolute life, and he will vaguely confirm it; actually prove that he freebasing at a Texas bordello in 1984, and the President's supporters will simply shrug and acknowledge that he was a sinner back before he found Jesus.

So lets just ignore this book, and focus instead on Bush's execrable record over the past four years. That gives us plenty of ammunition to fire at the Republicans, without diminishing ourselves and the political process. Down the other path madness lies [link via Tony Pierce].

I have seen my future, and it's name is "Barney's Beanery". The legendary West Hollywood dive, famous for being the home away from home for legendary drunks such as Jim Morrison and Janis Joplin, has opened up a new site at the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica. Located where Teasers used to be, it provides a huge beer selection, decent chow, and about a hundred TV's to watch any and all sporting events, including all the college football a growing boy could see yesterday afternoon. I am truly home.

Not every celebrity had Kobe's good fortune battling the government this week. In another high-profile case, the actor who may well be the Nicest Man in Show Business, Val Kilmer, and his ex-wife Joanna Whalley, star of straight-to-video movies too numerous to mention, just lost in their attempt to recover a $300k refund of 1995 state income taxes before the New Mexico Court of Appeals. No word yet if they plan to take their case to the state supreme court.

Is there a dumber Time (pun intended) to poll the horse race than immediately after the final night of a convention? Or did you believe that Kerry suddenly had an eight-point lead (acc. to Newsweek) on July 30?

Four days of Kerry-bashing, and somehow I watched not a minute of it. Damn, now I'll never know if the eloquence of George W. could have dulled my rancid partisanship enough to give the GOP one more chance to ruin western civilization.

My mother is one of the few people on the planet who was charmed by the Bush Twins, and I will trust her word that they were the only geniunely human characters at the Party Rally; I guess you have to be better attuned to the sorority girl ethos to appreciate them. I also wish I had heard Gauleiter Zell Miller's speech to the faithful last night, since it's what everyone was talking about today (btw, did it occur to anyone that maybe Zell deliberately screwed up his speech to sabotage the Republicans?); like the Philistines, the GOP was slain by the jawbone of an ass. But lets face it, I could hardly rouse myself to view the Democratic Convention, so why would I divert myself from the pennant races and the opening to the college football season to watch something so patently boring.

And now, you...will...die!!

Emporer Zellpatine? [pic via Buzzflash]

ABC is reporting that the Eagle County D.A. is dismissing the charges against Kobe Bryant with prejudice, meaning that it will have the legal effect of an acquittal. Developing.... UPDATE: CNN now reports that the judge has dismissed the charges, according to the civil attorney for the accuser.

Sports Illustrated is reporting that the accuser in the Kobe Bryant case may have performed oral sex on the Laker after the incident took place, a detail that she withheld at first from the police. The article, which is generally sympathetic to the prosecution (as a rule, SI has a decidedly anti-accused bias when it comes to cases brought against athletes, and the writer may have a vested interest in a conviction now for sale at your local bookstore), is nevertheless quite revealing in showing how weak the State's case is. If all they can prove is that her blood was on his t-shirt, he's gonna walk.

The American Way of Killing:

One great lesson of American history is that one does good in this world because it is right to do good, not because the recipients will be grateful. We Americans must therefore never judge the rightness of our actions on how much gratitude or censure we receive. So long as we remain the most blessed country on earth, it is our duty to do as much good as we can. In fact, if we don't, we will cease to be blessed.

--Dennis Prager (8/31/04)

I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused.

--Graham Greene, The Quiet American (1955)

I never thought I would see the day when delegates to a Republican convention would mock the Purple Heart. They just have no bottom....

Back from his annual August hiatus, a blogger of some renown writes:

Every time I checked out the blogosphere or the cable news or the papers, I felt relieved to be absent with leave. The low point was obviously the Swift Boatvets, jumping like bait on the end of Karl Rove's line. For a president who never served in Vietnam to get his cronies to lambaste an opponent who actually put his life in danger was, well, breathtakingly bold. And you really have to hand it to Bush. He knows how to campaign hard, to deploy smears of opponents indirectly, to stoke fears of minorities to rally votes, and every other hardball tactic. I wish I could get all huffy about this, but it's always been Bush's campaign mojo: divide, smear and beam. Kerry should have seen it coming.

And later...

And then that left-wing maniac, Dick Cheney, refuses to give up his federalist principles, his love of family and freedom, or his basic humanity, by signing on to the president's anti-gay constitutional amendment. Good for the veep, and the entire Cheney family. Too bad his own president has put them in such an awful position. And the GOP platform dispenses with any nuance and comes out not just against marriage rights for gays, but any kind of legal protections for their relationships whatever. That, of course, is what the FMA is designed to do, whatever lies its sponsors tell. No wonder Zell Miller is now the keynoter for the Republicans. Here's a man who once proudly condemned LBJ for backing civil rights for African-Americans, while Bush's Republican grandfather stood up for decency. History has come full circle, hasn't it? The Dixiecrats meet again in New York. Now they're called Repulicans.

Can't improve on that.

The Bronze Age: Having triumphantly snatched third place in the Olympic Basketball Tournament, Team U.S.A. now returns home on the Queen Mary 2, confidently poised to take on the world again two years from now in the World Championships. In the meantime, the reaction stateside has been following the pattern the late Elizabeth Kubler-Ross elucidated in On Death and Dying. Having already gone through denial and anger, sportswriters and fans alike have begun to enter the bargaining stage. Once we get past the notion that the gold medal is somehow our birthright, which we were prevented from winning by some amorphous hindrance (the selection process, the lack of a consistent perimeter game, poor officiating, etc.), we will have to face the depressing reality that the U.S. is no longer the best at the popular sport it invented, and which still plays such a huge role in our culture.

This will not be unprecedented. In the early-50's, England, which had refused to play in the first three World Cups because it thought the competition was beneath it, suffered a series of defeats in international play (in particular, a 1-0 loss to a semi-pro team from the U.S. in the 1950 World Cup, and a pair of routs against Hungary in 1953), and only a win in the 1966 World Cup, played at home, provides any evidence that it was ever a world power in its national sport. In the 1970's, Canada suffered a similar blow when it agreed to face the "amateurs" from the Soviet Union in ice hockey. Although it had greater initial success, winning the Summit Series in 1972 and the Canada Cup in 1976, those victories were much narrower than expected, and it was apparent even before the Soviets whipped an NHL All-Star team, 6-0, in 1979 that the center of gravity in the sport had shifted overseas.

In both of these cases, there were excuses made about top athletes not playing. England's top player in 1950, Stanley Matthews, didn't play against the Americans, and the team as a whole blamed the humidity in Brazil for their early exit from that tournament. Canadiens could explain away the close call in 1972 by noting that Bobby Orr was injured and could not play, and that Bobby Hull was excluded for having signed with a rival league. Of course, injuries are always a part of sports, and their rivals also had key players out. As with the Athens Olympians, the reason why those national programs fell wasn't due to bad luck or poor player selection; it was the fact that the rest of the world had caught up, and that other countries were playing a more innovative, more exciting team-oriented game. If the U.S. is going to return to the top again in men's basketball, it had better re-think the way the sport is played in this country at all levels, or we will be doomed to hoping for a bronze medal.

Phoenix Rises: It was delayed three weeks by the local affiliate's decision to air tributes to Broadway and the McGuire Sisters during its "Pledge Month", but PBS viewers in the greater Southern California Area were finally treated last night to the last episode of Season 2 of the British mystery, "Foyle's War", guest-starring the ne plus ultra of British character actresses, Phoebe Nicholls. Her small cult of rabidly obsessive fans were treated to a vintage performance, the trademark sneer and condescending tone being used to fine effect in playing the role of a wartime version of Jayson Blair, who pens "autobiographical" accounts of heroic feats in bombed-out London from the comfort of a country estate. When confronted by a police detective suspicious of her brazen mendacity, her deadpan response ("I think you're missing the point") was so perfectly delivered that you couldn't help but laugh. It's like watching Magic Johnson run the fast break, or Bill Clinton answering a question at a press conference: the pleasure of witnessing someone who is not only good at what they do, but who seems to be enjoying it as well.

Should Paul Hamm give back his gold medal, as the IOC and the governing body for his sport seem to want? That's a no-brainer: of course he should. The officials miscalculated the score of one of his opponents, costing that competitor a winning score in the all-around gymnastics title. This situation is similar to a football game where a "fifth down" is awarded, or a basketball game where a team is awarded free throws in spite of not being in the penalty. Giving the gold medal to the "rightful" winner is the sportsmanlike thing to do.

But before we set this precedent, there are some other cases we should look at. First, it would also be good sportsmanship for the '72 Soviet basketball team to give its gold medal back to the U.S. I would like to the see the IOC award a gold medal from that Olympics to Bob Seagren, who got screwed out of a win in the pole vault that Olympics because he was prevented from using a legal pole, on the shaky ground that it wasn't available to his Warsaw Pact rivals. Maybe we should make some provision for Rick Demont, an American swimmer who was stripped of his gold medal that year because the medication he used to prevent asthma attacks from killing him wasn't cleared in time.

Then, after we're done with the '72 team, maybe it would be a good idea to give some gold medal props to our women's swim team from 1976, a team that played by the rules, racking up silver and bronze medals, only to find out later that they were being bested by an East German program that used its swimmers as guinea pigs, in medical experiments seemingly created from the mind of Josef Mengele. Shirley Babashoff was probably the best swimmer of her generation, and it would be only fitting for her to be recognized as such by the IOC. And our Olympic boxers over the years have borne bad decisions with the patience of Job; certainly honoring Evander Holyfield and Roy Jones Jr. with Olympic gold at this stage would correct the historic record.

And once we've corrected those historical inequities, then we can talk to Paul Hamm about being a good sport.

As I mentioned below, the co-author of the book attacking John Kerry's war record, John O'Neill, is an attorney, who practices law out of Houston, Texas. It now seems that he may have gotten himself into a little bit of trouble with his storytelling, particularly in his efforts to discredit John Kerry's claim that as a Swift Boat captain, he could have ever received an assignment in Cambodia. By denying that he (O'Neill) had ever been inside Cambodia, a tale which subsequently became "no longer operative" after the release of one of the Nixon Tapes showed he had admitted in the Oval Office to doing just that, he may have run afoul of Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Section 8.02(a), which states as follows:

A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory official or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.

Among the disciplinary measures that the State Bar in Texas can take against an attorney who violates Section 8.02(a) includes suspension and disbarment.

United States [B] 102, Spain 94: If you had told me before the Olympics that our motley collection of semi-pro and professional basketball players would have a chance to play for a medal on Friday, I would have thought you were nuts, but then again, that's why they play the games. Speaking of nuts, here's an interesting take from sportswriter Jason Whitlock, who accuses everyone who's rooting against Team U.S.A. of being racist. In my radical youth at Berkeley, I used to be convinced that everyone rooting against the Dodgers and (especially) the Lakers was racist, but eventually I was able to extract my head out of my rectum long enough to get past that.

The Butterfield Legacy: Jeez, did any "Swift Boat Vets" not see action in Cambodia? (about a third of the way down the page) [link via Eschaton]

UPDATE: O'Neill (who, natch, is an attorney) attempts to explain away his earlier lie, but gets nailed by, of all people, Alan Colmes. O, what a tangled web we weave....

Ken Layne Was Right: One of the great advantages of living three thousand miles from the Center of the Universe is that I don't get overly-influenced by the vagaries and trends of Beltway opinion-mongering. The fact that the people in my immediate circle are not obsessed with politics, and do not see every breaking story on Fox News or CNN as earthshattering, allows me to view the goings-on in politics with a greater sense of detachment. Thus, when the "Swift Boat" ads began airing in a handful of states, and the "digital Brownshirts" began parsing every detail of Kerry's stay in Southeast Asia for errors, I was able to step back, and take what seemed to be a contrarian view about this issue: the longer the focus was on Kerry's war record, the more it helped in the long run. After all, the average voter would hear the claims and counterclaims of the various participants, shrug, and say, "well, at least Kerry was in 'Nam back in the day."

Apparently, it doesn't appear to have been a particularly brutal three weeks for the Democratic nominee since those ads began airing. According to the latest Zogby polling figures in the battleground states, Kerry has gone from being ahead in 13 of the 16 states polled, to...being ahead in 14 of the 16 states, his best showing to date. If the junior Senator from Massachusetts has been hurt by the mostly-discredited attacks, it hasn't shown up yet in the polls, even anecdotally; Kerry continues to poll within the margin of error in several states not included by Zogby as "battlegrounds", such as Arizona, Virginia, and Colorado. And the fact that the whole world is starting to laugh at the Swifties (here and here) can't be making things any easier for Karl Rove.

Requiem for a Diva: Slate admirably defends the self-proclaimed "Queen of Gymastics", Russian silver-medalist Svetlana Khorkina.

Well, it now turns out that it wasn't really about the medals after all. As report after report after report after report, ad infinitum, have discredited the recovered memories of the "Swift Boat Veterans", the bloggers who had previously put their reputations on the line in backing their accounts are now starting to acknowledge that the truthfulness of the Vets wasn't the issue, nor whether the Bushies were giving them covert backing; it was whether Kerry was inside the Cambodian border on Christmas Eve, 1968. Not whether he was ever inside Cambodia, or whether he was inside Cambodia a few weeks later during the Tet Festival, but whether his memory of an event that was then 15 years in the distance (now 35 years) was completely accurate. Oh, and also that Kerry has been forced to address the issue. It's nice of them to narrow the critical issues down for the rest of us.

If the exposure of Trent Lott symbolizes the best of what blogging is capable of doing in shaping the national agenda, this story represents its nadir, an example of how the tactics of Joseph McCarthy and Josef Goebbels can be used to hype a partisan agenda, combining rumors, innuendo and out-and-out falsehoods in an effort to discredit a public figure. Only in the blogosphere, it seems, can a trivial mistake in the memory of a person can lead to one being called a term that in any other circumstance would be the most morally devastating thing you can say about someone: liar.

Unlike Atrios, I have been reticent about calling the "Swift Boat Vets" liars. Recalling events that took place thirty-five years ago can be difficult for anyone to remember, and any memory has to be considered in the context of its possessor's biography. In the case of the SBVs, who almost to a man violently disapproved of John Kerry's anti-war activities after he came home from Southeast Asia, to have seen him boast of his battlefield courage last month in Boston must have been particularly grating. Combine that with the fact that Kerry sometimes rubs people the wrong way in personal situations, and you have a recipe for anecdotes based more on wish than fact. It would not surprise me if each of the SBVs honestly believes that his account is truthful, but that is not the same thing as saying something is true, just as a false memory is not the same thing as a lie, no matter how seared it seems. So even though I don't believe them, I'm willing to give men who honorably served their country a break when it comes to that label.

For practicing lawyers, the tricks memories play on witnesses, especially after the passage of time, is a matter that comes up repeatedly in court. Around the time I first took the bar, a septuagenarian from Cleveland named John Demjanjuk was being tried for war crimes in Israel. Witness after witness took the stand, testifying to very vivid and horrifying memories that Demjanjuk in fact was the infamous, "Ivan the Terrible", a particularly sadistic prison guard at Treblinka. The problem, of course, was that Demjanjuk wasn't at that camp, although he was a guard elsewhere. He was a war criminal, just not the one that the witnesses had remembered. But if you believe Prof. Reynolds or Roger Simon, each of those Holocaust survivors who testified under oath that he was Ivan the Terrible was lying, and should have been prosecuted for perjury. Contemporaneous accounts and documentation are almost always more reliable, and tell a more accurate story, than the memories of witnesses years after the fact.

Thus, the fact that so many of the bloggers who hyped these accounts are attorneys, quite frankly, is an embarrassment to my profession. As officers of the court, we are charged with ensuring that the truth will out, within the context of an adversarial system. We don't swear an oath to tell the truth when we appear before the bench, since it is assumed that everything we say must be true. A lawyer who presents false evidence, or makes a reckless allegation in presenting his case, not only dimishes the regard that the society as a whole views our profession, he also runs the risk of being sanctioned or disbarred.

That is, I believe, the real reason the public acted with such outrage at Johnny Cochran and F.Lee Bailey after the OJ trial, and why people have been so utterly disdainful of the Kobe Bryant prosecution. It should be our job to present a case without passion or prejudice, not to unfairly malign or persecute to obtain an advantage in court, or to exaggerated the shortcomings of our rivals.

And those ethical considerations are not simply limited to what we say in court. A lawyer who slimes his adversaries, deceives his opponents, and misstates the truth in the course of representing a client deserves nothing but opprobrium from the public. When Clinton was impeached for lying about his affair with Ms. Lewinsky, I fought that tooth and nail; a President who can be removed from office for the most trivial mistake in his private life does violence to democracy. When he was disbarred after his Presidency, I sadly approved, even though the conduct itself did not arise from his representation of a client. My profession should no more tolerate those who lie to the public than the priesthood should tolerate pederasts.

And in my opinion, the lawyers who have blogged this story, and who have made the most extreme charges against Kerry, are, ethically speaking, somewhere beneath your run-of-the-mill ambulance chaser.

To state this position as categorically as possible, Amanda Beard is the most beautiful woman to win an individual gold medal in the Summer Olympics. Ever.

We will know on Election Day whether Kerry's "rope-a-dope" strategy of allowing the allegations of the "Swift Boat Vets" to simmer on right wing talk radio, blogs, and the Moonie/Murdoch Axis before answering the charges, as he did yesterday, was successful. My hunch was that he only responded after seeing evidence in the polls that the rumors were starting to hurt him with swing voters, and a forceful denunciation of the charges was going to be necessary, or else he would be perceived as being weak. What we can say is that none of their allegations concerning his battle wounds or acts of heroism has stood careful scrutiny, and that the position of the Bush campaign in not taking a stand on these ads is becoming increasingly untenable.

Perhaps the biggest surprise of the Olympics, the Iraqi Olympic soccer team, has attacked the unauthorized use of their team in Bush campaign ads. Team captain Salih Sadir, who scored in yesterday's 2-1 loss to Morocco, told SI.com that "Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign...[H]e can find another way to advertise himself." Another player, star midfielder Ahmed Manajid, was even more blunt, admitting that if he weren't playing in the Olympics, he would probably be taking up arms as an insurgent in his hometown of Fallujah.

United States [B] 77, Greece 71: After losing one key player to fouls, and having another hampered by a broken thumb, it was up to obscure journeymen Lamar Odom and Stephon Marbury to come up big with the clutch plays for the mainland squad in turning back a late rally by the host country. The win was doubly sweet for the unheralded Marbury, who plays domestically in the minor league "Eastern Conference" for New York. For American fans, though, it was a bittersweet day, as the "A" team from the commonwealth lost a close one to Lithuania earlier, 79-70.

Does anyone remember when the Olympics used to take place in front of something that resembled an actual crowd? Athens is starting to bring back memories of when I was in law school, when I used to study Contracts and Property at a location even more quiet than the Law Library at USC: the cavernous upper deck of the LA Sports Arena during an SC basketball game. Unlike, say, the venue where men's gymnastics is being held, the Trojans at least drew a couple thousand for their games.

In two weeks, what will probably be the last chance for George Bush to change the dynamic of the Presidential election will occur in New York City, the site of the Republican Convention. Since John Kerry clinched his party's nomination in March, there has been a steady, relentless trend in the national polls giving him between a two and seven point lead, a trend that hardened after his convention last month. Kerry not only leads Bush in every state captured by Al Gore in 2000, he continues to lead in almost every "purple" state that Bush narrowly carried last time, such as Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, New Hampshire, Arkansas and Missouri. In fact, Kerry is practically tied with the President in a number of states that cannot reasonably be considered part of the Democratic base, including North Carolina, Tennessee, Colorado, Arizona and Virginia; unless the situation on the ground changes, Kerry may well capture over 400 electoral votes, something that has been accomplished by a Democrat only once in the last 60 years, as well as sweeping the Democrats into power in both houses of Congress.

Of course, the first Tuesday in November is an eternity away, and the polls can shift dramatically from now until the polls open, so Kerry supporters should feel far from complacent. Because of his unpopularity, Bush as an excellent chance to get what eluded Kerry, a significant post-convention bounce, and at least temporarily alter the dynamics of the race. Whether that bounce has any durability, though, may have been hurt by the President's sluggish performance on the campaign trail since Kerry was nominated. Instead of providing the electorate with a compelling reason to stay the course, Bush's campaign has been diverted rather foolishly by ephemera such as the attacks on Kerry's Vietnam service, and the pointless negativity of last week's speech by Dick Cheney on the subject of "sensitivity" in foreign policy, a charge that ended up becoming a public relations disaster when it turned out the President had used the exact same word. At a time when he should be building up his positives leading into a make-or-break convention, and holding off the attacks until September, Bush is only reaffirming why much of Christendom views him as being one of the biggest a-holes on the planet.

A case in point is the latest blogospheric obsession, the allegations raised by some of Bush's supporters that Kerry's war record was not all that it seemed. While this issue may resonate with the armchair warriors, envious of Kerry's willingness to sacrifice for his country even when he didn't approve of the policy, it simply isn't an important issue for people concerned about whether they will have a job next year, or if their sons and daughters are going to be sent to die on some ideologue's crusade. And even if every charge made by the "Swift Boat" vets was plausible (and as shown here and here, there is a good reason why the recovered memory of "witnesses" some 35 years after the fact tends to be less reliable than contemporareneous accounts of the same incidents), one is still left with the reality that John Kerry went to Vietnam, while most of his counterparts didn't. Focusing on Kerry's service, even in the most negative manner possible, still leads to a comparison with Bush's history during that period, and that is comparison that cannot help but benefit the Senator from Massachusetts; hence, the polls taken over the last two weeks have seen a strengthening of Kerry's lead, rather than any perceptible movement towards the President.

Even more pathetic has been the intense focus over whether Kerry ever set foot in Cambodia back in the day. For those of you who don't spend every waking moment on the internet, the controversy stems from a number of references Kerry made over the years to having assisted the CIA in drop-offs on the Mekong River. At one point 20 years ago, Kerry had claimed that he had done so on Christmas Eve, 1968, when apparently he was off by a month. When compared with some of the "misstatements" made by Presidents over the years, from Reagan claiming on several occasions to having helped liberate concentration camps when he was "in uniform" during WW2, to Clinton's initial denial that he had a sexual relationship with an intern, to some of Bush's more ignoble efforts (from "hitting the trifecta" to his recent boast that like Senator McCain, he had once been a bomber pilot), the allegations against Kerry are pretty trivial, even if it had been proven that he was never in Cambodia, and had always known he had never been there. The exaggerated boasts of a soldier, like a politician's use of hyperbole to make a point, are pretty much discounted by the public anyway, and not surprisingly, the issue seems destined to remain with the purview of the tinfoil hat brigade.

So the Republicans, frustrated that there issue hasn't developed any traction in the media outside of the broadsheets owned by Rupert Murdoch and Rev. Moon, counter that this is yet another example of that diabolical conspiracy known as the lib'rul media, which supposedly wants Kerry to win. Instapundit, among others, has compared the coverage of Kerry's adventures in Vietnam with the media's interest in Bush's shirking of duty in the Texas A.N.G., ignoring the fact that four years ago, the media showed almost no interest in that subject, and didn't this year until the head of the DNC made it an issue.

Back in 2000, it was Gore who was being hounded mercilessly, for claims that he never made (such as inventing the Internet), and for places he never lived at (such as a luxury hotel in D.C.). Quite often, those attacks came straight out of GOP press releases, and the "journalists" who covered the campaign for the major newspapers and networks pretty much published them verbatim. Since the only Republicans to comment on the Swiftboat Vets' allegations (Senators McCain, Warner and Hegel) have repudiated them, it is perhaps not surprising there has been a lack of interest in such warmed-over smears by reporters, many of whom seemed to have been shamed by how they covered the campaign four years ago.

Or maybe it's just that we're living in the post-9/11 world, and we all just want to take this election a little more seriously this time. The last-second articles in the LA Times last October on the Gropinator, which were far better documented, actually seemed to help Arnold with swing-voters, and these attacks have certainly not helped the Republicans take down Kerry. As I said, there is still some time to go before the election, and Kerry's campaign will have to pick up its game when it comes to responding to Republican attacks, but for the time being, it's looking good....

U.S.A [PR] 93, U.S.A. 74: The Americans sprinted out to a 22-point halftime lead, then held on when the NBA'ers made a furious second-half comeback to win their first game in the Olympics. Carlos Arroyo led the way with 24 points, whose team received the following praise from the defeated point guard, Allan Iverson: "They play the game the way it's supposed to be played...It's not about athletics. That's the game the way Karl Malone and John Stockton play it. It's good for kids to see how the game is supposed to be played." We will have to step up our game significantly by Tuesday, though, when we play Lithuania, while the mainlanders have to hope they don't get bullied off the court when they play the host team from Greece.