Monday, September 13, 2004

Making the rounds on Monday

Kerry takes Bush to task over North Korea. This should've happened long ago, but it's good that it's happening now.

PCmag compares the IBM Selectric's type to Times New Roman. Can you tell which is which? The Killian memo could still be a forgery, but at this point one isn't justified in believing that...

...and even if one were, US News can show that Bush didn't fulfill his obligations, without relying on the Killian memo.


Thomas said...

Experts in the area can tell the difference (focusing, I believe, on the quotation marks).

The vast majority of the experts who have looked at the issue (for AP, Washington Post, ABC News, etc.) have concluded that these documents were likely forged. In light of expert opinion on the matter, how is one who isn't expert in the subject justified in disagreeing?

Based on the sourcing?

Anonymous sources carry that much weight?

Neil Sinhababu said...

Right, there are the quotation marks, which are too small in the pcmag sample to say anything about. I rescind my claim above about the lack of justification for thinking the Killian memos are forged. (Though the typeface and line breaks in the pcmag article are sufficient to overcome objections based on those things, and anyway the separate US News sources are sufficient to support the Bush-AWOL story.)