Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

And if you continue on the press briefing you find Scottie admitting that it is 'very possible' that other, currently unreleased documents have been viewed by White House staff...

They're correct. That's why he thought they were authentic.

Bah.

Aha. So McClellan says Bush himself had no "reason to believe" that the actual FACTS stated in the memos -- that Bush was ordered to take his physical back in May and flat-out refused the order; that Killian stripped him of his flying status not only for refusing to take the physical but for "failure to perform to USAF and TANG standards"; that Staudt, or somebody, was pushing Hodges strongly to have Killian "sugar-coat" all this -- were wrong. (Note that the White House also didn't say at the time that Killian was lying.)

My, my. This effectively smashes Tom Maguire's theory (which he's repeatedly stated to me via E-mail) that the White House may have known from the start that the facts in the memos were false, but was just waiting for CBS to hang itself.

Ultimately, this is about provenance.

There are, after all, a limited number of possibilities: a.) someone knew the general outlines of killian's story (that he was a rule-book stickler, that he kept a cya file, that he wasn't happy with the champagne unit treatment of bush) and faked the documents; b.) someone (as knox says) knew actual documents and faked up a close relative; c.) someone had killian's original notes and produced his/her own document verison of those notes; d.) someone wanted to get kerry or rather or the dnc or someone and also knew the general outlines of killian's story; e.) they are authentic.

We will never figure out which of these is true based only on the documents and the piecemeal interviews and recollections and changing recollections and pressures: in my estimation, CBS has no obligation to this source, and should reveal it and allow the provenance to either be proven out or rejected....

That all said, i agree that the white house non-reaction has been the dog that didn't bark that, along with ocam's razor, has led me to lean towards "real."

Okay, I was feeling a little relaxed tonight for various reasons. But now, I feel like I just received a 100 mg dose of Morphine after having a wild night with Keri Russell. That's how sublime this is.

He thought the documents were real? He thought they were real? Am I dreaming? The stuff that was finally bringing to light his pathetic record--he thought they were real?

As RF said above, the information presented must have been correct.

Dude, if I read a memo saying I didn't show up for work for a year, I'd assume it was bogus on the grounds that I DO show up for work.

This idea that the WH would have deliberately set out these documents, planning to expose them afterwards as forgeries, never made sense to me. It's way too dangerous a gambit. What if no one believes the exposé? Even if they do, what about the voters (there'll be some) who hear about the accusation but not the rebuttal? What if the documents get traced back to the WH? And, most of all, why in the world would you want to deliberately create news cycle after news cycle focused on a very dodgy part of Dubya's biography? Discrediting these documents hardly debunks the whole story, which was based on lots of other evidence.

Given the apparent effort to sterilize the documentary record of Bush's Guard years, I'd guess there's some pretty toxic stuff buried there. No one in their right mind would risk digging it up just to score some points against Dan Rather.

Oh, also, deliberately honking off Dan Rather isn't likely to be a smart move. He has a very loud megaphone, budget and staff to do plenty of investigative work, and a Texan's ego. Not somebody to get into a pissing match with weeks before a close election, particularly when you have the the kind of record Bush has.

McClellan's statement is nice to have, but it's still too easy to wriggle out of. We know from a lot of news reports that Bush is almost proud of his inattention to day to day details of the news. He can just claim that nobody on his staff bothered to read the memos carefully, assuming they would not say anything bad. It's hard to believe, but cannot really be disproven either.

I still find it hard to believe that anyone who would ever vote for Bush will find this whole issue compelling.

I tend to agree with Howard - one should apply Occam's Razor to the multitude of provenance possibilities for the memos. The simplest answer is that they are memos written by Lt. Col. Killian. That the White House didn't immediately scream "fake" tells me that Bush was well acquainted with the contents and, if the memos aren't real, they're pretty damned close to the truth.

This story gets more weird by the day and I'm convinced there is an amazing back story to how the memos came to CBS News' attention. I hope that the back story will be publically revealed someday and satisfy our curiosity.

Paul, on the level of changing votes, i agree with you: had the media done its job in 2000, instead of obsessing over the color of al gore's suits, the volume of his sighs, and the role he played in love story, then it might have made a difference.

but the bush enablers have made their peace with the man's shortcomings, the dems want the man out, and the independents are almost assuredly not waiting on the resolution of a fine point (was bush warned in writing to take his physical) to make up their minds.

"This idea that the WH would have deliberately set out these documents, planning to expose them afterwards as forgeries, never made sense to me. It's way too dangerous a gambit. What if no one believes the exposé?"

He has five million wingnuts who believed the expose before it happened.

"Even if they do, what about the voters (there'll be some) who hear about the accusation but not the rebuttal?"

There will be ten times as many voters who hear about the rebuttal but not the accusation.

"What if the documents get traced back to the WH?"

Lie. That one's easy.

"And, most of all, why in the world would you want to deliberately create news cycle after news cycle focused on a very dodgy part of Dubya's biography?"

To keep people from thinking about his record during the last 4 years.

"We know from a lot of news reports that Bush is almost proud of his inattention to day to day details of the news. He can just claim that nobody on his staff bothered to read the memos carefully, assuming they would not say anything bad."

This is supposed to be a defense? Oy.

Why not announce that sure, maybe his superior officer gave him a direct order to get a physical but he didn't listen so it was OK?

He could say that yes, it's true the CIA told him that there weren't any nukes in iraq, but nobody on his staff read the report because they assumed the CIA would say what they wanted to hear?

No, we didn't lie about the economy, we just assumed the reports said what we wanted them to.

Sheesh.

"He has five million wingnuts who believed the expose before it happened."

They were already voting for him. Nothing to be gained among the voters he needs.

"There will be ten times as many voters who hear about the rebuttal but not the accusation."

Unlikely. In any case they couldn't know how the story would play ahead of time. And again, the ones hearing the most of the rebuttals are already Bush faithful.

"To keep people from thinking about his record during the last 4 years."

The Republicans made it an election all about character, not issues. Giving legs to a story that calls Bush's character into question doesn't help them.

Tom Maguire is now proposing to me, with a straight face, the alternative theory that the White House staff might not have thought the memos were of any importance at all, and so nobody bothered to check the accuracy of their contents with Bush until after the broadcast, even though CBS had been trumpeting all day that they were important and all the rest of the press agreed after the broadcast. (Bush had neglected his duty and a flat-out command; Killian had yanked his flying license for that reason; Bush was "talking to someone upstairs"; Buck Staudt was pressuring Killian to cover up Bush's dereliction of duty...) *sigh*

Though John Kerry was savaged by attacks on a sense of duty and personal courage, I wonder are we helping elect to John Kerry by averting focus from policy issues?

My personal theory is that the documents were cooked up as a fake that was good enough to fool CBS but not good enough to sustain under concerted examination, in order to inoculate GWB against the scandal.

"I still find it hard to believe that anyone who would ever vote for Bush will find this whole issue compelling."

Yeah, but it's another drop of water on the heads
of those who claim Bush, and Republicans in general, deserve the claim of higher character and greater patriotism when just the opposite is closer to the truth. In the long view this Guard story is less about the election and more about wearing down the obstinance of those who cling to the GOP thru thin and thinner.

And, there's still plenty of time to hammer on the rest-- Iraq, economy, security-- which hasn't exactly gone away in the news. In fact, save a little for the debates. Voters need a breather before facing these Bush fiascos head-on again.

"I still find it hard to believe that anyone who would ever vote for Bush will find this whole issue compelling".

While lines of division have hardened and there are not a lot of undecideds, this doesn't mean that all decided Bush voters have well-thought-out reasons for their decision. Furthermore, the undecideds are not usually thoughtful people torn between two opposing points of view; they're more likely fluffy people voting on whim.

I'm not sure that the attack on Bush's NG service will be effective, but it's not because it's a shallow, peripheral, or irrelevant issue. Lots of shallow, peripheral irrelevant issues are politically powerful. Furthermore, if we can shave 1% off Bush's total, that's a lot.

BTW, my friend who went into "the Guard" in about 1968 was told in basic training that NG meant three things: "National Guard, No Good and Not Going." It didn't bother him a bit, because "not going" was his goal.

"I still find it hard to believe that anyone who would ever vote for Bush will find this whole issue compelling".

While lines of division have hardened and there are not a lot of undecideds, this doesn't mean that all decided Bush voters have well-thought-out reasons for their decision. Furthermore, the undecideds are not usually thoughtful people torn between two opposing points of view; they're more likely fluffy people voting on whim.

I'm not sure that the attack on Bush's NG service will be effective, but it's not because it's a shallow, peripheral, or irrelevant issue. Lots of shallow, peripheral irrelevant issues are politically powerful. Furthermore, if we can shave 1% off Bush's total, that's a lot.

BTW, my friend who went into "the Guard" in about 1968 was told in basic training that NG meant three things: "National Guard, No Good and Not Going." It didn't bother him a bit, because "not going" was his goal.

meanwhile we are losing the war in Iraq and over the last 5 months we have killed 3,186 Iraqis.

Don't you think it is time to talk about something that has some revelance to the current situation and might actually mean something to the election results if people knew about it.

Spencer, thank you.

The first mention of John Kerry in the LA Times today is on page 19. Where is the persisting message?

There are deep problems to contend with from Iraq to Russia to health care costs and job creation. Please let us focus on solving these problems.

So far John Kerry fails to come across. He seems opaque, his eyes especially, like a card board cut out. How did he win the nomination? Did the Republicans engineer his victory in Iowa? Why is our political system so disfuncional?

I think we're on the wrong track here. I think he accepted them so willingly because they're far, far better than the truth. And he's pretty damn sure the truth will not be found because it's known to be sewn up tight. Possibly privileged information. I've been hypothesizing hospital (McLean type) or drug rehab or combination of the two.

Luke -- are we looking back at Dean and banging our collective head against the wall?

I don't have a problem with the theory that CBS themselves faked the memos, and although I'm just another stupid outsider, I have reasons.

We might presume that Bush & Co long ago had the originals shredded - they're an enterprising bunch. We might also presume that just before that happened, someone somewhere wrote a summary of them - dates, synopsis, etc. (Do I smell blackmail?)

Then, fairly recently, CBS stumbled across this person & the summaries. Well, summaries ain't a story. Can't go on air & say, "We have seen summaries of memos written by somebody long ago." That sort of thing gets laughed at. And if they did anyway, they ran the risk that some other news outfit would convert the summaries back into original "documents". A report based on summaries was either not a credible story, or was simply begging some other news outfit to do the dirty & get the "genuine" story.

Because it was foolproof. The White House could neither deny the forgeries, nor produce the shredded originals.

That's the reality of TV news, like it or not. "We have seen" will always be scooped by "we have the documents in hand." If they hadn't done such a poor job of it, no one would have ever known. No one would have ever bothered digging up the secretary who typed them. (News Flash: CBS is the Jason Blair of TV!)

Let me tell you about The Tarot Card of Death. Back two years ago the DC sniper left a tarot card at one of his kills. It happened to be trump 13, Death. The police department who found the card did not release the actual image of it to the press. But no matter: The very next day we were shown The Card of Death on every news broadcast. Did any news anchor mention that it wasn't the actual card that was found, did any news anchor mention that the actual card had not been shown to them? Not so far as I can remember.

At the time I was running my bookstore in NYC on 30th Street, between 6th & 7th avenues. As it happens, CNN's main office was at 8th & 34th, right around the corner. A day or two after the story broke, I got a call from CNN, could I supply a tarot deck? (I stock some 200 different decks & have a large on-line display.) When the CNN people arrived, I had selected a likely one, which they bought. I subsequently saw the cards on a CNN broadcast.

Two hundred different decks. The DC sniper might have had any one of them. The fact that no one knew what the actual card looked like did not stop broadcast media from getting decks & showing the Death cards from them. I saw cards from at least three different decks, all pretending to be The
Card. When it was over, the cops showed the actual card, from a deck that no one had guessed. As I recall, it was from the Marseilles deck. All the guesses, including mine, were for the Rider, or one of its clones. Were there any apologies? Not that I can remember.

So if Dan Rather's enraged he was caught out because of bunglers further down the CBS food-chain, this might be a good thing. Now he has to get his honor back. That might just save us all.

Semi-Daily Journal's comments section again proves the truth of the adage, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Obviously the spokesman meant, "When a major news organization like CBS gives you something, you consider them not to be so stupid as to try to scam you with forgeries."

Especially when there is nothing significant in them anyway. Team Bush must be hardly able to contain their glee at all this. Kerry is so hopeless, he has to rely on making stuff up. Bush might win every state except Massachusetts--in fact, I'm not sure Kerry is even popular enough to take that state as McGovern did.

My best guess is that someone took notes as Bush's files were being "cleansed" and then typed these up from his/her notes (Bruce Bartlett??). Which is why they sound familiar to the typist without being 100% accurate.

How does any of this speculation explain the authenticity of the signatures?

How can anyone square faked documents with real signatures?

> How can anyone square faked documents with real signatures?

My question is how can anyone claim to authenticate a copy under any circumstances?

Your argument would apply to an original document with a ink signature, leaving real questions as to how it was created, but it is now possible to create an electronic document with a reproduction of any signature from any source. With current technology, that reproduction can be made indistinguishable from a copy of an original with the same signature.

That might not have been true 15 or 20 years ago, when the copy would have to be made using a photocopier using scissors and liquid paper for instance, almost certainly introducing some kind of artifacts. But if the output is from a digital device as it is now, the forger has control of every pixel displayed. It is still possible to leave copying artifacts and other indications of forgery. But it is also possible to create a document that cannot be distinguished from the result of copying an original.

In short, you cannot authenticate a copy. The burden of proof was always on those claiming the document was original.

I do tend to think CBS got hoodwinked so easily because they have evidence to corroborate the contents of the memo. I also think that Knox sounds like as credible a witness as there is (and Patrick Sullivan ought to be ashamed of himself for snide remarks about her age). But it is pretty clear that the memos, wherever they came from, are not reproductions of authentic physical documents.

Hello Ken,

Forged signatures have been explained elsewhere (Max Sawicky, I think). Suffice to say that isn't the hard part.

What would be interesting is if the signatures are as degraded, or less degraded, than the text of the memo itself. In other words, was the text degraded & then a signature attached to it, in which case degradation levels will not match.

Or was a "degraded" font used? Eg, are all the degraded e's identical when they should all be slightly different? But this is of interest only to professionals. It's been established what the documents are.

My question: If the originals were shredded, then did the person in charge of shredding make the summaries, presuming there were summaries? Did CBS get the story directly from this party, or from someone else? (To a casual onlooker, the odor of implied blackmail is delicious.)

If it comes out to the conclusion that 1. the documents were fabricated, and 2. their content is genuine, this comes out as a wash with regard to this specific little piece of back-and-forth. CBS is guilty of being duped into using false information, and Bush is guilty of disobeying a direct order.

Since it's Bush running for office, and since the whole dust-up has nothing to do with the Democrats, I'd say it's advantage Kerry.

That interview with TANG secretary was one of the more interesting ones I've seen. She seemed pretty sharp for an octagenarian.

> She seemed pretty sharp for an octagenarian.

Alzheimer's is a disease that affects many people when they age. But merely being old doesn't mean you suffer from Alzheimer's or any other form of senile dementia. I missed the interview, but your description doesn't surprise me.

Actually, it sort of fits with my pop understanding of the "Nun Study" in which it appeared that people with greater language ability when young are less likely to suffer from Alzheimer's. Assuming Knox was good at her job, it is fair to assume she had a good memory and good organizational skills. It's not surprising if her mental facilities have remained intact.

Patrick: "Semi-Daily Journal's comments section again proves the truth of the adage, 'There's a sucker born every minute.'

Hard to quarrel with that, Patrick...

Patrick again: "Obviously the spokesman meant, 'When a major news organization like CBS gives you something, you consider them not to be so stupid as to try to scam you with forgeries.' "

"Obviously", Patrick? Please. If the White House staff knew that Bush's record on the Guard was clean (and it's a wee bit difficult to believe that they haven't all been given careful instructions on this), they would obviously have said so when the memos first came out -- they had had loud advance warnings all day, after all, of what the memos' content was (culminating with the advance copies of the memos given to the White House by CBS). BUSH knows whether or not the facts listed in the memos are true or not. The fact that they didn't deny the truth of the facts in them (or try to call Killian himself a liar) virtually proves that -- while they may conceivably have thought that the memos themselves may have been forgeries -- they knew that their content was mostly right.

But then, why am I wasting my time on you? That last paragraph of yours simply shows yet again that you're a hysterical, gasping little fanatic grabbing frantically for reassurance. The latest batch of polls today, by the way, shows the race still extremely close -- and both Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon also show that about 3/4 of the voters are sick unto death of all the Vietnam controversies and want the candiates to limit themselves to talking about what they're going to do NOW. (To the extent that Vietnam is having an impact, both polls still show it's slightly helping Kerry and seriously hurting Bush.)

Paul,

The story can be viewed here http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60II/main3475.shtml

Go check it out. She comes across and as a sharp, no-nonsense lady.

I read that they think that Alzheimer's is more common with people who do not stay mentally active later in life.

Moomaw: “The fact that they didn't deny the truth of the facts in them (or try to call Killian himself a liar) virtually proves that . . .”

That was my first impression as well, but after thinking about for a while I now disagree. You don’t know what forces acted on them or how they reasoned. While your speculation is one plausible reason, I think it overreaches to say it virtually proves the content of the memos must be true. Sometimes the best strategy is to simply shut up and see how events unfold. Silence is not an admission of guilt, and that’s one reason we presume innocence in the legal arena.

When you say [about Patrick] “. . .you're a hysterical, gasping little fanatic grabbing frantically for reassurance,” you overstep the bounds of civility. As far I can see he (at least here) has not engaged in the kind of invective deserving of this degree of condemnation. Moreover, I don’t see why he should be called a “fanatic,” he simply has a different opinion and wants to contribute like everyone else. Do you talk to people this way face-to-face?

Yes, I agree. Everyone should be civil to Patrick, and I mean **everyone** -- even though he's the most tedious piece of shit that ever drew a breath of air.

God loves everyone, and we are all God's children.

Sorry, Mr. Zarkov -- he IS a fanatic, and he IS hysterical. Virtually every message he's ever sent here is written in the same screechy, panting, frantic style, and his latest one is particularly outstanding in that regard. And, yes he IS deserving of that kind of invective, for the simple reason that he routinely resorts to it himself. And, yes, when people talk to me that way face to face, I DO respond in kind.

Patrick R. Sullivan has taken on the role of Defender of the Indefensible, and that can't be getting any easier.

Latest development: a judge has lost his patience.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040916/ap_on_el_pr/bush_guard_records_1&printer=1 :

"A federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to find and make public by next week any unreleased files about President Bush's Vietnam-era Air National Guard service to resolve a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The Associated Press.

"U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. handed down the order late Wednesday in New York. The AP lawsuit already has led to the disclosure of previously unreleased flight logs from Bush's days piloting F-102A fighters and other jets.

"Pentagon officials told Baer they plan to have their search complete by Monday. Baer ordered the Pentagon to hand over the records to the AP by Sept. 24 and provide a written statement by Sept. 29 detailing the search for more records."

Of course, who knows whether they'll really obey him?

Moomaw: “he IS a fanatic, and he IS hysterical.”

Ok give me an example of one of his statements that is “fanatic” and “hysterical.” Then compare and contrast that to zizka who regularly attacks people with the strongest invective including curse words. Yet you never condemn him. This seems like a double standard on your part. At one time our host published rules which included not attacking people personally.

A. Zarkov wrote, "Ok give me an example of one of his statements that is 'fanatic' and 'hysterical.' "

It is widely understood on USENET's sci.econ that Patrick Sullivan is as Bruce describes him.

For some fun exchanges, see:
http://tinyurl.com/4t676

Perhaps it's because I don't deliberately disrupt threads with floods of long, irrelevant posts full of factual errors and wild accusations.

Trolls have written themselves a self-serving rule: "As long as I avoid insult and obscenity, I have a right to post anywhere". There are other forms of disruption than gross incivility -- and to me these other forms are uncivil too. Patrick's posts are like speedbumps or bottlenecks, making intelligent discussion less convenient and less likely.

Conservatives believe that liberals are completely passive in the face of provocation, and if one is banned they will snarkily evoke their free speech rights and snarkily ask "I thought liberals were tolerant". It's just taunting. Conservatives do not run their own sites the way they pretend to think that liberals should.

It might be a net gain for SDJ if Sullivan, Adrian, and I all disappeared forever, and that's a deal I might be willing to go with if I trusted Patrick and Adrian to comply. However, I do feel that I have contributed positive, informative posts to SDJ, which Adrian and Patrick almost never do.

Dan Bartlett said this evening ( http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cbs18sep18,1,1428308.story?coll=la-home-headlines =) that he DID grill Bush about the facts listed in the Killian memos before Dan Rather's first broadcast -- and that Bush "denied having defied orders from his superiors", which naturally explains why the White House didn't mention that fact at all when it initially announced that it had "every reason to think that the memos were authentic" and also refused to say that Killian was lying when he wrote them. (That initial statement from the White House, it turns out, is also why Rather decided to go on the air with the memos at all.)

As for the other stuff on them: well, shucks, Bush just couldn't remember whether or not it was true, according to Bartlett.

Further comment, at this point, is superfluous.

More confirmation of all this from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31727-2004Sep18?language=printer .

There's virtually no doubt now that the memos were forged -- and we're reasonably sure we know by whom: Bill Burkett, the Guard officer who told everyone at the start of this year that he had seen similar memos being destroyed on the order of the Texas Guard's Adjutant General Daniel James (who has now been appointed national commander of the Guard by Bush). (James, of course, denies this -- but as Kevin Drum points out, his secretary is still alive, and someone should talk to her.) Burkett and his lawyer no longer seriously deny doing so, and the forged memos were apparently faxed to CBS from a Kinko's only 12 miles from his home.

But keep in mind what happened: the White House's communications director -- after showing that he thought the memos were extremely important, and personally talking to Bush about whether the facts listed in them were true -- flatly and repeatedly refused to deny the truth of those facts. (Instead, he tried ridiculously to distort their meaning to say that while they were undeniable, they didn't really show any serious offenses by Bush.) And, as Brad pointed out at the start of this thread, Scott McClellan did this again last Wednesday, saying that the White House "had every reason [at the time of the first broadcast] to think that the memos were authentic." The White House would NOT have done something as dangerous as this just in the hopes of trying to trip up CBS later on a less important point.

In short, what we have now is proof that --as Killian's secretary Mrs. Knox told "60 Minutes" -- the memos were forged, but they were forged by someone who had seen the originals and was working from memory. And that someone was Burkett.

I would bet on Burkett as the forger. So here we have different people, some highly partisan, some very angry (Burkett), and some pretty old (Knox), giving us contradictory stories about what might have happened 34 years ago. But it’s CBS that has the problem here, not Bush. I would think that producer Mary Mapes is first in line for the axe. Curiously the first head into the basket is radio-talk-show host Brian Maloney. Fired from CBS affiliate KIRO because he criticized Dan Rather during his Friday show.

Please, Mr. Zarkov. The aspect of this which is NOT contradictory is that Bush -- after being shown the memos -- refused to say that the information in them was false, which is why Bush's com director then told CBS that (which, as we now know, is the only reason CBS decided to go with the memos). And Bush knows damn well whether the incidents mentioned in those memos happened or not. There is no way he would have done that unless he knew that the information in them was true. As with the Kerry Bronze Star affair, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to crack this case -- Dr. Watson could do it perfectly well.

Moomaw:

CBS is now in the CYA mode. At first they said they had complete confidence in the authenticity of the memos. Now according to WP, Josh Howard says: "[w]e completely abandoned the process of authenticating the documents. . . .” [as Barlett did not challenge the authenticity of the memos.] “Not challenging” is not the same as confirming. Silence is not admission. Without being witness to the Roberts-Barlett conversation, I can’t tell what verbal and non-verbal cues Barlett broadcast to Roberts. It could very well be that Barlett gave a clear go-ahead signal. On the other, hand Roberts might have misinterpreted him. Remember the memos, even if authentic, represent one person’s perceptions and opinions. Many times the best strategy when confronted with an accusation is to shut up. Look at what happened to Martha Steward. The prosecutor charged her with stock manipulation because she publicly protested her innocence.

Moomaw, your reasoning is plausible, but not compelling. It was my first reaction too. But now I think it would be a rush to judgment.

The New York Times has coverage of W. Bush's Guard career. It's a bit prolix, and it doesn't mention Knox that I noticed, but it's all there, and there's even some new stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20bama.htm?pagewanted=print&position=