Sheesh

Ok, I REALLY didn't want to write about the "are the documents forged?" question, because I meant what I said below: it's secondary, and Bush has to be made to defend what he's doing NOW, not what he did 35 years ago. Also I don't have a whole lot to say: I'm hardly qualified to make a determination. For the record:

Personally, I think some of the questions are good ones and warrant examining, despite the fact that SOME of the claims that have been made are plain false (like the claim that proportional space fonts didn't exist. They existed since the 1940s, and were downright common by the 70s.)

BUT (and it's a big but) CBS insists that they thoroughly investigated and the documents are authentic, and they are the ONLY ones who have examined the originals. The media "experts" making claims about these documents are seriously breaching protocol; they aren't supposed to pass judgment on documents that they haven't examined with their own hands.

That said, here are a few observations about the question of superscript. Just food for thought:

1) Despite the claims that superscript was not used at the time, it was, and, in fact, it appears on one of the official National Guard Documents Bush released himself. You can see a superscripted "111th" on page 3, the second line. The page is sideways.

2)In addition, THIS document, which is one of the ones the right-wing claims is phony, has a superscript "111th" and a NON superscript "111th" (in the heading). Also a non-superscript "1st." Indicating that it was typed with something that DIDN'T superscript automatically. In fact, there is the LACK of superscript in three out of four memos. May 4th ("111th" and "1st"); May 19th ("1st"); and August 1st ("111th," "1st" and "147th" twice). NONE of these have superscript. But Microsoft Word superscripts automatically.

That's it. For the rest, I'll just sit back and let the mess work itself out in the wash. Back to important stuff, like Bush's current incompetence.