SD Jarhead Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 So BRH...are you going to scream for an apology from Dan "The Man" Rather when the documents prove to be forgeries? Dosen't it even seem remotely strange to you that some Colonel would have these 'documents' in his personal files? Wow...the Kerry campaign is getting REALLY desperate.
SilverNRed Posted September 10, 2004 Author Posted September 10, 2004 Son of Late Officer Questions Memos For the record, I think Bush had a pretty lousy showing in the National Guard. And I think a few years later he used cocaine. But I'm not enormously concerned about either because (a) he's never, to my knowledge, tried to brag about his National Guard service and (B) I think he hit rock bottom a long time ago and decided to turn his life around (probably right around when he met his future wife). As a political issue, I just don't care. The only reason I'm interested in this story is because I do not trust the mainstream media. I'm interested to see if they forged these documents. I don't know one way or the other. But I am interested.
swede316 Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 And I think a few years later he used cocaine. Has this ever been proven? I've never seen anything about this. Please just the facts...If they exist.
SilverNRed Posted September 10, 2004 Author Posted September 10, 2004 Has this ever been proven? I've never seen anything about this. Please just the facts...If they exist. 24522[/snapback] It's not a fact, it's just my opinion. They asked him about drug use back in 2000 (when these allegations were first popping up) and he said something like "I've acknowledged I made a lot of mistakes earlier in life but that's all I'm going to say about those mistakes." I think that was appropriate. If I had to guess, yes or no, I'd guess yes. It's not a secret that he made a mess out of his life.
OGTEleven Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 So can we say with absolute certainty that the documents were forged? Not yet. Xavier University's Polt, in an email, offers two possible scenarios. "Either these are later transcriptions of earlier documents (which may have been handwritten or typed on a typewriter), or they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but I won't let that cloud my objective judgment: I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s." If he is a Kertry supporter he must be objective and have a superior intellect, right? How does this reconcile? The was quoted in this article: Link I'm no typewriter expert, but I'd be willing to bet there is some reporter digging up the typewriteer purchase order records from Bush's unit.
GG Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 Amazing how the military had the foresight to forge documents, knowing that journalists would sue for them under the Freedom of Information Act. 24480[/snapback] You do realize that the debate is whether the documents were forged recently, and not in 1972?
erynthered Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 You do realize that the debate is whether the documents were forged recently, and not in 1972? 24639[/snapback] Thats to deep G. You'll hurt her head.
swede316 Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 t's not a fact, it's just my opinion. They asked him about drug use back in 2000 (when these allegations were first popping up) and he said something like "I've acknowledged I made a lot of mistakes earlier in life but that's all I'm going to say about those mistakes." I think that was appropriate. If I had to guess, yes or no, I'd guess yes. It's not a secret that he made a mess out of his life. Not fact!!!!..then why bother...Seriously keep your opinions to yourself on such important matters.
SilverNRed Posted September 10, 2004 Author Posted September 10, 2004 Not fact!!!!..then why bother...Seriously keep your opinions to yourself on such important matters. 24673[/snapback] Not fact. And not important matters, IMHO.
SilverNRed Posted September 10, 2004 Author Posted September 10, 2004 MSNBC/Washington Post now questioning authenticity The article also contains quotes from the supposed author's wife. She calls them a "farce." Didn't take long for the questions to go mainstream.
SilverNRed Posted September 10, 2004 Author Posted September 10, 2004 Drudge Report Take with a giant spoonful of salt: XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU SEPT 09, 2004 22:45:32 ET XXXXX CBSNEWS LAUNCHES INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AFTER SUSPICIOUS BUSH DOCS AIRED **Exclusive** CBS NEWS executives have launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush's National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. "The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday. The source, who asked not to be named, described CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather as being privately "shell-shocked" by the increasingly likelihood that the documents in question were fraudulent. Rather, who anchored the segment presenting new information on the president's military service, will personally correct the record on-air, if need be, the source explained from New York. MORE
Rich in Ohio Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 How laughable is this. First of all CBS falls all over itself rushing this information out there because it can make GWB squirm a little. Then the fools are exposed by fellow lefty journalists who somehow grew a set, and actually asked some questions of the losers who brought this crap forward. he he he he he can it get any better??? Gee, you think maybe these ass clowns will ever get around to interviewing someone with some credibility like Mr. O'neil? Nah..no way it does not fit thier agenda to actually interview any of the real swiftboat heros. Afterall, all 300 must be liars, and only kerry is telling the truth, no real story there. Keep up the good work danny boy....just think, in about 57 days you will be able to announce john kerrys big victory.........and then change it when the real results come in....does this sound familiar?
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 How laughable is this. First of all CBS falls all over itself rushing this information out there because it can make GWB squirm a little. Then the fools are exposed by fellow lefty journalists who somehow grew a set, and actually asked some questions of the losers who brought this crap forward. he he he he he can it get any better???Gee, you think maybe these ass clowns will ever get around to interviewing someone with some credibility like Mr. O'neil? Nah..no way it does not fit thier agenda to actually interview any of the real swiftboat heros. Afterall, all 300 must be liars, and only kerry is telling the truth, no real story there. Keep up the good work danny boy....just think, in about 57 days you will be able to announce john kerrys big victory.........and then change it when the real results come in....does this sound familiar? 25019[/snapback] Election night 2000 - CBS News 7:00 PM - Hello America, Dan Rather reporting..... 7:01 PM - FLORIDUH GOES TO GORE!!!!!!! IT'S GORE'S......HE WINS FLORIDUH AND ITS 538 ELECTRICAL VOTES!!!!!!! GORE TAKES FLORIDUH!!!!! THIS IS DAN RATHER, AND I BROKE THIS FIRST!!!!!! TAKE THAT RUSSERT!!!!!! TAKE THAT BLITZER!!!!!!!! GORE GOES TO FLORIDUH!!!!! STFU SCHIEFFER!!!!!!! IT'S GORE'S!!!!! DAMN YOU ALL!!!!!!!
Brandon Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 OK, so if these are indeed forgeries, should CBS have to reveal the source?
RkFast Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 CNN has picked up the story. Ive reserving judgement until its PROVEN they are forgeries.
Rich in Ohio Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 OK, so if these are indeed forgeries, should CBS have to reveal the source? 25129[/snapback] Of course they should have to tell everyone. Or at the very least admit that they will finally stop useing the black eightball in the breakroom.
MichFan Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 ABCNews now has an interview with Killian's widow, the text of which is available at Drudge. The widow is going to defend her former husband's memory passionately. Expect every news outlet to want a crack at her to rub it in CBS's face. This is really going to blow up in the Dems face. Forged documents from a dead man that are strongly refuted by his surviving family, and accusations from a top Kerry campaigner whose own daughter says he is lying. This issue is going to extend well into next week and it just makes the Dems look cheap and desparate. At least the Dems did what the experts were telling them they needed to do by framing the issue for this and next week -- good job guys!
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 Looks like Cue Ball Carville and pet dog Paula Beagleala stepped into some mighty fine dog ****.
OnTheRocks Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 where is LasBillzfan on this thread? Still Yuk'in it up?
BRH Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 I'll admit the Repubs are pretty goddammned good at this. But they had help. The Swift Boaters come out with a bunch of lies and it takes the supposedly liberal media three weeks to beat them down with the weight of evidence. These documents come out and within 24 hours the supposedly liberal media is falling all over itself to try to show they're forgeries. Christ, people. 1. Times New Roman was invented in 1932. It is not an exclusively "word processing font." 2. IBM had proportional spacing as early as 1941 and it was widely available during the 1960s. The "experts" (who, by the way, have now been outed as partisans) say things like "only a few typewriter models had this capability." Yeah, like the IBM Selectric, which was only the fuggin Microsoft Windows of office typewriters in the 1960s and 1970s. 3. The Selectric had font balls with proportional spacing, Times Roman-like fonts, and superscript "th"s. All this is easily looked up. 4. Who do you think might know more about what Killian was thinking about George Bush in 1973 -- his widow, or his superior? Col. Hodges has already said that the documents reflect Killian's sentiments at the time. Most people in the media hate Dan Rather and would love to embarrass the stevestojan out of him. They also hate that they got beat on this exclusive. That's what's driving this forgery stevestojan, folks. Not the truth.
Recommended Posts