Sure, because the matter likely won't end up in court. But anyone with the ability to engage in critical thought knows they are fakes. ****, look for news coverage somewhere else besides democratsundercover.com or whatever.I've told you before, no one is ever gonna prove that legally.
Oh yes the Democrats never engage in negative personal campaigning. Never try to change the subject. Never use rumor and innuendo.It's all speculation and the same old switch of hand that Repugs always do.
As for this matter if you think the authenticity of the do ents remains a real debate you need your head examined.
Oh you mean like what Bush was doing 30 years ago?It's also why we can't talk real issues in this campaign.
If the do ents are faked, It's not the first time a major news network has been dubbed and it probably won't be the last. CBS thought it did its homework verifying the authenticity of these do ents. Even the White House didn't dispute that these do ents could be real when CBS released a copy to them.
There is no proof that anyone in the Kerry campaign had anything to do with these do ents just as there was no proof that W was behind the Swift boat fiasco.
It's funny how Demoncrats get all caught up in legality when it comes to disproving a Demoncratic lie. But, rumors about President Bush should just be accepted at face value...well, because they say so.
You're right. 60 Minutes has used fake docs before.If the do ents are faked, It's not the first time a major news network has been dubbed and it probably won't be the last.
Oh, so now they might be fakes?
The White House simply re-released them with no comment as to their authenticity. Presumably CBS could be trusted to not pass along questionable do ents. So much for that.CBS thought it did its homework verifying the authenticity of these do ents. Even the White House didn't dispute that these do ents could be real when CBS released a copy to them.
You're right. This could lead back to the Kerry campaign. Which is all the more troubling because it meant a major presidential campaign was passing along faked do ents and a major news organization was attempting to deceive the public for partisan political purposes.There is no proof that anyone in the Kerry campaign had anything to do with these do ents just as there was no proof that W was behind the Swift boat fiasco.
This could lead back
Yeah, and my aunt could have nuts and be my uncle.
Have you ever really checked, though?
Hey, perhaps I'm just being "fake but accurate."
Judging by what you have pawned off in here as real I think my assertion is quite valid.
I believe -- and the longer Dan Rather waits to clear the air, the country swings to my side -- the DNC or Kerry Campaign are behind the memos.
I notice that neither the DNC nor Kerry are demanding Dan Rather or CBS to clear up the provenance of the do ents. But, they're not hesitating to demand a response to the forgeries from the White House.
I know that if I had nothing to do with the memos and there was a growing sense that I had...I'd be demanding that CBS tell the country where the ing memos came from.
Yes Yoni this is quite odd. I mean if it was some crank who hoaxed CBS why would CBS hesitate now to cut the line and flame that source? Sure, CBS would be concerned about not doing something that would dissuade future sources from speaking out but it would seem to be in the best interest of CBS to establish that you don't hoax CBS without getting the book thrown at you.
I think Bush43 had just as much to gain as the Kerry campaign as far as passing along fake do ents to Dan Rather and CBS. Besides, W passes along faked Niger do ents in the past and It has done little to hurt his campaign.
Oh of course Bush was behind it all.
Why did Rather go forward with his report using those do ents when they had not been properly authenticated and at least some of the experts who saw the do ents had raised serious objections which they shared with CBS?
Then let's find out Nbadanallah...
I know the RNC and Bush campaign are dying to know who forged the do ents. Aren't you even curious as to why the DNC and Kerry campaign isn't similarly interested?
CBS has every right to refuse to reveal confidential sources. Kerry has merely distanced himself from this whole thing. Doesn't mean that he's not interested in whether the do ents are forged or not. Which has not even been proven, and probably never will.I know the RNC and Bush campaign are dying to know who forged the do ents. Aren't you even curious as to why the DNC and Kerry campaign isn't similarly interested?
Dan
How's the view?
You're absolutely right. However, every other news organization that has ventured an opinion on this matter emphatically states that CBS is under no obligation to continue protecting a source that provided false information."CBS has every right to refuse to reveal confidential sources."
Why would he? CBS's stonewalling is increasing pointing the finger of su ion at Kerry and the DNC. His disinterest in alot of things is why his campaign is falling apart. If he can't at least get interested in a potential PR explosion, then, why should anyone vote for him?"Kerry has merely distanced himself from this whole thing."
Sure it does...that, or he's trying to avoid drawing the obvious correlation between his disinterest and Rather's reticence to reveal."Doesn't mean that he's not interested in whether the do ents are forged or not."
LOL -- I hear CBS is getting ready to admit the docs are forgeries...would you like to retract that last statement? , even CBS's "experts" have come out against CBS."Which has not even been proven, and probably never will."
Anyone going to comment on this?
Quick recap of my latest argument:
To find out what USnews was saying when they said Bush only had 12 days of inactive duty:
A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.
Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he ac ulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.
I found this. It reports that there are two seperate requirements for a year. That spent in active duty training and that spent in inactive duty training:
LinkAir Force Manual (“AFM”) 35-3, “Air Reserve Forces Personnel Administration,” dated June 25, 1969 (“AFM 35-3”), with its periodic amendments was the primary controlling authority available for this analysis.[2] “Satisfactory Participation” was defined as “the manner in which a member meets the training requirements of his reserve assignment.” Training consisted of Annual Active Duty for Training (“ANACDUTRA”) and Inactive Duty for Training (“INACDUTRA”).[3]
Members of the ANG were required to attend 48 INACDUTRA periods per year and complete not less than 15 days ANACDUTRA to achieve the “satisfactory participation” standard.[11] A member in Bush’s category could not have more than four absences from INACDUTRA in a fiscal year; attendance alone, however, was not sufficient, and a member had to assume “responsibilities commensurate with his grade” and had to perform “his assigned duties in a satisfactory manner as determined by the unit commander.”[12] Retention requirements were strict: “A member who, without approval of competent authority, fails to meet the fiscal year training prescribed for his assignment must be reassigned.”[13]
If you go to Lloyd's analysis you can clearly see he tries to add the two to get above a magic number he sets as fifty:
Albert C Lloyd's analysis.
Turn off Fox and come back to reality for a moment. How many news organizations demanded that Novak reveal his treasonous sources? Did that make one iota of difference?You're absolutely right. However, every other news organization that has ventured an opinion on this matter emphatically states that CBS is under no obligation to continue protecting a source that provided false information.
Its also a very real possibility these do ents were trascribed from the original mircofiche during the do ent destruction in 1997.
They would have to have been designated as such. Nice reach, though.
Hey its just a guess since apparently they are real/ but fake.
What do you think about Bush completing his service now?
Then that would mean that Burkett is indeed the source of the docs if that is the current version. Not surprising since Moore was interviewed the first time Rather aired his defense of his report.
Also still does not explain away the discrepancies in the text.
I must have missed something by the way you asked that...I'm not dodging, I'm just busy at work. I'll have to catch up later.
:wink
True. I am just tring to figure out the story. And if you remember I was saying that originally about these do ents. They should exist even if these are fakes (not necessarily the one caliming pressure.) So I am wondering if they might have some how been a result of what was destroyed during that incident in 1997?
SW post 2765- no worries SW. I was just asking. Get to it when you have time, just allow me to make my case to you.
Why can't you stick to the issue Nbadanallah. No one suggested that Novak's information was false."Turn off Fox and come back to reality for a moment. How many news organizations demanded that Novak reveal his treasonous sources? Did that make one iota of difference?"
The thing that is most troubling is that CBS was in such a rush to get this story to air. What was the matter with waiting a week to get all the do ents authenticated by reknown experts? After all, the ones who CBS had examine some of the do ents raised some rather clear objections about their authenticity. CBS also seemed to discount the interviews of Killian's son and widow which they conducted. Perhaps my recollection of the original report is fading but I don't recall Rather indicating that the family disagreed with what the purported "new" memos said.
And of course Rather led off the report with the Barnes interview.
Perhaps it is just coincidence or rapid turnaround but the timing of the emergence of the 'Texans for Truth' 527 and the DNC's 'Fortunate Son' campaign seems odd.
Basically, with regards to the 60 Minutes II report, everything seemed to be about timing, about getting it aired on that Wednesday after the GOP convention and prior to the 9/11 anniversary.
Also odd that CBS hasn't identified the source and burned them by now. There's no reason to protect someone who's hoaxed you, I would think.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote