CBS Admits Documents May Be Forged

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

Hopefully this will end the Vietnam era discussion and we can have some here-and-now discussion.

Funny, I didn't hear anyone on the right calling for a "here-and-now-discusssion" during the attacks on Kerry by the Swift Boat Goons (or after they were discredited.)

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Funny, I didn't hear anyone on the right calling for a "here-and-now-discusssion" during the attacks on Kerry by the Swift Boat Goons (or after they were discredited.)

I was.

[watermock]

They were never discredited. People covered their asses.

These "testamonials" are from people that were not even there. Who are you trying to kid? Noone said Kerry didn't lead himself into an ambush and one of the boats got blown out of the water, and he pulled the dude out.

WTF are you trying to say again? That's the only real act of courage I can muster, and good grief, anyone would do that. Can you imagine how many times a soldier has pulled another out of danger? The list would be in the millions.

Sit down and shut up, or take your blinders off.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

Lol. Man LABF, I thought after Dan Rather, a very proud man, a man who had everything to lose from admiting these documents are fraud, after he adimited the documents authenticity being qustionable even you would admit they are bunk. Take off those partisan glasses, my friend.

It amazes me that in the face of one obvious conspiracy, one that I think was more motivated by producing ratings for CBS than votes for Kerry, you believe that it's all actually part of "the Rove attack machine." That's amazing.

Whoa! Not so fast. Admiting that the authenticity of the docs is "questionable" is not the same thing as proof of forgery. (Although I understand how a bush partisan might have trouble making this distinction.)
Why would I (I don't work for CBS) "admit" the docs are "frauds" when no one has produced actual proof? All the forgery hawks have provided thus far is hearsay evidence and dubious claims re: typewriter fonts.

CBS merely caved to political pressure.

As for your charge of an "obvious" CBS/DNC/Kerry "conspiracy," I'll await your actual evidence/proof on this account as well.

[watermock]

How Amusing.

What did you expect SeeBS to say? It's damage control.

Listen you dimwit, they still haven't even disclosed where they got the forged papers.

They are going to do an "internal investigation". Well the first thing they can do is devulge where they got the documents right?

Grow up and smell the shiat.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It was unclear last night if Mr. Burkett had told Mr. Rather that he had been misled about the documents' provenance or that he had been the one who did the misleading.

This definitely needs to be clarified.

That is, where did Burkett get the documents? Did he forge them?

Seems like this needs to be answered before anyone can prove anything.

[watermock]

Yeah, I told you Burkett sent the fax on Microsoft Word a week ago.

This is like dragging a mule to water.

And BTW, the trashcan story has allready been discredited. When an Airman transfers, his papers go with him. The whole story is bogus. And what would Burkett be doing in that office in the first place, exactly when the supposed documents were "found and browsed thru".

It's all hillarious and your the last one to hold onto Rather's nuts. Take a good look at yourself LABF. Your like one of 3 people in the USA that still thinks this isn't an absolute forgery.

[watermock]

Whoa! Not so fast. Admiting that the authenticity of the docs is "questionable" is not the same thing as proof of forgery.

This is classic liberal thinking. There is no yes or no, only gray, or "elastic truth".

Reality insists there is only yes or no. It's true or it's false. That's reality. People can spin things all they want, believe me I'm pretty good, but behind the curtain there is the truth, and it's absolute. Physics dictates it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Whoa! Not so fast. Admiting that the authenticity of the docs is "questionable" is not the same thing as proof of forgery. (Although I understand how a bush partisan might have trouble making this distinction.)
Why would I (I don't work for CBS) "admit" the docs are "frauds" when no one has produced actual proof? All the forgery hawks have provided thus far is hearsay evidence and dubious claims re: typewriter fonts.

CBS merely caved to political pressure.

As for your charge of an "obvious" CBS/DNC/Kerry "conspiracy," I'll await your actual evidence/proof on this account as well.

Ah, the old "burden of proof" fallacy. In this country people are innocent until proven guilty (Even Bush, LABF) and evidence has to be proven authentic before it can be accepted as evidence.

Suggesting that the documents are valid because they haven't been proven fraudulent is fallicious. You can't make some **** up about me, write it down and then say "well can you prove these documents aren't real? Because until you can, they are!" It is incumbant on Dan Rather to prove they are authentic first, and right now there is more evidence to the contrary.

Bottom Line: Rather rushed this memo to his show without cross-checking the source so he could help his failing news organization. The documents are fraud and I think you lefties give Karl Rove way more credit than he deserves.

[watermock]

Exactly. When Rather talks about the "core of truth" WTF is that?

Part is false, part is true? Your innocent intill proven guilty.

That doesn't mean you write a bunch of tripe and it's assumed to be true until proven fraudulent.

What are we supposed to believe? Scott Peterson: "Yeah, I made boat anchors"

Where is the concrete?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Suggesting that the documents are valid because they haven't been proven fraudulent is fallicious.

I agree.

BTW, nice to hear you say the docs haven't been proven fraudulent.

Bottom line:

If this was a lawsuit, it would be too early for the case to go to trial inasmuch as neither side has all the facts yet.

CBS, by analogy, rested its case before the facts were in. That is, the network caved to political pressure.

Most interesting is the Rove attack machine's apparently successful diversion from the content of the memos, i.e., the gist of the charges. The only thing the docs added was the phrase 'direct order'--otherwise everything in them is already part of the uncontested record.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In its article, the AP reported, "The president's communications director, Dan Bartlett, "showed the president the documents provided by CBS that allegedly came from Col. Killian's personal files," said spokesman Brian Besanceney. "The president had no recollection of ever seeing the documents previously."

Why is that newsworthy? Most of the memos CBS aired came from Killian's personal files, which meant they were notes he wrote to himself, so of course Bush wouldn't have recalled ever seeing them. The one guard document in question Bush would have seen was an order from Killian for Bush to take a required physical. Bush says he doesn't remember seeing it, but that's beside the point. Every Guard pilot knew they had to take an annual physical, and in 1972 Bush refused. The point was made quite clear on Sept. 29, 1972, when Bush was formally grounded for failing to take a flight physical, and informed in a letter written by Maj. Gen. Francis Greenlief, chief of the National Guard Bureau. Whether Bush says he has "no recollection of ever" seeing the letter doesn't matter. The facts behind the letter are not in dispute.

But perhaps the most egregious example came from an ABC News piece posted on its web site last Friday. ABC landed an exclusive interview with Retired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush's unit in Texas. Staudt adamantly denied that Bush received any special treatment when he skipped over a waiting list of applicants and was accepted into the Guard in 1968. It's clear ABC considered getting the exclusive interview to be the bulk of its journalistic responsibility, because the rest of the piece is pure fluff.

For instance, one of the most enduring mysteries about Bush's service record is why, in the spring of 1972, did Bush, a fully trained pilot with two years left on this obligation, refuse to take an annual, mandatory physical. Wouldn't the brigadier general of Bush's unit be a good person to ask about that anomaly; to find out just how rare it was for a Guard pilot to simply refuse his physical? Perhaps, but ABC never asked Staudt.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Who was the original source of the documents?

If that source were revealed it might make this a lot clearer.

If these are intentionally forged documents then I doubt there is any reasonable obligation to protect the source.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ah, here we go:

They (CBS) concede that Bill Burkett was their source for the documents and though Burkett does not admit the documents are forgeries he "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."

CBS says that while they have no specific knowledge that the documents are forgeries they also say that they cannot authenticate them...

Ah, the old "burden of proof" fallacy. In this country people are innocent until proven guilty (Even Bush, LABF) and evidence has to be proven authentic before it can be accepted as evidence.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Has anyone been accused of forgery?

If so, then the burden of proof is on the accuser.

[watermock]

Nice of you to admit something I told you 5 days ago.

This is absolutely hysterical. Your buying this stopgap?

Burkett does not admit the documents are forgeries he "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."

How amusing. Your buying that line of crap? Now, as I said, Burkett, a Bush Hater, admits he "transfered documents on a confidencial basis".

I guess it's "Promise Keepers" Redux. This clown expects to get by with that routine? I am busting a gut here. Now it's all worming back. IMO, the worm has allready been dug up.

So tell us Mr. Burkett, who are you protecting? Your innocent, or are you "taking one for the team"?

This is incredible. I told LABF where this was headed days ago. It's simply comedy.

Now we have a man who wouldn't answer questions suddenly taking what amounts to the 5th.

And LABF buys it hook line and sinker

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Ah, here we go:

They (CBS) concede that Bill Burkett was their source for the documents and though Burkett does not admit the documents are forgeries he "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."

CBS says that while they have no specific knowledge that the documents are forgeries they also say that they cannot authenticate them...

Ah, the old "burden of proof" fallacy. In this country people are innocent until proven guilty (Even Bush, LABF) and evidence has to be proven authentic before it can be accepted as evidence.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Has anyone been accused of forgery?

If so, then the burden of proof is on the accuser.

! Nice try LABF, but that logic is total bull**** and a lame attempt by you to duck out of your own fallicious resoning that I called you out on.

The issue here is evidence being used against someone's character. No one, as you said, has been accused of forgery yet, and when and if they are, then this documentation will be used in evidence in that case. Until then, your lame point doesn't even apply.

The issue is President Bush's service record and whether these documents that suggest he shirked his responsibilities are valid. The burden of proof is on the presenter of said documents to validate them. They don't need to be proven fraudulent, they need to be proven accurate, and until they are they are no better than your word against mine.

To submit something to the American public as fact when you haven't verified the source and then the source later admits that they misled you is bad journalism.

[watermock]

This is absolute comedy.

[TexanBob]

Excuse me, but when did the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth produce FAKE documents in an effort to prove something they had no proof of?

[errand]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

What part of FAKE do these clowns not understand? It doesn't mean "flawed". It doesn't mean "deceptive". It mean someone willfully committed fraud. And anyone who acts with knowing disregard for fraud or knowingly aided in committing fraud (i.e Dan Rather of CBS News) should be charged with a crime and punished if convicted, just as if they were trying to sell fake jewels as real.

It's clear CBS suspected they were fakes and aired them anyway. Somebody needs to be held legally accountable for this. It was not just a "boo-boo". It was willful fraud.

The funny part is that when Enron forged papers to mislead their employees it was the big news of the day, and dammit we had better make a spanish Inquisition out of finding the truth....and sadly, when their own fake papers to try and alter the outcome of the presidential election....you don't hear any anger whatsoever out of the liberal media.

Looks like Danny boy lost out on that power struggle over how they would answer the charges of forgery.....

[errand]

Originally Posted by Needa Pass Rush

Will this mean that Rather will have more empathy for Bush and the war in Iraq? I don't either.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing!

I wonder if he's going to apologize to Bush......Naw! Not in my lifetime.

[errand]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Most interesting is the Rove attack machine's apparently successful diversion from the content of the memos, i.e., the gist of the charges. The only thing the docs added was the phrase 'direct order'--otherwise everything in them is already part of the uncontested record.

Let's say hypothetically, a person could forged a few documents saying someone's (like you) mother was arrested for prostitution in '72...and that she was a drug addict as well, and an unfit mother......

...did you just say that the fact the documents are forgeries doesn't matter, but what they contain does?

Or would you say that the content is more than likely false, because the documents themselves are?

[watermock]

Dan Rather is running thru airports like O.J. at this point. He won't talk to the press altho he is part of the press.

He is looking for the "real forger" in Tahiti I think.

[TexanBob]

The only reason to produce a forgery is to prove a LIE, not the truth. Nobody fakes something to prove the truth. They fake things to forward the lie.

The folks at DNCBS wanted so badly for the lie to be true (not that it's any more relevant than a quarter-century-old DWI was the last election cycle), that they were willing to lend credence to the lie and only backed off it when it was so blatantly obvious to everyone else that the Emperor was naked that they had to confess it in order to get people to stop laughing at them.

Their zeal to "get Bush" has turned them into a well-deserved laughingstock. According to the polls, Kerry is now losing in states he had a strong lead in just a month ago. When you have no credibility, you won't win the argument. The fake documents fiasco is the next-to-last nail in Sen. Spitball's coffin (the upcoming debates being the final nail) and hopefully will sink those running interference for them in the media as well. DNCBS put politics before the truth and will be made to pay a heavy price for it.

[watermock]

I nailed this down to Burkett days ago, but now he says he has to "hold in confidenciality" his source, when he said himself he read the trashcan documents, (which would of been impossible) because your documents travel with you. In other words, the documents would of had to be retrieved in Alabama.

I might be mixed up, but from what I can tell, it's impossible for this man to have any "trash can" intelligence.

I mean can you believe this? The best they have brought out is an 86 year old secretary?

What would that take? 500 bucks?

It's so damn amusing. It's not relevant, but it's so amusing.

I will tell you one other thing. Bush has never mentioned any of this 527 crap ever.

It's gotten to the point where they think Rove planted a forgery. I am not kidding.