CBS Admits Documents May Be Forged

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

! 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.

You don't get it.

I agreed with you when you said the burden of proof was on CBS when it came to backing up the authenticity of the documents.

However, when your side alleges that forgery was committed, then the burden to prove that forgery is on you. (Just like a prosecuting attorney who charges a citizen with a crime.)

Originally Posted by Kaylore

The issue is President Bush's service record and whether these documents that suggest he shirked his responsibilities are valid.

Now you're getting warmer.

Regardless of whether or not the documents in question are "valid," these facts remain:

1) The substance of the charges conveyed by the documents has not been refuted. Practically every claim made in the memos was already a matter of uncontested public record--the docs were merely introduced as corroboration.

2) The CBS documents represent only a small fraction of the body of evidence that AWOL Boy did not fulfill his obligation to the ANG.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by 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?

When is Fox News going to issue a formal apology for supporting the veracity of the now-discredited Swift Boat Goons?

(Did I just hear something about Lucifer selling snow cones?)

And as long as CBS is in a contrite mood, why don't they apologize for all the lies they told about the Clintons for eight years?

Say it with me, CBS: "That little thing called the Pilsbury Report (you know, that little thing that garnered a paragraph on page 34 of the NY Times....?)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by errand

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?

Hey--let's get off of mothers. I just got off of yours. (Just kidding.)

To get to your question, it's the truth or falsehood of the charges that matters.

I hate to keep repeating this stupid analogy, but it's the only thing that seems to get through to the bush minions:

If somebody forges a document saying "2+2=4" using my handwriting and forges my signature to it, does it follow that the statement "2+2=4" is false?

Use your head, man.

[watermock]

The documents are forgeries. What part of this can't you comprehend? I told you this a week ago.

What are you trying to do, back up SeeBS which as allready folded?

This is so amusing.

[watermock]

You dimwit.

The reason SwiftBoats for Truth hasn't retracted anything is because everything is true according to their personal recollection, 250 of them.

Let me remind you also, it's a 527, not SeeBS news.

Now I hope you know the difference between a political organization and CBS News right?

Evidently you don't. Why not let this go like SeeBS is trying to?

Dan Rather didn't even show up Sunday on 60 minutes, and your still defending him.

How Amusing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush's ANG Personnel Officer: Bush was AWOL

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106833/

Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968. The move was well-chosen and well-timed. Only four Air National Guard squadrons were sent to Vietnam, and none was sent after Bush enlisted. All he had to do was fulfill a "statement of understanding" in which he promised to attend 24 days of weekend duty and 15 days of active duty each year.

He failed to do so.

Four years into his six-year commitment, Bush "changed his mind" and decided "he preferred to be in politics."

That description doesn't come from some phony memo.

It comes from retired Col. Rufus Martin, Bush's then-personnel officer, in an interview with the Wa Post.

[watermock]

Where is the waiting list conspiracy you have been harping on for the past year Dimwit? That is gone.

Second, None were sent after Bush Enlisted? I suppose that None means that no squads were dispached because Bush was a pilot in one of the squads? WTF are you smoking?

He went to Alabama, (with his records, not a trash can), and failed to show up for a physical because the F-102 was being taken out of service, and that he wanted to work on a political campaign, and then go to Harvard.

WTF are you talking about, he has an Honorable Discharge.

First, you claim he was AWOL, which you don't get an honorable discharge, there are comments he was a good if not great pilot on a very dangerous plane (The F-102 was a horrible plane and very unstable at low speed), and the kid wants to finish out a 6 year commitment in Alabama and then go to Harvard.

Gee we should have Clinton shoot him from Oxford.

Sit down and shut up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

James C. Moore, an Expert on Karl Rove and Bush's National Guard Lies, Speculates on the CBS Memos. Are They True Fabrications?

Liars are not supposed to last. Eventually, their fabrications can be expected to collapse and all of the sickness they have spread is cured by truth and righteousness. Most of the time that’s what happens. But there is a new perception in the American political process and it is a threat to candidates and our democracy. Lying has become an acceptable tactic. And the immorality of lying is no longer a reason to dismiss it as an effective tool. When voters are not paying attention, lying works. But it still creates casualties and they are beginning to accumulate in the controversy surrounding CBS and the George W. Bush National Guard memos.

In the cascade of events that has led CBS News into trouble, the first lie actually belongs to the President of the United States. No one any longer has doubt that there are records missing from the president’s Military Personnel Records Jacket. Huge gaps of service time are simply unaccounted for. Also, there is no commander’s report or counseling statement, which is required by guard regulations, to explain the grounding of Lt. Bush. Oddly, not one journalist has ever asked the president why he did not show up for his flight physical. His spokesman, Dan Bartlett, has been able to explain away the controversy by saying the physical was “a formality because he was no longer flying.” That’s not true, of course, because pilots are not allowed to decide on their own they no longer want to fly. Instead of addressing that matter, though, the White House consistently claims, “The president got an honorable discharge and is proud of his service in the National Guard.”

http://www.buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/sub2

[watermock]

I knew this was coming.

So have Burkett tell us where the records came from, and why they were not simply photocopied and replaced.

This is hysterical

[watermock]

When he transferred to Alabama, they didn't have F-102's anyway.

Look, this was an issue for the Democrats about a 21 year old National Guardsman 31 years ago.

Bush never said he was Christs Child then. The reason this is up is because of fraud.

What part of this don't you understand? You want to castrate the National Guard because they gave him an Honorable Discharge?

Jesus Christ, he doesn't even have a Dishonorable Discharge, and you b****ing. It's literally amazing since he could of gone to "Oxford" like Clinton or simply played in college for several years. This is so amazing and turned against the DNC.

The tide has turned now. Now he's back to his anti-war roots.

We will see the coward that he is in the next 45 days.

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

However, when your side alleges that forgery was committed, then the burden to prove that forgery is on you. (Just like a prosecuting attorney who charges a citizen with a crime)

You're still using the same fallacy. They DON'T NEED TO PROVE THEY ARE FRAUDULANT IF THEY WERE NEVER SHOWN TO BE TRUE IN THE FIRST PLACE! They didn't allege forgery, they questioned authenticity. Yes, there is a difference.

I'm only going to explain this once. In real court, not your pretend court, this is having the President on trial for failing to report to duty while in the National Guard. As evidence, the prosecution submits documents that seem to prove he failed in this regard. The Defense can ask for the authenticity of the documents and then the prosecution HAS TO PROVE THEY ARE AUTHENTIC! The Defense doesn't have to anything until they are proven authentic. They are worthless until they are proven legit. If they were proven accurate, then and only then would your point hold, but they weren't so it doesn't. The main difference is no lawyer in his right mind would have done what Rather did, and that is move forward with a special presentation on documents that some guy in another state said were real over the phone.

Here's your version. Same scenario, but when the Defense asks if the documents are authentic, the prosecution says "prove they aren't." This doesn't hold up in court. It's ridiculous to suggest that it could be done this way. It never has! This is a burden of proof fallacy. You're wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong.

I don't even know why I'm wasting my time because you're the only one left who won't concede the docs are fake even after Dan Rather himself came out and said it.

[Kaylore]

Even the DNC is saying they're false now


Dems admit bad documents, but push charges

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 (UPI) -- Democrats Monday acknowledged some documents it touted in attacking President Bush's U.S. military record were false, but continued to push other evidence.

"Now that we know what's not true, let's focus on the facts," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a statement regarding CBS's News' apology for broadcasting a Sept. 8 story about Bush's military service based on documents of dubious merit.

"Today we learned that George Bush did not earn enough points to qualify for an honorable discharge and that he has given three different explanations for why he missed his physical," McAuliffe continued in the statement.

"The American people already know that strings were pulled to get President Bush into the Guard; and while in the Guard he missed months of service and was grounded. ... But what we still don't know is why Bush didn't fulfill his duty to his country or why he has continued to lie to the American people about it," he said.

Democrats had used the CBS report in their charges that Bush did not fulfill his duty in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.


Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2004 UPI

It's also good to see they're sticking to the issues of the here and now. That's okay though, the more they talk about the past, the more it helps Bush. At this point they can talk about it all day for all I care. I can already see the debates:

Senator Kerry, what is your possition on outsourcing jobs?

"I served in Vietnam!"

Senator Kerry, what is your plan to help gow the American economy?

"George Bush never reported for duty while he was in Alabama!"

Mr Kerry, What is your possition on the Iraq war?

"I Voted for it before I voted against it!"

Your final remarks, Mr Kerry.

"I won three purple hearts!"

That'll win 'em over. I mean it's clearly working.

[watermock]

It's pretty comical and casts a doubt about anything this lunatic says.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Today we learned that George Bush did not earn enough points to qualify for an honorable discharge and that he has given three different explanations for why he missed his physical," McAuliffe continued in the statement.

"The American people already know that strings were pulled to get President Bush into the Guard; and while in the Guard he missed months of service and was grounded. ... But what we still don't know is why Bush didn't fulfill his duty to his country or why he has continued to lie to the American people about it," he said.

Props to McAuliffe for getting to the heart of the matter.

Discrediting the messenger is a standard Karl Rove technique to discredit the message.

It has worked for him over and over again in keeping the truth hidden about Bush, even though it is in plain view.

[watermock]

Got a link other than the hack McAuffie?

LABF comes in with an assertion from a DNC hack and wants us to buy it.

Bush served 5 years 4 months and 16 days or something. I don't care to look it up. He was EXCUSED to work on a political campaign, Then, he went to Harvard to complete he education.

It's all there dimwit. He served 5.4 of a 6.0, he asked for a transfer, granted, then he kinda floated around and asked to work for a campaign, (granted), and then asked to go to Harvard (Granted).

I allready posted the honorable discharge. WTF do you want?

This is a total non issue execpt for you LABF. Kerry brought it up. He can choke on it.

Hey lets look at it this way:

I was witness to attrocies, Ghegis Khan, Beheadings and Killing of Civillians.

or:

Hey, I did my gig and they said I could go to Harvard.

Can you imagine the roles reversed?

Bush the Vietnam Butcher?

You can check what Kerry said. He said "I saw".

Did Kerry report these (now heresay) attrocities?

And they are worried about a few missing months from someone who could of gone to Harvard in the first place.

How amusing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're still using the same fallacy. They DON'T NEED TO PROVE THEY ARE FRAUDULANT IF THEY WERE NEVER SHOWN TO BE TRUE IN THE FIRST PLACE! They didn't allege forgery, they questioned authenticity. Yes, there is a difference.

You still don't get it.

Just because CBS failed to prove the authenticity of the documents, it doesn't follow that the docs were forged--it just means CBS was unable to prove the authenticity of the documents. By analogy, if a second-grader can't prove an algebra equation, it doesn't follow that the equation can't be proven.

Further, how is a charge of inauthenticity essentially different from an accusation of forgery? Either way, the accusation implies a crime was commited. That is, if a document is inauthentic, it means the document was faked or forged by someone.

Your side claims that someone forged the documents.

If so, then who?

And where is your proof?

When you accuse someone of a crime, the burden of proving that he committed that crime is on you. (That's the law, BTW.)

So far you haven't even named a perp.

[ClevelandBronco]

On Sept. 10, I tried to warn:

LA: Have you seen the Microsoft Word doc with default properties intact superimposed over the supposedly typewritten evidence in question?

You replied:

"As seen on freerepublic.com and Faux News, no doubt."

I further warned: I have seen that superimposition and the evidence is incontrovertible proof of contemporary forgery.

You replied "And yet the WH didn't question the documents' authenticity.

But don't mind me--I'll let you get back to your Kool-Aid."

Looks now like Jim Jones is your beer vendor, eh, lightweight?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I don't even know why I'm wasting my time because you're the only one left who won't concede the docs are fake even after Dan Rather himself came out and said it.

It would be more truthful and accurate for you to call this what it essentially is, viz., a stalemate.

That is, CBS can't prove the memos' authenticity, and your side can't prove that the memos are not authentic.

We still don't even know who the original source of the documents was.

CBS got them from Burkett, but Burkett won't reveal who he got them from (he says he's protecting the source.)

So, to extend the courtroom analogy, the jury is still out.

I, for one, think the original source is none other than one KKKarl Rove.

(Let the "conspiracy nut" cries begin.)

[watermock]

If it is faxed the original copy is intact.

It's not as relevant that it just happened to come from Burkett as the entire document was typed on Word.

All you have to do is copy the documents and even mail them.

Your so busted it's literally hyterical.

I told you days ago, the trail went thru Kinkos in Abeline Texas.

Now he simply says he can't devulge information. This ****head is owned.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

On Sept. 10, I tried to warn:

LA: Have you seen the Microsoft Word doc with default properties intact superimposed over the supposedly typewritten evidence in question?

I'm sure you'd be more than willing to show us your copies.

(Along with proof of the identity of the perp(s) and proof of collusion w/ CBS, etc.)

Meanwhile, you and your fellow powerlineblog.com forgery hawkers have still not been able to prove that the documents were created by a computer.

That argument was thoroughly trashed almost from the outset.

Next!

[watermock]

That was done a week ago.

god your pathetic. I even posted it.

God your a dimwit. The font was done weeks ago.

Are you deaf dumb and blind?

I told you Burkett sent a fax thru Abeline Texas thru a Kinkos.

Burkett has allready acknowleged that at this point.

Now he will not name his "source"

The fact is, the typeset is not compatable to anything in the 1971 era.

And he won't name his "source" which is himself on a computer.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why Bush is teetering Despite his lead in the opinion polls, history and demographics suggest the president could wind up a loser in November

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGJ68OT8L1.DTL

[watermock]

Your so lost your not even relevant.

We are not discussing the polls there dimwit.

[patteeu]

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.

What is proven is that the documents were so shakey that not even a left-leaning newsman like Rather can justify using them as the basis for a story. Your requirement for some level of absolute proof is ridiculous. You seem to require proof beyond an unreasonable doubt.

I can still see your cute little sailor's cap as you disappear into the depths aboard your sinking ship. Dan Rather is soaked, but at least he's trying to swim for shore now.

[TexanBob]

Logic, LABF style:

"Evidence" of Bush shirking an exam 30 years ago is sent by a partisan Democrat to CBS News after clearing it through a former senator Max Cleland (Democrat, last seen representing Kerry in a pathetic photo op at Crawford, TX) and Joe Lockhart (Democrat connected both to Clinton and Kerry). When major questions surface about the authenticity of the documents, they can find nobody who stands behind them:

Killian's wife: docs are fake.
Killian's son: docs are fake.
Killian's CO (who retired over a year before the date of the memo claiming he was pressuring Killian to sugarcoat Bush's records): docs are fake.
Killian's secretary: docs are fake but might have reflected his thoughts. She's not sure.

LABF's conclusion: documents must be true.

But the facts that a liberal tv producer who works for a company (Viacom) making major contributions to the Kerry campaign is contacted by a partisan Democrat after having these (fake) documents cleared by two high Democrat operatives connected to the Kerry campaign. And when the partisan Democrat at the focus of the controversy gets in over his head, he hires a well-connected Democrat running for statewide office as a Democrat to represent him as his attorney.

LABF's conclusion: No Kerry-DNC connection here.

There's more evidence to connect Burkett with the Kerry campaign than there is to connect the Swift Vets and the Bush campaign.

Once again, you don't create forgeries to prove the truth. You create forgeries to prove a LIE. Basic human nature tells you that is true. You don't have to FAKE the truth.