It's not a scandal unless it's truely forged. If it's not and we hype attention on the memo and it's found to be real (which I honestly assume it is....at least from 1973), then we are doing more harm than good.
How can it be real? Seriously? Look at the two images above. One is the forgery, the other generated from MS Word TODAY. There are no visible differences in the type face, layout and orientation and that is utterly impossible to justify.
If the documents shown are the ones they claim are real then they're in big trouble.
The chances of them having those fonts in the early 70's is virtually zero.
No we will be casting a long term pall and calling into question the integrity of the reporting and the validity of the claims.
Good thing John O'Neill didn't have a girlie man like you telling him what to do.
If we can prove beyond doubt it is a forgery, then that is wonderful. If we cannot, however, we have just prolonged the amount of time the press will devote to this issue.
I really hope this forgery angle comes through.
I don't agree. Dan Rather used these documents and a know partisan fundraiser for the Kerry campaign to smear George Bush. Then Dan says "I believe these are genuine documents." He should have multiple sources for such inflamatory and damaging evidence, instead of relying soley on a partisan who used the alleged testimony of dead people to base his attack on Bush. In my opinion Dan is the one who should be ashamed and proving these documents are authentic and be prepared to answer all questions concerning their authenticity.
Well .. several military people have found a lot wrong with the "memo". First of all - it's not on letterhead stationery .. very curious. 2nd - lettering is computer, not typeriter .. 3rd military terms are not used.