Posted on 09/10/2004 4:33:41 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
It might be one of the reasons that the documents are not on Military stationary. The jail time will be shorter.
"We don't know where the documents come from," he said, adding, "They didn't come from any family member."
Connell said her late husband would be "turning over in his grave to know that a document such as this would be used against a fellow guardsman," and she is "sick" and "angry" that his name is "being battled back and forth on television."
Her late husband was a fan of the young Bush, said Connell, who remarried after her husband died in 1984. "I know for a fact that this young man … was an excellent aviator, an excellent person to be in the Guard, and he was very happy to have him become a member of the 111th."
Do you remember McAulife saying that? AWOL, didn't report for a physical, etc. The part about the physical at the time was to suggest Bush couldn't pass because he was on drugs. Now it appears in a document for the first time that is thought to be a forgery.
If the heat stays on CBS, they may turn on the supplier. How very interesting if it goes back to the DNC. McAulife has been the most vigorous fanner of these flames.
"Her late husband was a fan of the young Bush, said Connell, who remarried after her husband died in 1984. "I know for a fact that this young man … was an excellent aviator, an excellent person to be in the Guard, and he was very happy to have him become a member of the 111th."
OH THIS HAD TO KILL THE MEDIA TO HEAR HER SPEAK THESE WORDS!!
Killian's wife said that he did not type. Only took notes. Sooooooooooo, if these "memos" were for his personal file (which his son said he did not have), they would have been in his handwriting (which they were not). The signatures do not match either. Freepers more knowledgeable than I am pointed out tha fonts, spacing, terminology, etc. did meet the smell test either.
Yes.
Wouldn't CBS be compelled to divulge the source of the "memos" as a result?
From the inappropriate designation of "1stL", to the fact that the timeline is obviously wrong (re Sault's retirement), to the fact that it is obviously a word processor document, and not typewritten, to the obviously forged signature....
This is a dosument that should have been easily exposed as a fraud by a high school journalism student....
But, apparently the Kerry Campaign has had it in their posession, but under wraps, for some time. And now it miraculously turns up in the hands of Dan Rather...and he is running with it as though he has the exclusive on the discovery of the Rosetta Stone.
I heard some dimwitted bimbette on this morning's infotainment show postulate that it was all an elaborate Karl Rove hoax, disreputably perpetrated on CBS.
I have a more straight forward theory...
Basically the "story" is about the dirty forger who was trying to dupe the media into becoming "unwittingly" complicit in a conspiracy to slander a candidate.
From whence could these documents originate? And who could deliver them to the media with sufficient credentials so that that...even that paragon of media professionalism...that man with over a century of broadcast excellence on his resume...that unbiased, hard hitting, bulldog of an investigative journalist...Dan Rather..could have been unswervingly convinced of their authenticity, even after they were thoroughly, and painstakingly pored over to vett their origins and to ensure their authenticity?
Why do I sense the shadowy presence of the Hillary Clinton in the wings?
We can add Gates' name to Nixon and Dole as part of the deconstructing of john kerry.
LOL
;-)
Do you really have any doubts about how willing CBS was to use suspect documents to attack the President?
Freepers ought to be calling CBS and saying.....FREEPERS REPORTING FOR DUTY!!!
The good folks over at MSNBC seem to have missed all the details regarding the forgeries. The slant of this article is unbelievable. It gives the impression that the documents fill in missing details that the White House has been reluctant to provide. See the following link :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5952048/
That's Democrat for "lied through my friggin teeth".
Kind of like Shakespeare's monkeys. If you tell enough lies about a conservative, eventually someone will forge a document which seems to support some of them. I don't think there is a specific connection here.
I'm sure there will be other forgeries as well...things like a memo from the State department telling the White house that there are no WMD's in Iraq, but they are getting pressure from Rumsfeld to keep quiet about it...or transcripts of a meeting between Cheney and lumber companies where he agrees to secretly sell them all the lumber in all the national forests but only if they promised to clear cut it all and pave afterward.
Remember who we're dealing with here.
"Dan Rather must have been a key part of the scheme. He was not duped because he found an expert to authenticate the documents and even found an "eyewitness." His expert is the only one who found nothing suspicious. Dan Rather is not an innocent victim. He made it happen."
Absolutely correct. This whole interview with the political hack Barnes and the use of the forged documents was intentional by Rather.
No. I was really responding to today's media spin which is to refer to the documents as a "hoax," i.e., implying that CBS was duped. I believe that Dan Rather knew what he had and didn't much care because of his hatred for the Bush family. I also believe that he didn't expect to get caught the way he did. So, now we will see an attempt to minimize the damage. Thus, the CBS was duped by a hoax theme.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.