Posted on 09/20/2004 7:41:52 AM PDT by NotchJohnson
The argument that the documents are "bogus but valid" holds just about as much water as alleging that a counterfeit 100 dollar bill may be fake, but still good enough to buy a steak dinner for two.
If CBS continues to cover up where the documents came from ... the entire chain of possession ... then we'll know that the bigger story hasn't yet seen the light of day.
Very well said.
The Rather interview of Burkitt was designed to take the heat off of Dan by implying he was out of the loop until now. Won't work since Rather was in the loop enough to insult critics of the documents and stand arrogantly firm in his assertions for mor ehtan a week. So I will not wash that he now talk to Bukitt and has begun to have doubts.
One way or the oither damn was lying about the documents when he knew they were a farce or he was lying about the quality of ther work and the extent of validation he and his staff do at CBS.
Dan promises to break the story...
Which impossible-to-prove scenario is more likely: that the memos are not forgeries, or that Max Cleland is the source?
(hey, It's almost 10:00 am CDT, who wants to play grenade toss?)
I'm sorry, that was mean spirited :-(
I want to run something up the flagpole here. Just suppose for purposes of speculation that those phony documents were deliberately left for Burkett to find in that NG office. I've never understood why someone so flaky as him would be allowed in there with such sensitive documents. Knowing that Burkett was an unstable flake it would follow that at some point he couldn't restrain himself and would release these phony documents. Whoever, took the bait and CBS, anxious to torpedo Bush, went with the story. The WH was ready for this story by issuing a non-denial, that since CBS was a "credible news network" they wouldn't take issue with the documents. This was the "proof" that CBS had to run with the story.
Either way, it is hard to see how Rove could go wrong with phony documents since the news organizations could never establish the veracity of them. If they weren't published, no harm. If they were published, more the better. This would eat up a lot of campaign time and Kerry is damaged by his association to the MSM.
Am I nuts?
Rather and CBS made very much of the unimpeachable character of the source of these documents.
Now, that doesn't sound like they were describing Burkitt, does it? CBS simply wouldn't have known enough about the man to give him that kind of blanket endorsement.
Burkett may have been the forger, but it strains credulity to take him as the immediate source.
I disagree. Dan is a commie, and has even said himself he has no problem with the idea that a lying person is an honest person.
Oh, no!! Did Max get blind, stinking drunk and do something really stupid again?
It would have taken a lot of foresight to have planted those documents there, what, seven or eight years ago, as bait in a scheme to come to fruition only now. I'm not biting.
Let's apply Occam's Razor- the simplest explanation is probably right. Burkett was bitter and vindictive, and he made the documents up to help Kerry, maybe even basing them on scuttlebut and rumor he heard floating aroung the TANG back in 1973. This seems the simplest explanation, and it's all I need.
Hasn't Burkett long been a thorn in Bush's side? I'm still trying to understand why he was left alone with those documents. I've never understood that.
you and everyone who suspect Rove or other Republicans are nuts - the forgeries were so bad, that I wouldn't have expected even my High School paper to ave beleived them. Who would have believed CBS could have been so stupid?
CBS wasn't duped -- their viewers were.
Possibly Burkett shopped his information to all and was rebutted because there was no proof. He then, after discussing with Mapes, finds "proof". He then faxes or presents to Mapes who faxes to CBS, the DNC or Max and they run with the "proof".
Coming from Mapes, CBS ignores the skeptics and goes with it. Yet - I still think Rather is involved in the whole thing and that it is tied in as part of a planned onslaught with the DNC "Fortunate Son".
How long does it take to make an ad like "Fortunate Son"?
They tie in to each other too conveniently not to have been coordinated. So, if it took them 3 wks., we then know that 3 wks. ago these plans were in the works.
Someone forged the documents. Will Burkett admit to that? Cleland? That would put them in jail for certain.
I was under the impression that Burkett was grinding this ax for Bush since about 1992.
I think that a good politician wants to know who his enemies are. What do they say? Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?
Burkett would be the perfect vehicle for a strategic thinker to use to bring down an opponent in a close race. Think about WWII and the phony documents and corpse that washed up on the shore in Europe. And remember also what Churchill said. "The Truth must be protected by a bodyguard of lies."
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.