Replies

> ... an opposition research staffer for the Democratic
> National Committee received documents ...

Nice trace-back so far.

> ... oppo researcher claimed the source was
> "a retired military officer."

As if a DNC staffer would know how to be sure.
Anyway, they had to assume that most ex-mil people
had no love for the DNC.
Warning klaxon #1.

> "... they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for
> them to decide to how to proceed, .."

Plenty of faces for all the egg, it would seem.

> "It wasn't clear that our source for the documents
> would have had access to them. Our person couldn't
> confirm from what file, from what original source
> they came from."

Warning klaxon #2.

> "I think people here weren't sure what to make of it,
> because provenance of these documents was uncertain."

I guess nobody actually LOOKED at them.

> A CBS producer ... says that despite seeking
> professional assurances that the documents were
> legitimate ...

What an odd sentence. Did they GET the assurance?
Warning klaxon #3.

> "The problem was we had one set of documents from
> Bush's file that had Killian calling Bush 'an
> exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.' And
> someone who Killian said 'performed in an outstanding
> manner.' Then you have these new documents and the
> tone and content are so different."

Warning klaxon #4.

> ... the signatures and initials of Killian on the
> documents in hand did not match up ...

Warning klaxon #5.

> "This was too hot not to push. ...

Ding. We have a winner.

> ... a smaller segment believe that both the DNC and
> the Kerry campaign were duped by Karl Rove, who would
> have engineered the flap to embarrass the opposition.

B.S. Even Rove would not think so many people could be
so stupid as to ignore the obvious problems with these
documents.

Folks, the DNC and the Kerry campaign are going to push
this phoney baloney "victim of hoax" and "entrapped by
dirty trick" line. Push back. They walked into this
with more than ample warning, eyes wide shut.

"A CBS producer ... says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate ..."

Lots and lots of contradictory stories coming out about what CBS did/didn't do to authenticate these docs. On early threads, CBS was saying they had "experts" validating these docs. Then on another later thread, it was reported that a CBS spokeswoman corrected that to "witnesses." Witnesses to what? Did these "witnesses" stand over the reportedly non-typist Killian while he typed these particular memos?

I'm expecting CBS to tell lots more lies in their effort to cover up their initial lies about these docs.

It won't matter. I've already sent out a bunch of faxes to CBS sponsors, letting them know that I won't buy their products if they advertise them on CBS. I'll be sending out more tomorrow. Anybody who pays money to CBS loses my patronage.