Posted on 09/12/2004 10:18:12 PM PDT by ambrose
USA Today acknowledges that it indepedently received the documents
This issue will not die out and go away even if SeeBS tries to apologize and explain it away as a mistake. This will become as big an issue in history as Watergate. This campaign is now officially over. Kerry is toast.
Who has the ORIGINALS?
What's interesting is the USA Today set are different from the CBS set. Not only are there two additional documents, but W's address isn't blocked out in the USA Today set, and portions of the text are not underlined, like they were in the CBS documents.
It is so clear the DNC and the Kerry campaign is involved in this. I suspect Carville and Begala are in on this for sure.
FreeRepublic is the Pit Bull of the New Media.
Another sign pointing to forgery... if these came from a file, there should be hole punches at the top or at the side.
Good point!
Well, this is going to be veeerrrrryyyy interesting!!
The Watergate burglary was a masterfull excersize compared to this lame attempt at forgery.
If Kerry can't put forth a decent effort to screw Bush how can we expect him to put forth a decent effort to screw Bin Laden?
What will it take for the Justice Dept. to get involved, do you think?
They say it almost like they believe it.
the question becomes, then, how do we expose talion.com. We need to make the American public aware of these people.
A document dump??
I don't know .. something still smells
bttt
I hope USAToday and SeeBS keep stonewalling - so much the better to keep the story alive and kicking. Unfortunatley though, I suspect Danny-boy will realize this issue is actually hurting Kerry and try to find some face-saving way of getting out of it without implicating Kerry or the DNC. That's why I think we need to keep the story front and center for as long as possible and I don't think it will too hard. No matter how much SeeBS tries to explain it away, there will always be more questions to ask.
As for undecided independants, I suspect they will become aware of this issue and will know who is right and who is wrong. Then again, alot of them voted for Bill Clinton, so you never know.
...."USA TODAY obtained copies of the documents independently soon after the 60 Minutes segment aired Wednesday, from a person with knowledge of Texas Air National Guard operations. The person refused to be identified out of fear of retaliation. It is unclear where the documents, if they are real, had been kept in the intervening three decades".....
I am confused, if the person refused to be identified, was that to USA today or did he identify himself to them then refuse to let them identify him to readers? Is this poorly written or am I just tired? Oh if he refused to be identified, how did they know he had knowledge of the Texas Air National Guard? Yes it sounds like Burkett with the "fear of retaliaton" & TANG comments, the where have the docs been for three decades.... What could he be afraid of, maybe a criminal investigation?
"Obtained copies" (?) or "were provided with copies"? If USA Today was able to obtain such copies in such a short time then they are much better at investigation than you'd expect; but if that's true then it is amazing that the "provider" has not been definitively located by anyone else yet. Moreover, if USA Today found out who to ask for the records it would have made a better story to for them to print who had them than to just get additional copies, and it makes specious their claim that they "obtained" them. Since when does a "newspaper" offer anonymity to a source when there is no good reason to?
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.