Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

USA Today acknowledges that it independently received the documents
USA Today | 9/13/04

Posted on 09/12/2004 10:18:12 PM PDT by ambrose

USA Today acknowledges that it indepedently received the documents

TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cbsnews; forgery; john; kerny; killian; napalminthemorning; rather; rathergate; seebsnews; tang
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-211 next last
To: ambrose

The two memos that CBS didn't show are so over the top that even CBS wouldn't put them on.

61 posted on 09/12/2004 11:13:04 PM PDT by Texasforever (Kerry's new slogan "IT'S NOT THE STUPID CANDIDATE SO STOP SAYING THAT")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Carling
Folks, the DNC is involved in this, and this makes Watergate look like amateur hour.

Watergate was amateur hour.

62 posted on 09/12/2004 11:13:24 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

Also ... the first memo from USA Today .. only has Killian's name ... no mention of his rank

63 posted on 09/12/2004 11:13:31 PM PDT by Mo1 (Why is the MSM calling the Vietnam Vets and POW's a suspected group??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

It is remarkable to me that USA Today and CBS continue to protray this story as one where equally qualified experts are of different opinions on whether these documents are forgeries.

As far as I have been able to tell EVERY qualified expert has ruled them to be forgeries, albeit some with rather esoteric and unlikely caveats.

CBS seems to have validated ONE of the memos - but only the signature, by all reports, and they have muzzled their "expert" and told him not to talk to the press.

Time magazine seems to have turned to a typewriter repairman for their "authentication."

It looks to me like this debate is becoming more Clintonesque by the hour, rapidly descending to the level of "I did not inhale that woman, Arial Verdana".

First, isn't it obvious that a reputable news organization (and I'm not saying CBS or USA Today qualify as such) would verify the authenticity of these documents first, before slandering a sitting President of the United States? And if there were any doubt, wouldn't they sit on the story?

And next, when finally confronted with the reality of the situation, which is now incontrovertably conclusive on the side of fraud and forgery, would not one think that a reputable news organzation (and I'm not saying CBS or USA Today qualify as such) would come clean to protect their reputation?

And finally, when confronted with the fact that they have been used to perpetrate an undeniable fraud on the public by disseminating forged and fabricated documents purported to be the work of a military officer, would not one think that a reputable news organization would come forward with the name(s) of the criminals who have used and duped them so that law enforcement can do their job? Or at least to avoid making themselves into accessories after the fact?

Or is it simply that I am living in a country that is no longer what it once was?

64 posted on 09/12/2004 11:13:43 PM PDT by John Valentine ("The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
It could be that Burkett (if that is who it is) marked the docs he gave to CBS for emphasis, and CBS or Burkett lined out the address once they decided that the documents should be posted.

Burkett looks like a likely candidate. He has been described as a "straight shooter" by his contemporaries, but apparently has had breakdowns and a huge ax to grind regarding a lawsuit for medical treatment that he feels was lacking after he got sick on military business in Panama. He is currently a "vets against the war and Bush" type.

The animosity provides motive, the testimonials that he was a by the rules guy provides the CBS "unimpeachable" source comment, and he had access.

He has claimed to have witnessed the Bush file being sanitized in the past, but was dismissed as an unreliable source, IIRC.
65 posted on 09/12/2004 11:13:58 PM PDT by M1911A1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: M1911A1

Only problem is that he had an interview with Kevin Drum in Feb., and the only documents he claimed to see in the trash can pertained to payroll issues, and he didn't keep any.

66 posted on 09/12/2004 11:17:42 PM PDT by ambrose (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane
CBS, USA TODAY ,and what is the third media source that recieved the documents??

It would be my guess that the third is the Boston Globe as their articles that almost mimicked the CBS documentary came out first.

67 posted on 09/12/2004 11:18:17 PM PDT by Rightwing Conspiratr1 (Lock-n-load!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

Yes I have compared them. There was some good discussion on them on the thread "Two More 'Killian' Documents" and another one with "USA Today" in the title yesterday. Beldar blog has some great info on the issue at:

The main differences seem to revolve around changes made by CBS like blacking out an old address of the POTUS and underlining here and there.

In fact, with regard to the address on 5000 Longmont, I think he (the President) had long since moved into an apartment at the time he was supposedly at the address in the memo so it just doesn't add up.

68 posted on 09/12/2004 11:18:42 PM PDT by charleston1 (No prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

More questions: What media did CBS/USA TODAY receive their copy in? Fax, printed, or digital? . . . and who's computer has the original Microsoft Word files?

69 posted on 09/12/2004 11:18:47 PM PDT by Quicksilver (I finally have a reason to really like Microsoft Word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: willyboyishere
If the documents are indeed forgeries (and it looks like they probably are)

Clue into reality, they ARE fakes. To be real, Killian had to "somehow" type memos in 1972 that "happened" to EXACTLY mimic the default settings of MS Word.... thirty years earlier. These are the same odds that a parrot could peck out the Gettysburg Address on a typewriter in one hour. Or a monkey could type a Shakespeare sonnet, perfectly. IOW, beyond astronomical. They ARE forgeries. Period.

70 posted on 09/12/2004 11:19:12 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

There are no originals.

71 posted on 09/12/2004 11:20:57 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

See my last. They ARE fake, and anybody with a three digit IQ who is honest will admit it.

(Unless one believes that a monkey COULD type out a Shakespeare sonnet as well as Killian typed out the MS Word default settings in 1972.)

72 posted on 09/12/2004 11:21:46 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

Please let me know if you see the same thing I observed:

In addition to missing the underlines in the CBS documents, the USA Today and CBS documents seem to have different markings or scribbles (were these supposed to be initials?) in the bottom right-hand corner of the following documents:

the May 19th memo and the August 18th memo

73 posted on 09/12/2004 11:22:30 PM PDT by ambrose (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: M1911A1
It is encouraging to see that GoogleNews has taken the issue off the front of their site.

As I understand it, GoogleNews merely showcases what is being reported on, it does not decide on the credibility of the stories.

74 posted on 09/12/2004 11:22:45 PM PDT by Restorer (They have the microphone, but we have the remote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JasonC

The "originals" existed only on a computer monitor, prior to being printed out the first time.

75 posted on 09/12/2004 11:23:24 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
They ARE fake, and anybody with a three digit IQ who is honest will admit it.

I find it amazing that there continues to even be a debate about whether they're fake.

What's more amazing is that anyone would give a crap even if they're real. What the hell does it have to do with winning the war against the IslamoNazis who are trying to destroy our civilization?

They have to be laughing their asses off if they happen to be monitoring our news...

76 posted on 09/12/2004 11:25:50 PM PDT by ambrose (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

bump for the end of RAThers career.

77 posted on 09/12/2004 11:26:14 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BoBToMatoE

The problem is.. the website disappeared and Bev Harris, one of the principals of the consulting website has moved on to an organization that called is an alleged 501(c)(3) not for profit that is dedicated to make sure the new electronic voting machines in places like FLORIDA work. (As in work the way the DNC wants them to work or they will raise hell like in 2000 claiming that they are flawed machines). basically was made famous as the PR folks for the anti-Bush veteran groups in 2000. They promoted Beckett. Ran the 2000 Bush DUI smear and the PR for the "stolen" election in Florida.

While at the same time this woman had the gaul to claim that a "hacker attack" drove her to vote for Gore.

Their website has been taken down recently.

Fortunately, it has been archived at

But Ms. Harris didn't make a clean break.. the main telephone number for Talon rings now over to her new smear group.

As an aside, Ms. Harris is now claiming to be an "investigative journalist" and has appeared on Air Amerikka to advance her voter fraud claims.

78 posted on 09/12/2004 11:26:36 PM PDT by GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: plushaye
This paragraph is the most important one for the Bush campaign. The DNC/CBS+Boston Globe/Kerry campaign/probably Burkett failed in ATTACK 1 of the FORTUNATE SON campaign. There will be more strikes this week but the first one was not only a dud but a major backfire.

I think that why CBS is not backing off... this was part of a coordinated DNC/ press offensive …. Think military if you just on a small local attack on you own and you have this big of SNAFU right of the bat.. you probably stop and regroup… but it you just part of the opening round of a major offensive you just have to gut it out… because the campaign has started and ther a overall game plan to meet… CBS is just part of a larger campaign… and too bad if they take casualties … that war and there sticking the course for DNC/ press offensive greater good

79 posted on 09/12/2004 11:27:46 PM PDT by tophat9000 ("Blackrock Bob" (aka DAN RATHER) in full denial)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
There are no originals.

As I've said before to others, the originals are in the "My Documents" folder of a Hillary staffer.
80 posted on 09/12/2004 11:27:47 PM PDT by BJClinton (Donwload "The New Soldier" at
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-211 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson