Dramatically? Hardly. Both IBM and Microsoft have gone to great efforts to duplicate to precision the original Times Roman font, in Microsoft's case as a direct response to the Adobe/Microsoft font wars of the early '90's. To the degree that it would be impossible to factually state that a character shape that has been scanned and faxed is the exact shape of a printed Microsoft Word character shape - particularly at the extremely small point sizes that are being compared. The smaller the point size, the lower degree of detail as directly related to the precision of the output device. Fax machines are at best, 144dpi. PDFs for download are screen res. - 72dpi.

The claim that the memo's are forgeries due to technical issues has been demonstrated to be false. The entire claim of forgeries now rests on people claiming to know the mind of a dead man. Hardly compelling.

Thanks for the link, thats a nice site.

I am not usually a believer in conspiracies (they are devilishly hard to hold together), but in this case let's follow the question of just who benefits the most from all the buzz this CBS/Dan Rather presentation has created. I am beginning to think that Hillary and Bill are setting John Kerry up for failure in 2004 while they are looking ahead to maximumize Hillary's chances for 2008. If Kerry were elected in 2004 that would push Hillary back to 2012 for her next real chance at the presidency. Perhaps the source of this whole situation is the Bill & Hillary controlled DNC. The basis of the report was so blatant in its falsehood that Hillary and Bill knew some of the stain would seep over on John Kerry.

On the first charge, we'll have to settle for a draw. Anyone who works with typesetting knows that it is commonplace to see variations in Microsoft vs. Adobe fonts; you contend otherwise. Certainly, the electronic versions vary dramatically from mechanical typesets. And the similarities extend beyond character shape to almost every other aspect of the typesetting. I realize it is futile to attempt to convince you otherwise.

I have not seen any demonstration that the forgeries claim is false. The only evidence I've seen is that some of the technologies originally in question did in fact exist at the time. Possibility is not the same as probability. Surely, some lonely typewriter collector out there would be able to reproduce the document. Yet, no such reproduction has appeared to even rival those easily produced by the MSWord default settings.

Perhaps it is possible that Mr. Killian stumbled upon the exact typesetting, page layout, and font rules that Microsoft would later establish as its defaults 30 years later. If so, his estate should pursue royalites. Any reasonable skeptic would be suspiscious. Until CBS agrees to an independent evaluation, I shall remain so.

The only question is how long will CBS ride this sinking ship.

While normally the other media outlets ignore such bias, in this case there is a good dose of self interest in seeing CBS suffer for thier mistake and they are hammering CBS for it. The only one towing the line is the left wing Boston Globe.

Dan Rather owes his audiance, even if it is now mostly those on the left, an appology for both the fake documents and having Barnes on unchallanged. The fact that other interviews were scrapped for being to 'pro-Bush' just adds to the almost comical nature.

This is a done deal. The documents are likely fake, and if they aren't enough questions have surfaced (and apparently had already been floated BEFORE THE PIECE RAN last wednesday) so that CBS should not have run with the piece.

Here's the latest from ABCNEWS tonight:

ABCNEWS

This link appears to be temporary as it summarizes 'Tonights' abcnews cast which obviously changes daily.

Hone in on Brian Ross's segment which is abstracted as follows:

Those of you who continue to assert some semblance of impartiality and honestly believe Dan Rather to be a journalist of any integrity are lunatics. Those who continue to hold even the slightest monicum of hope that these documents are real are similarly deranged. It's over folks. Kerry looses. I am not even sure that he had anything to do with this, but am certain that the DNC was involved, likely behind Kerry's back, and clearly to his detriment.

Dan Rather needs to be fired, if he doesn't resign first, and the entire CBS news room needs to shaken up. Rather is the managing or executive editor of CBS news at large, and his continued involvement with the network, will CONTINUE to bring it down. He is ultimately responsible as the chief news editor and ultimate reportor of the story.

Additionally, much like the GOP, post water gate, the entire gangster squad of pathetic, win at all cost, worthless loosers running the DNC asylum need to go. Your party is now a joke. It stands for nothing, and hasn't for at least this past election cycle.

I encourage all democrats to stand up and be counted. Don't let your party take over like this and DEMAND change. Mcauliffe and his crowd are finished. They will continue to resist, but it's up to YOU, the rank and file democrats to turn the party back into something worth fighting for. Your party has been hijacked by the worst kind of low-life gangster scum, and they are embarrassing you. Take charge and make a change. Barring that, you will wither away into nothing. Te constitutionalists or the libertarians will ascend and become a party that begins to contest elections.

In all honesty, I really feel sorry for Kerry. He had the potential to make things interesting, perhaps even close. Show the current establishment that a good segment of America is unhappy with the current direction, perhaps even demonstrate a clear contrast to his opposition. He really wasn't able to ever get any momentum, constantly being dogged by his embelished past, unremakable 'nuanced' Senatorial career, and most importantly brought down by a corrupt and dispicable band of party leaders and thugs.

The democratic base is crumbling and the lusted after swing voters have moved away. Save your party, PLEASE. We need at minimum a two party system to make this country effective, and keep things in check. Democratic party leadership is not doing anything to keep themselves viable.

-bear

The same is true for Bush and his administration because of the nigerian documents which were clearly forgeries. They even ignored reports they were saying they were forgeries and went forward with it to the UN.

This whole document incident parrallells the nigerian documents but yet I don't here any conservatives complaining about those documents. At least Rather didn't use these documents to kill tens of thousands of people.

You keep bringing up these documents... even after a reference to a reputable source has been posted that refutes your claims about them. What facts are you using to make the claims about these documents? Lets see them so we can move beyond this already.

first from the document above

and now i'll spare quoting other articles:

ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/U...laweddocs.html

CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/16/fbi.niger/

Washington Times
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...0154-5384r.htm

How about Time
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/k...463779,00.html

Or CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in562312.shtml

BBC has lots of quotes i'll post a few
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3051709.stm
There we have it from the white house spokesman himself.

The documents were fake there is no disputing this. The signature was from someone who hadn't been in power for many years. The dates in it were all inconsistent, ect. Tuns of flaws in those documents.

Ummm Renka no one is disputing the documents were faked.

What is disputed is that what Dan Rather/CBS is doing is in any way shape or form parallel to the Niger deal. Also it is apparent all you did was google for the stories and not read them as the two I looked at for fun both explained what happened quiet clearly. Its not as if the president, after they were found to be fake, pretended they were true, nor did he base his claim directly on said documents. The US intelligence agencies only got the documents AFTER the State of the Union speech. About the only similarity between the two is that faked documents were involved. After that they are widely divergent, while CBS goes into CYA mode the Bush admin admitted there was a problem with the documents.

Looks like he was questioning that they were a forgery to me.


No I did read them, I was pointing out the fact that they were considered forgeries which those articles all said.

These documents have not been proven false yet. So CBS should still be able to stand by their story, in fact they have an obligation to. Because if they are true and they give up trying to prove their truth then we have let a travesty happen.

There are two types of errors in stats accepting something that is false and not accepting something that is true. The later is much worse than the first. The same is true for our facts. So let's let the discussion about the validity of the documents continue until there is concrete proof one way or the other.

If you haven't read it lately check out CBS's case they update it daily.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in641481.shtml

First the documents went through the CIA before the white house. Second before the address Bush was told not to include the niger documents because there was suspicion of forgery.

If they are fakes I would have to say as fast as they were rebutted, CBS was setup.
Everyone seems to ignore the other facts the story had in it, so that's a good thing for Bush.

How the finger can be pointed at Kerry because of this is really not all that reasonable but hey, if Faux News had done this to Kerry, I'm sure the righties would claim Bush's innocence and rightfully so. I may dislike Faux News but I don't believe they take orders from Bush (they just report how they want to). Along those lines, CBS doesn't take their orders from the DNC so fingers should not be pointed at Kerry.

In the end, to me the only thing that I can see is Kerry served 2 tours in 'Nam (and he only had to do 1, so the he wanted hurt and out is BS). While Bush who is sending troops over to Iraq left and right served in the Guard and took a year off to help someone run for office in Alabama.

Kerry, to me will make sure the men and women in the military are taken care of financially and medically. Bush will make sure Halliburton makes a couple more billion while finding reasons to deny true health and financial benefits to our troops, while he keeps sending them over and lying about how long they'll be gone.

Kerry, to me, knows what war is like and probably would try to find a peaceful solution before sending our troops into harm's way.

Bush has already lied about why we went to Iraq and we have lost 1,000 good people and many more are injured. Hopefully it ends soon but Bush never had a plan to get out and now we are in a quagmire over there.

So whether CBS's papers are accurate or not..... I don't give a rat's ass because it isn't changing my vote.

Karl Rove eats babies.

Since basically all of CBS's 'experts' said they did not authenticate the documents, and that CBS gave them the impression they didn't care my guess is its not a set up but pure stupidity. The fact that they refuse to even admit there might be a POSSIBILITY of them being fake means they are going to stick with their bogus story and let it die rather then say who gave the documents to them. If they were indeed setup by the republicans wouldn't the first thing they would want to do let everyone know how they got them?

Or could it be that it came from the DNC or the Kerry campaign directly? If that were the case, revealing the source would put the knife in Kerry's back and twist it hard.

Dan Rather would not allow that to happen on his show.

The really funny thing is how the left has lost control of the media. Sure most of the major outlets still slant left to one degree or another, but where as before something like this would go almost unquestioned, now there are enough sources on the net, on the radio, and on the air that they can't count on that free pass they enjoyed for the last 30 years. One guy who sees these memos and has the right expertise no longer has to hope to get a editorial opinion on the 5pm local news slot, or pray they take his letter to the editor. He posts it on a highly visited website, and others pick it up and before long we all know about it. This sort of free flow of information is the one hope for our republic remaining free in the long run. As long as the government and the major media don't control the internet, they can't pull the wool over your eyes. Whenever a politician says something about the problems with talk radio, or the internet *cough Hilary Clinton cough* remember what it is they are trying to do away with. The free flow of ideas.

Or could it be they actually beleive they are real?

Or maybe it is a matter of journalistic privacy. If someone gives you a story and you promise not to give out your name you better not give out that name at all. Doing so would stop anyone from giving you information again. If you confess to a shrink, priest, or lawyer you have faith that they won't tell anyone what they hear. The same goes for journalists. If you tell them something and want to be kept out of the story they have a duty to do that.

Rekna, it's actually a type I (rejecting something that is true) and type II (failing to reject something that is false).

You're correct in that a type I is worse, since in the latter no conclusion is drawn (which is much different than accepting something that is false).

Thanks I couldn't remember the proper way to word it. But that sounds right ;)

About fucking time you admitted that.

So you are saying they did control it before?

Interesting.

Also you will note that while they have lost control of the media, they are still a majority segement of it. They just can't lie and get away with it anymore.

It could be a lot of people, I truly don't think Hillary will ever run because she won't get elected. Maybe as a VP but not president. I truly cannot see her ever winning the office.

I just think there are a lot of people who want to destroy Kerry before the election, it could be anyone. Hell, it could be CBS is trying to clean their own house and are using this to destroy Rather and give them the excuse for cleaning house.

It could be another news agency or media giant trying to destroy Viacom, as I stated earlier Viacom has been under massive attacks lately.

Truly, who knows? I just think that allowing this to destroy any chance Kerry has by blaming him is a farce. Like I said, if Faux News did the same exact thing to Kerry, I wouldn't blame Bush. I don't blame Bush for Swift.... I think it's obvious from the resignations there was internal stuff going on between the 2 but I truly don't think Bush had anything to do with it.

Bush and Kerry have huge egos, you have to to run for president. Neither believes they will lose, you can't believe that if you are truly trying to win. So, to plant something that would be found out so fast would be idiotic and wanting to lose. Therefore, that is why I believe Kerry and Bush's innocence on the subjects.

The papers in question weren't going to affect the election, BUT proving them false..... he he he would not only affect CBS's credibility but could affect the election, hurt the Dems, and do all kinds of damage.

So in that scenario one must look for who has the most to gain. Who has been the quietest (because the quietest group or person would probably be the one who setup the whole thing. If they came forward Rather tells everyone he got the info from them and all this backfires. If they remain quiet and bide their time telling Rather that they'll come forward if need be but not yet, then Rather is going to sit on his source.

You could be right. I doubt it, but it certainly is possible.

I still think that The Nile isn't just a river in Egypt :D

Those thoughts about Viacom and an internal set up at CBS to oust Rather are interesting as well. Why people keep calling it faux is beyond me. They are legit. Like or not, they are fucking legit, and they are crushing CBS. They're crushing everyone and everyone is crushing CBS. The internet included. CBS needs a lot of work in the news gathering and disciminating department if that's going to be a money maker. What better way to become competive then to clean house.

Everyone's right...Kerry was in the shit in Vietnam...more then most men, yet unfortunately for him, not as much as some, Bush wasn't doing squat. His ole man pulled some string's and had the man teach him to fly Jets. Which he did marginally. Has anyone really ever disputed that? Who has played those 'formative' years more effectively, I ask? The nonsense about the Nigeria Docs is washed up. They were phony....and we discovered that they were phony and told everyone. How can that possibly be an issue. We've been fucking up for a long time. Finally some people (cough Powell cough) are stepping up and playing things wisely.

Bush needs to mop up. He did things that need eight years to complete. It looks more and more likely that he's going to get the chance.

I really hope the Democrats or someone else can challenge the Republicans then. That's not true. I hope actually that things are allowed to sunset, and that we start to legislated efficiently again (like back in the early 1800 :thumbsup: ). I don't see that happening with either of the parties, at least with two parties 'at odds' the potential for grid lock exists (Radley).

Hopefully we'll see some democracies flourish in the Middle East, Jews and Arabs living side by side in peace, and a viable alternative to the fossil fuel reliance we currently exist with as a population. Plus it would be nice to see more and more North American's enjoying the privledge of being the greatest continent on the planet. I see this as being more and more likely.

One huge obstacle, imho, is Nuclear capablilty. I think you can generate two types of Nuclear Energy. One is heavy water which uses a naturally occuring isotope of water, and doesn't create the material to make weapons. The other is more efficient, safer, doesn't require a huge body of water, and makes the material needed in Nuclear Weapons. I'm not a scientist but I believe there is some merit to this. In order to effectively loose reliance on Fossil Fuels, populations need to become Nuclear Capable. It is in the currently nuclear capable countries best interest (the PermMembs of the UN Security were the first) to prevent or 'guide' Nuclear Enablement. This is why that possibility creates so much tension. We've really got to be careful with Iran and North Korea. US and Russia need to come together and take fucking care of business. Only they really can. And I think they can only together.

Or maybe not,

-bear

Aparently on CBS tonight Dan Rather is interviewing the guy who wrote the memos secretary. From the blurb it sounded like she says she typed them. This would solve the problem with the guy not typing according to his family.

She already said she didn't.

well i just heard a blurb on it so i'm going to listen to it and see what she says.

So she believes the documents are fake BUT she says what the documents say is TRUE. She has typed memos similar to them.

She says that it appears that someone took real memos and changed them enough that they couldn't be traced back to themself.

Reguardless of the memos she was the secretary for this guy and would know more about his dealings with Bush than the commanders family.

Actually she wasn't his personal secretary but the unit secretary, and basicly everyone else involved says no.

If they were copied, they wouldn't have used the wrong lingo, wrong dates, and wrong names.

and who is everyone else?

Ustwo, How <b>dare you</b> accuse anyone else who posts on this thread
of saying false statements ? In your post no. 48 on this thread, you twice
stated that Kerry "lied" to congress in his 1971 testimony:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1402551&postcount=48">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1402551&postcount=48</a><p>
Your words (linked above):
<i>Opie I don't know why I bother, but I will try yet again.

Kerry tried to get out of going to Vietnam by getting a deferment to go study in France. It was rejected. He took the quickest way out. I would commend him for his service if he didn't lie to congress etc when he got back.

Kerry TRIED to avoid Vietnam, he failed, he figured out a quick way home getting three purple hearts with zero hospitalization time, and then he lied about his service causing suffering for US POW's. We have what he said to congress on tape, with his long face lying his way to political fortune with the left, that can not be denied. You won't address it I know.</i><p>
I did not expect you to reply to my post, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1402905&postcount=55">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1402905&postcount=55</a> because I challenged your accusations
that Kerry "lied" to congress, by posting the conclusion of factcheck.org
that kerry did not lie. Although it was no surprise to me that you ignored
my challenge to your statements, I was very surprised to read that you
used a factcheck.org finding to launch an accusation against another
member who you accuse of "saying false statements". You demonstrate
that you won't admit that you are wrong when confronted with a reliable
and respected source that invalidates a statement you have posted on this
thread, but you are quick to lash out at another member, by using the
same authority, factcheck.org, that I used to refute misinformed
accusations that you made here. You do not hold yourself to the same
standard that you seek to hold others to, and yet you treat others in a
condescending and antagonistic manner. Never admit that you are wrong,
Ustwo, and....attack.....attack.....attack.....you have learned well from
your pResident....you conduct yourself here, just like he and his puppetmaster Rove conduct themselves in the political arena ! Long on gall and nerve, but short on truth and substance.

Wow, Host. Nicely put!

Ustwo has been pwned.

Well said host!

Funny, but I don't recall you pointing out to the authors of hundreds of posts throughout politics over the last year or so about "Bush's lie" being only opinion.

Does that make you a hypocrite? Or does it make you, like Ustwo, guilty of filtering information to support the views he holds?

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=222

host, I don't read your posts because of the poor formating, extra long cut and pastes, and the fact that you always seemed a bit out of it. The only reason I read this one is because 'I got owned' which is quite silly.

The question isn't were war crimes commited in Vietnam, of course they were, they have been by US forces in every war. When you get young men in such situations, the worst in people come out. The question is was it policy, was the winter soldier movement really accurate or was it fabricated to fit an agenda, and did the leaders like Kerry know it.

Here is a long, unformated article for you to read.

how is this bullshit even remotely related to the point of the thread?

what a fucking waste of time to see you bickering here.

and for those who think I can just not choose to read it, true, but I didn't know that someone was posting so far off topic until I had to read their crap.

Host: Member since 09-03-2004

I missed this one earlier, so since this thread has gotten WAY off topic for so long, I feel the need to bring it back.

His secretary and colleagues has said he has said the exact things that are actually in the documents.

And as for your little animation, I will copy and past the exact thing I said to you at the "other" forum:

Look at the 8 and the 3 in the date. Look at how wide the top of the J is in SUBJECT.

Look at the lowercase m in Memo. It shows an imperfection in the strike. A computer printer doesn't do that.
Look at how the e in File shifts. Hell look at all the e's
Look at how the twin s's in pressured go from being the same size as as the letters that surround (in the msword) it to being visibly larger on top and bottom (in the actual document).

Look at the number 2 on the last line. See how it changes? It is not the same font.

FINALLY, look at the "th" in 187th:
in the reproduction: it is directly in line with the 187.
In the Original: It is significantly superscripted from the upper line of 187. WHY couldn't your buddy on spacetown do the same thing with microsoft? Maybe because it's impossible to do with MSWord?

IF this was done using MSWord, then why can't your disbelievers post a better copy than this? I think this animation though not proving that it is original, was DEFINETLEY not done on a computer (at least unless a forger had the idea to then take his document into photoshop and modify the Times New Roman to match a Selectric Times New Roman and create type errors that exist in all typewritten documents [ie ink bleeds]).

btw, I hate debating the past, I dunno why I am doing it. I guess... though I don't care to bash on Bush for this, I also don't want to see others suppress, ignore, revise his past to make him look better in the now...

I would rather this subject had been ignored all together so we can focus on important issues of today such as the loss of controll of Iraq outside of the Green Zone etc...

Hmmm, for some reason I seem to recall seeing posts by host earlier than that but that's irrelevant since there have probably been 100 posts stating that "Bush lied" since 9/03/04 including your own references within this thread.

But Bush did lie.

He presented documents he knew were false (the documents were said to be false by the CIA a year before Bush recieved them). That seems like a lie to me.

Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...9011-2003Mar22
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/k...463779,00.html

I have to say - who gives a rats behind? I mean - HONESTLY? And i know what y'all are going to say - "What about all the hubbub over Kerry's military record." There is a HUGE difference and here's why.

Let's, for the sake of argument say that all the documents about Bush are true. Is it bad? Yeah - when he was younger and serving in the National Guard he didn't go have a fitness test and broke a direct order. If it was so bad they should have brought him up on UCMJ charges and then he NEVER would have been President. However - that didn't happen. And however the hell many years later, it comes to light - I say a big whoopity doo. George W. Bush has never brought his military record into play as a part of why he is fit to be the Commander in Chief of this nation. And as a military wife on one of the largest military bases, the majority of soldiers like serving under Bush and would rather serve under him then Kerry.

Let's now look at the accusation against Kerry with the same devil's advocasy clause in place. So he forced a 3rd purple heart so he could go home. He then went before the US Congress and made claims that the very soldiers he served with were committing horrible atrocities and that they were "war criminals".

An oversimplification, yes. Illegal, no. Highly dishonorable, HELL YES! First an officer in charge (OIC) would NEVER leave his soldiers behind unless he was mortally wounded. There are plenty of soldiers who do not agree with why we are in Iraq. One of my friend's husbands is a 2nd Lieutenant and had his leg broken in 2 places during the fighting in Iraq. This qualified him to come home. But he was in the hospital for 5 days in traction and then he was back on the front lines with the soldiers he was in charge of. Why? Because those men were like his family and he wouldn't leave them for anything. Though worried, his wife understood and supported him in that decision.

And then to come home and put those claims to Congress was so morally apprehensible that it makes me ill. Do bad things happen in war? It is war - not a tea party - what the hell do you think is gonna happen? The soldiers my husband serves with have seen things that no young man or woman their age should EVER have to see. That's war. Does it suck - Hell yes. There were definately things in the Vietnam war that should never have happened. It was one of the first wars of its kind that we fought and a lot of learning was done as to what to do and what not to do. For instance, they no longer leave a unit on the front lines for 18 months in heavy fighting like they did in Vietnam. They rotate the units out so that the soldiers have time to recoop and talk to counselors. It sucks - but it is their job.

Why is this pertinant to John Kerry's campaign and not to Bush's? Because John Kerry has made his military service one of the primary reasons he says he is qualified to run this country. Bush has acknowledge Kerry's service in the military as being honorable and his discharge to be the same, regardless of the accusation. In response, Kerry is slinging mud and is bringing Bush's service into questions and is making accusations about him as being dishonorable. He can't even pay the same respect to a fellow running mate.

This is just my opinion - but I really don't care about either. I have put the past 30 years behind me and moved on. Just looking at the past 10 years, HELL the past 4 years of their service in the public eye - I am able to make a well informed and well based decision. Military service records be damned.

Rachel

I understand now! Illegial is ok, Dishonerable is bad! It is ok to lie as long as your not under oath. Speaking your mind is a big no no if the majority don't agree with you.

I now understand! It makes perfect sense!

Kerry did try to escape service under the student's clause but was turned down and then instead of being brought in as enlisted forcibly he went officer.

Rachel

Illegal is bad. Dishonorable conduct is bad. Conduct that is 30 years old of that magnitude when there is so much more that can be an influence should not be the major reason why you don't vote for someone. That's all I was saying on that. I don't care because I can look past those and see my reasoning.

Speaking your mind is fine as long as 30 years later you are willing to live by the consequences of your words. If he did the things he said he did he would be considered a war criminal - just as he said his comrades were.

I see honorable service to this country during the Vietnam war done in two ways.

One is to serve your nation, in the armed forces, honorably.
The other is to protest the war as best you can, because it was wrong of us to begin it.

Kerry opposed the war, but when called to service, he wen't right in. Additionally he voluntered for active service in Vietnam. The postion he originally got would have kept him safe off the coast of Nam. He did more than he had to. His own crew vouch for his bravery and integrity. When he was released he resumed his original goal of opposing the war the best he could. He fought to bring our boys home from an unnecessary war.

To me that is the IDEAL way to conduce yourself in the face of that period.

But again, this is way off target for this thread. PLEASE STOP. If you need to discuss this, take it to a brand new thread.
Let's not distract anymore from what this topic is about.

Interesting, so you were in his head and know that he knew them to be false and he then still chose to make the claim. You are spouting your own personal belief and not fact.

As I have said, my husband is an intelligence analyst and an Arabic linguist. He will be the first to tell you that most intel is not an exact science. And I believe that we should look at those who handed him those documents. Just because one becomes elected President does not mean one SUDDENLY knows all the intel. He must rely on those that are around him. George Tenet has already left because he screwed up...

Rachel

And I see two candidates who both served their country honorably during the period. They both have the military sign offs required to prove it too in terms of their officially sanctioned and approved honorable discharges and medal citations.

To try to get this back to the topic at hand....

Just as the

-intelligence used by Bush to make claims about Iraqi WMDs and attempted purchase of bomb making materials

-documentation of Bush & Kerry's service in Vietnam

-claims by Swift Boat Vets

etc, etc, etc

have been put through the public wringer so too should CBS's acquisition and approval process for this story. So far CBS has failed at all turns to account for their story generation and fact checking.

CBS has on its side.....

Forged documents.

A life long democrat, who is a A list Kerry fund raiser, who changed his story about Bush (in 1999 he said he didn't help Bush get out of service in any way) and who's own daughter is calling a liar.

An 86 year old unit secretary who said all the memos are frauds but some of them are accurate.

I mean, what more evidence does one need?

Again I say - who cares? This is one of those things that happened or didn't happen SO long ago that it really has very little effect on the current world situation. Move on to important issues that are going to effect us here and now.

What about Kerry's position on turning the war in Iraq to the UN? What about Bush's position on illegal immigrants getting social security benefits? There is SO much more that we shoudl be focusing on instead of who got a physical when. As for Kerry - if he doesn't want his military record being brought up - then he needs to stop using it to distract from all his other positional stands.

Rachel

Rachel

Well if a government agency that specializes in forgein intelligence tells me a document is false (me being the president) I guess I would be inclined to believe it.

First and foremost it wasn't just a document that the intelligence was based on and he had government agencies telling him that it's (it being the Iraqi attempt to purchase) true as well. Obviously it's not as easy as you make it out to be.

You are assuming that someone told him that it was false ahead of time.

Rachel

The intel community is so vast and disorganized - which needs to be rectified badly - that things like this slip through the cracks EASILY. It's a pity - but it's the truth.

Rachel

LOL. duh. some of the comebacks on here are so disingenuous it amazes me. Nice work identifying this one, Rekna.

oops. Missed this one.

Let's put it this way. There are two possibilities here:

1) Bush talked to his intelligence personnel, was told that it was false, and made the claim anyway. Conclusion: Bush is a liar.

2) Bush refused to talk to his intelligence personnel about a vital intelligence issue, and then went off making claims about this intelligence issue, despite not being fully informed. Conclusion: Bush is an idiot.


Frankly, it doesn't much matter to me which option is correct ;)

Frankly, I'm sure it wouldn't matter to you at all if it didn't support your presupposition of Bush failure/dishonesty. :icare:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...rclown/cf2.jpg

Hehe

powerclown, that's a good one. :lol:

Here it comes... I hate to say I told you so :o , but CBS is going to say they were deceived.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ocs_091804.gif

I dont' know whats more sad. CBS for doing this or some of the tfp posters who have blinders on.

Nice picture JBX

It's official!

:(

I think you're reading me somewhat wrong here. I had a very tough time deciding whether to vote for Gore or Bush in the last election. Gore was a proven liar (the finance story) but Bush was a proven dullard (look what he did to Texas).

After 9/11 I supported Bush when he went into Afghanistan.

It was only when Bush started trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 that I became suspicious. I got about 4 hours of sleep the week of 9/11. The rest of the time was spent covering stories on it. I covered just about every aspect of it you could think of, and I knew that NONE of the terrorists were Iraqi. Why was he implying that Iraq was somehow responsible?

Then when I saw the "evidence" of WMD's that he was presenting, I really got concerned. Didn't seem like very good evidence to me. Powell touted a semi trailer in the middle of the desert as the best evidence they had that Iraq had chemical weapons sites. A semi trailer? Who says it doesn't have electronics or lumber or bricks in it? There just wasn't enough evidence to justify the invasion, yet Bush invaded anyway.

THEN, after months and months went by with no evidence that WMD's were anywhere near Iraq, and Bush started downplaying the WMD idea and playing up the idea that Saddam was a bad man and needed to be removed, I got really confused. Wait a minute! All this time he's told us we invaded because of WMD's! Now all of a sudden we invaded for a "humanitarian" cause? Why weren't we notified?


There's only two conclusions we can make from this: Either he's an idiot who doesn't remember from day to day what his thinking was the day before, or he's been misleading us as to his true motives and is now trying to make us forget about it.

Either way, that makes him unfit to lead our country.

That's why I said it didn't really matter which conclusion was the correct one - because whether it's choice A or choice B, the result is the same - we have a leader who is either incapable or too unethical to be trusted at the helm.

Is there any sort of criminal charges that can be brought against the forger of these documents? Has there been any proof as to who was the creator of the forgeries??

The first option is obviously ridiculous. I will agree with you about the second but disagree about the implications. I've outlined many times in the politics area why I know we went to war with Iraq. Often times, in politics, the case for action is based on things other than the "real" reason. You may disagree about the logic behind going into Iraq and some of the reasons used to justify it but can you put that aside for a minute and try to take the following perspective?

Let's say you believed that Iraq's defiance of abiding by the treaty to end the first Gulf War by hiding weapons programs (wmd or not he absolutely was increasing the range of his missiles), its refusal to follow UN mandates, and Hussein's continued control over billions of dollars (and most of Iraq) were a symbol to all states who sponsored terrorism that this was the worst the world could do to them should they continue to sponsor terrorists. Let's also say that you believed this situation would continue unchecked for another decade unless something else was done.

Further, one fundamental necessity in the war on terror (Al Qaida et al) is to deny them safe havens. With no real risk to the power of these states (as evidenced by Hussein's continued wealth and power) what alternatives were available to influence said states?

Iraq was WAY down the list of nations that support terrorism. Saddam was a secular tyrant and had nothing to gain from Al Qaeda et al. Hell, even Bush & Co. have backed off of that argument.

no kidding cthulu23. If we're going after terrorist-harboring countries, Saudi Arabia would have been a much more logical target.

Let's throw a little more realism into this argument shall we? How difficult was it to get world support to confront Saddam? Hell, just getting the UN to enforce already in place treaties was impossible.

Much of this difficulty was due to Saddam's ability to closely align economic interests of countries like France, Germany, Russia, etc. The Saudis have far stronger alliances and any attempt to confront them would have been 1000 times more difficult.

Onetime2,

If one accepts the idea that Saddam was not a large supporter of terrorism than it makes no sense to invade Iraq to "prove a point" to other state supporters of terror. This is precisely why this argument has been pushed to the background by most of the war supporters.

As outlined previously, he was a supporter of terrorism (large or small doesn't matter) and he served as an example of the "worst case scenario" for states who support terrorism or show aggression toward the US.

When making such a point you don't exactly create press releases that say, "Hey we're invading Iraq to show you what might happen to you if you continue to support terrorists and/or show aggression to US forces."

Especially when the aliances are directly with the Bush family and not the country.

Care to elaborate?

Thats partially wrong. The US has had a steady official alliance with Saudi Arabia since FDR. It was a "protection for your corrupt, oppressive regime for favorable oil contracts" deal.

Ummm, yeah it's the big secret Bush oil conspiracy again. Of course that doesn't quite explain Saudi Arabia's ties to other major trading partners like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China, Germany, UK, France, and Italy. I'm sure these countries wouldn't have any issues whatsoever with sanctions or military action against the Kingdom.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think its incredibly funny that they got caught for airing the documents. First of all, the guy that Dan Rather got the articles from was known for trying to discredit Bush for years (which I applaud him for doing so), so there's a hint right there. Second, it's their own fault that they allowed themselves to be a pawn in the game of dirty politics. The docs were obviously put out by the other party, or else why would they come out now?