drmiler:

So, if you follow your logic that the media should receive the same protections as the courts give defendents in criminal cases then FOX can say that North Korea exploded a nuclear weapon, right? I mean, you can't prove they didn't, can you?

I think we have a different situation in terms of the media where we need to consider whether the documents are real as well as the significance of what they tell us. No one wants a witch hunt less than me BUT I also don't like the idea that a person is falsely accused and can't defend himself (Killian is deceased).

60% of the public in a CNN poll done Friday said that military service is an issue for the candidates. So we need to understand what happened here, regardless of political affiliation.

CrispE Herein lies the problem.

. Reply #5 By: WiseFawn - 9/12/2004 10:25:20 AM From what I understand, the DNC are just trying to do what Kerry didn't believe in doing. The trouble with taking the personal attacks, if you defend yourself, you look guilty, if you sit and take it, you look wimpy and guilty, if you fight fire with fire, you are accused of many things

CBS "still" should be made to prove that the memo is not fake

Reply #16 By: CrispE - 9/12/2004 10:33:23 AM drmiler: So, if you follow your logic that the media should receive the same protections as the courts give defendents in criminal cases then FOX can say that North Korea exploded a nuclear weapon, right? I mean, you can't prove they didn't, can you?

And that's NOT what I'm saying! BUSH is the accused, NOT the accuser! And as far as "I'm" concerned Kerry is sadly lacking in the military dept. At least given by what he did on his return from Vietnam.

CrispE, you're really reachin'.

1) The evidence is inconclusive. It is not conclusive that YOU can duplicate the document with Microsoft Word. This only says the technology to forge is available, but is not a smoking gun.

The "technology to forge" would be a typewriter in use in 1972 & 1973, NOT MS Word. Draginol is not the ONLY one who can dupe it - ANYONE can dupe it, which is precisely the point. There is no way a machine from the early 1970's could have produced the documents CBS claims are genuine.

2) Journalists on the right (like Kate O'Beirne and Robert Novack on Capital Gang, CNN, 9/11/04) are not calling them forgeries. These are people with strong connections to the White House and know that the White House is not denying the memos.

The White House is doing the only thing it can - let others determine their authenticity. To paraphrase: "This is conclusive. It is conclusive that neither journalists on the right nor the White House have not called them forgeries."

3) The Republican Party is using "unofficial channels" such as those like yourself to paint a picture because they DON'T want to answer for Bush's military record or any official reports of Bush's behavior themselves. As long as they remain silent, then they are exonerated from any responsibility.

You've lost your mind. Draginol is an "unofficial channel" of the White House? The White House is "using" unofficial channels? Meet me at Roswell tomorrow - I've got something you should see.

4) Different papers (Washington Post, Boston Globe, for example) are stating different conclusions about the documents. That there is a DIVISION of opinion is important because everyone is using different experts.

The Post and the Globe did nothing but regurgitate the CBS reply. They've done nothing to independently investigate. How could they arrive at any conclusions? And everyone is not using different experts. The only independent party CBS admits to consulting was not even called an expert by CBS - they called him an analyst. Not even a forensic analyst. And he admits he was not given original documents. Every other typewriter or forensic document expert (and these were experts) believes these documents are fake.

5) If they are FORGERIES, then the White House should say that they don't believe there is credible evidence that Killian ordered Bush to take his physical in May AND that Bush was never aware of such sentiment from his commanding officer.

The White House is under no obligation to offer any proof one way or the other as to the authenticity of these documents. They didn't go on TV and claim they were real. CBS did. The burden of proof is on CBS. Your comment suggest you believe that all lies are true until the victim of the lie proves the lie to be false. I don't think so.

6) If they are AUTHENTIC, CBS should present other documents done on the "same typewriter" that show the same signature so that all documents can be verified.

Well, almost 1 out of 6. Could be worse, I guess. They need to prove the documents they showed are real, not prove some other documents typed on the same machine are real. After what's happened already, nothing less will suffice.

Cheers,
Daiwa

if the whitehouse believes cbs owes bush a retraction, i doubt theyll be shy about demanding one. until they do, this is all so much noise that's ultimately distracting attention from much more serious questions, not the least of which is bush's honesty.  if its an impeachable offense for a sitting (or possibly standing ) president to lie about a blow job, it should also be an impeachable offense for a war president to lie about fully discharging his military service.

if the whitehouse believes cbs owes bush a retraction, i doubt theyll be shy about demanding one. until they do, this is all so much noise that's ultimately distracting attention from much more serious questions, not the least of which is bush's honesty. if its an impeachable offense for a sitting (or possibly standing ) president to lie about a blow job, it should also be an impeachable offense for a war president to lie about fully discharging his military service.

At least you have a sense of humor, but you've lost your freakin mind, too, kingbee. It's NOT THE WHITE HOUSE'S JOB to prove the documents are bogus. IT IS CBS'S JOB to 1) verify the documents are authentic (they can't - woulda happened already) and 2) voluntarily issue a retraction if they are not (which would require a scintilla of integrity, something CBS simply does not possess). And you apparently believe the content of patently fake documents. Based on that, I conclude that you don't buy DNA evidence so the stain on that dress could have been someone else's semen.

And you can only be impeached for acts committed while in office, so you're gonna have to try claiming the Iraq war was an impeachable offense, or something else - I have complete faith you can come up with something.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #20 By: kingbee - 9/12/2004 11:16:03 AM if the whitehouse believes cbs owes bush a retraction, i doubt theyll be shy about demanding one. until they do, this is all so much noise that's ultimately distracting attention from much more serious questions, not the least of which is bush's honesty. if its an impeachable offense for a sitting (or possibly standing ) president to lie about a blow job, it should also be an impeachable offense for a war president to lie about fully discharging his military service.

I really hate to break it to you "kingbee" But you and a lot of other people have missed a VERY important fact. "If " and I stress IF he did not complete his military service he WOULD NOT have gotten a honorable discharge from the US NAVY! No way, "no" how! I don't care how important his daddy was/is, there's no way around that!

"And you can only be impeached for acts committed while in office, so you're gonna have to try claiming the Iraq war was an impeachable offense, or something else - I have complete faith you can come up with something."

I'll retract that part - you're claiming he lied while in office. OK, not good enough (& not proven), but OK.

Cheers,
Daiwa

As linked to from a blurb about the Political Machine, only to find that the dev in question is a pretty strident right-wing bigot. IMO, of course. Pretty ironic. In any case, to answer your petty whinings about untruths, here is an informed opinion piece from a considerably more mainstream publication than the various zealot blogs you are quoting.

I like how that site links to Daily Kos. Anyway, the comments the story received are enough to invalidate it, so I won't bother. Here's something cute I found from the Dvorak Uncensored link: http://politicalities.typepad.com/photos/politicalities/clippy.PNG. I have a serious question. Is the left so desperate to get Kerry elected that they've abandoned all reason and common sense for anything that might cast Bush in a negative light, no matter how insignificant it may be?

Reply #23 By: Daiwa - 9/12/2004 11:40:09 AM "And you can only be impeached for acts committed while in office, so you're gonna have to try claiming the Iraq war was an impeachable offense, or something else - I have complete faith you can come up with something." I'll retract that part - you're claiming he lied while in office. OK, not good enough (& not proven), but OK. Cheers, Daiwa

And lying in office is "not" an impeachable offense "either" If it was Bill Clinton "would" have been impeached! And "that"one "was" proven! Way to go, Daiwa!!

" If it was Bill Clinton "would" have been impeached

he was impeached...and that is exactly why.   youre having a bit of a bad day what with that 16 of the past 24 year business on marvin cooleys thread.

stress IF he did not complete his military service he WOULD NOT have gotten a honorable discharge from the US NAVY

considering whats at issue is whether he did complete his military service commitment, you may be incorrect here as well.  

That's hysterical, Messy!! Great link!.

Here's their line of reasoning:

IF it is possible that some 1973-73 vintage typewriter somewhere could type a proper superscript, and

IF it is possible that some such typewriter could have used a font similar (or identical to) Times New Roman, and

IF it is possible that some such typewriter could have accidentally gotten the header to exactly line up centered to an accuracy of 1/1440th of an inch, on 3 lines, on documents allegedly typed 3 weeks apart, and

IF Lt Col Killian happened to choose to manually set the margins on such a typewriter to exactly 1.25" left and right, and

IF the Texas Air National Guard happened to have such a typewriter, one of the only typewriters in existence at the time capable of coming close to producing such a document, and

IF Lt Col Killian happened to be typing his own memos, and

IF Buck Staudt was 18-months retired but still kickin' ass & takin' names at the Texas ANG, and

IF Lt Col Killian actually gave a rat's ass what an 18-month retired general thought or said, and

IF all but one of the technical forensic document experts cited so far, and the only expert on the only machine theoretically capable of producing a simlar docuement, are wrong, and

IF unnamed "reliable sources" who vouch for the documents are believed, and

IF we ignore the fact that anyone with a computer could create an exact duplicate of the document, then

OF COURSE, THE DOCUMENTS ARE AUTHENTIC AND CANNOT BE DISPUTED. WHAT MORE COULD YOU RABID WINGNUTS WANT, FOR CRIPES SAKE?

Cheers,
Daiw

And we have Rather's confession, anyway.

He's already said that the questions he has raised are far more important than the basis for asking them.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I think we have a different situation in terms of the media where we need to consider whether the documents are real as well as the significance of what they tell us.

That's just the issue--if these memos are indeed fake, then they tell us nothing. There have been so many challenges on the authenticity of these documents in just the last few days that CBS really needs to give a bona fide explanation as to why the memos should be regarded as authentic over the numerous issues that have been raised. Each of those issues, taken individually, doesn't really mean much, but when you can assemble a laundry list of technical and logical problems as well as numerous experts who believe these things are fake (or at least lean to that conclusion), then it starts to become pretty damning. I'm _still_ not certain on my personal call on the whole issue (I suppose it's your right to call me delusional for that, Draginol ), but there certainly needs to be an honest, thorough and open evaluation of everything that has been brought up.