Rathergate

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Experts who state that looking at the originals is the only way to prove their authenticity. blather needs to pony up the docs, lest he ruin his career over this.

"blather" might not be as dumb as you think

It is only conjecture that CBS can get it's hands on the originals. Nobody except CBS knows that. If the source wishes to remain confidential, the CBS has a decision to make. Reveal a source who is possibly innocent or just maintain teh status quo. It seems it is up to them, just like GWB's silence on the matter is up to him.

Welcome to the SBVFTT style politics. Ain't it just peachy

Ummm - cBS doesn't have to reveal their source - they just need to have their source produce the originals so they can be authenticated by REAL experts. As it sits - cBS and blather are losing credibility(and viewers) by the hour.
Too bad blather's arrogance looks to be ending his career.(yes gaard - he put his credibility on the line regardless of the producer)

CsG

 

[1EZduzit]

We don't know if CBS even has access to the originals. How can they produce something they don't have?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
(yes gaard - he put his credibility on the line regardless of the producer)

CsG

why?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
We don't know if CBS even has access to the originals. How can they produce something they don't have?

maybe ask their source to provide them with the originals?

Are you really that naive?

CsG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
We don't know if CBS even has access to the originals. How can they produce something they don't have?

maybe ask their source to provide them with the originals?

Are you really that naive?

CsG

If they cant get originals, that is just one more to thing to add to the long list of things wrong with these documents.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
(yes gaard - he put his credibility on the line regardless of the producer)

CsG

why?

He has repeatedly said that his story is true. He put his name on the story and is now repeating that it is true it is true it is true - yet he doesn't know if it is true. He expects people to believe him because of who he is. He's put his credibility on the line for these documents.

CsG

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
We don't know if CBS even has access to the originals. How can they produce something they don't have?

maybe ask their source to provide them with the originals?

Are you really that naive?

CsG

LOL, As far as I understand they were more considerations other then the original documents that went into the decision to make the broadcast. CBS never looked at the originals AFAIK and I don't know if their source has the originals. You can't force them to come up with what they don't have.

Maybe the source has them and doesn't want to reveal them or himself? Maybe that was the original agreement? I don't know.

Nobody can prove otherwise. Kind of reminds you of Kerry having to prove himself "worthy" of his medals, doesn't it. Kind of hard to do after 30 years and a bunch of liars ganging up on him. Now Rather has put the shoe on the other foot. You call for his resignation and I think he's a friggin genius. It just depends on who your pulling for, doesn't it.

Turn-about is fair play in war and politics

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
We don't know if CBS even has access to the originals. How can they produce something they don't have?

maybe ask their source to provide them with the originals?

Are you really that naive?

CsG

LOL, As far as I understand they were more considerations other then the original documents that went into the decision to make the broadcast. CBS never looked at the originals AFAIK and I don't know if their source has the originals. You can't force them to come up with what they don't have.

Maybe the source has them and doesn't want to reveal them or himself? Maybe that was the original agreement? I don't know.

Then maybe cBS shouldn't have used the documents in their story then - no? Does cBS think everyone is dumb and will just accept the docs as the real ones instead of just copies? If cBS can't come up with the originals or their "source" doesn't have them then they shouldn't have run the docs in the story. Ofcourse without the docs -all they had was a discredited bush-hater.

So yeah, without the originals -cBS looks like the fools they are. I don't care what agreements there were - cBS can't verify that the documents they used are real. If they wish to retain any sort of credibility - they best find those originals...

tick tock tick tock...

CsG

 

[1EZduzit]

It reminds me of the guy who got fired from his job for heckling Bush at a fund raiser. Remember that thread? Maybe Mr. Rather was ready to retire anyway? He's a little harder to get rid of then just having the cops escort him out though, LOL.

You obviously watch FOX news anyway.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Then maybe cBS shouldn't have used the documents in their story then - no? Does cBS think everyone is dumb and will just accept the docs as the real ones instead of just copies? If cBS can't come up with the originals or their "source" doesn't have them then they shouldn't have run the docs in the story. Ofcourse without the docs -all they had was a discredited bush-hater.

So yeah, without the originals -cBS looks like the fools they are. I don't care what agreements there were - cBS can't verify that the documents they used are real. If they wish to retain any sort of credibility - they best find those originals...

tick tock tick tock...

CsG

Cad, welcome back by the way. And you're clearly missing the point here. Just like with the Swift Boat idiots, it really doesn't matter if the story is true or not because the damage has already been done. The vast liberal conspiracy has successfully countered the negative poll impact of the Swift Boat ads. Mission accomplished.

Now let's stop being distracted by the stupidity going on on both sides and get back to discussing the important issues.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Then maybe cBS shouldn't have used the documents in their story then - no? Does cBS think everyone is dumb and will just accept the docs as the real ones instead of just copies? If cBS can't come up with the originals or their "source" doesn't have them then they shouldn't have run the docs in the story. Ofcourse without the docs -all they had was a discredited bush-hater.

So yeah, without the originals -cBS looks like the fools they are. I don't care what agreements there were - cBS can't verify that the documents they used are real. If they wish to retain any sort of credibility - they best find those originals...

tick tock tick tock...

CsG

Cad, welcome back by the way. And you're clearly missing the point here. Just like with the Swift Boat idiots, it really doesn't matter if the story is true or not because the damage has already been done. The vast liberal conspiracy has successfully countered the negative poll impact of the Swift Boat ads. Mission accomplished.

Now let's stop being distracted by the stupidity going on on both sides and get back to discussing the important issues.

Ah, but the point here is that Rather is trying to pass unverified copies as "authentic" when they clearly are far from it. Do you want a "news" reporter to pass fake docs as real? The swift guys is a different deal - we didn't have Browkaw digging those guys up and presenting their brother instead. Blather is going to get hammered on this until he can back up his story.
Oh, and I really don't think there was any "damage" due to the bloggers getting the "mainstream" media(other than cBS) to notice the inconsistencies. Plus most people don't care about the guard story -it's just a rehashed story that's been used against him since he ran for Governor.

The media is an important issue to me

Oh and 1ezdunit - I dont' have cable(for the 1000 th time)[note no superscript] so I don't get Fox News. I randomly choose which network to watch if I choose to watch something beside Jim Lehrer.

CsG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, but the point here is that Rather is trying to pass unverified copies as "authentic" when they clearly are far from it. Do you want a "news" reporter to pass fake docs as real?

Well, you're assuming that they're not authentic. At this point, we really don't know. Until we get more information, it's just a lot of noise from both sides. Furthermore, it sounds like CBS took steps to verify the documents and source this story. It's not like some guy just faxed them some documents and they went on the air that night with them. Apparantly, there's a whole backstory here. Personally, I'd like to see an independent investigation performed.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, but the point here is that Rather is trying to pass unverified copies as "authentic" when they clearly are far from it. Do you want a "news" reporter to pass fake docs as real?

Well, you're assuming that they're not authentic. At this point, we really don't know. Until we get more information, it's just a lot of noise from both sides. Furthermore, it sounds like CBS took steps to verify the documents and source this story. It's not like some guy just faxed them some documents and they went on the air that night with them. Apparantly, there's a whole backstory here. Personally, I'd like to see an independent investigation performed.

No, i'm looking at the evidence we have from the copies. There is plenty "wrong" with them which is why I've stated that cBS and blather pony up the original docs.
cBS took steps? You mean misrepresenting the documents? You mean having a signature guy look at one memo?

If this is cBS's standard for verification then they deserve all the fall-out they are getting.

CsG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, but the point here is that Rather is trying to pass unverified copies as "authentic" when they clearly are far from it. Do you want a "news" reporter to pass fake docs as real?

Well, you're assuming that they're not authentic. At this point, we really don't know. Until we get more information, it's just a lot of noise from both sides. Furthermore, it sounds like CBS took steps to verify the documents and source this story. It's not like some guy just faxed them some documents and they went on the air that night with them. Apparantly, there's a whole backstory here. Personally, I'd like to see an independent investigation performed.

Yes, CBS even took the time to ignore the concerns from their document experts.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
It's time we accuse CBS, Rather, and the entire Kerry campaign of treason! And if found guilty, they should all be shot dead!

This BS by the liberal media to affect the outcome of the election must stop!

CBS' experts say they didn't authenticate Bush memos

Please direct me towards the nearest liberal media outlet, I have yet to find one. CNN is conservative, MSNBC is conservative, faux news is little more than a branch of the republican party. The only thing on that is remotely progressive is PBS and NPR.

And speaking of the media reporting trash as news, have we all forgotten the blatantly false allegations against Kerry the the media refused to critic at all (despite overwelming evidence against the allegations of the SwiftboatveteransforBush)? What about liberal bias? Huh? yeah thats what i thought.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Please direct me towards the nearest liberal media outlet, I have yet to find one. CNN is conservative, MSNBC is conservative, faux news is little more than a branch of the republican party. The only thing on that is remotely progressive is PBS and NPR.

And speaking of the media reporting trash as news, have we all forgotten the blatantly false allegations against Kerry the the media refused to critic at all (despite overwelming evidence against the allegations of the SwiftboatveteransforBush)? What about liberal bias? Huh? yeah thats what i thought.

Just how far left do you have to be to post something like this?

CsG

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
My concern is that they way a question may be put to a person.

Just like public opinion polls, the wording of the question can lead to an entire differnet answer.
Also, just the way the questioner presents themselves and expains what they are doing can generate a bias.

An elderly lady is now being asked for her opinions with respect to a national media issue.
She gets her 15 minutes of fame if she answers the question one way vs another.

Too many variables exist with respect to this mess to be able to sort it out.

CBS does not have to reveal their source (their choice), but at least put the actual (not copies) documents out there for review.

At a bare minimum, lab tests may be able to disprove the ink/paper came from the current time frame.

CBS does not have orignals. Since these documents appear to be forged, there is no reason to continue to hide the source.

They should have the original ?forgery?

If all they can produce is photocopies, then the source must have the original ?forgery?.

They can produce the original (of what ever type) without compremising the source (based on their standards).

If the documents are non-classified docuements (and I have not read/seen anything to indicate differently), there is no reason that they can not be produced. If CBS can not do so, they are perpetuating the fraud. It would seem to be in their best interests if they believe the docs to be legit to produce them.

Prove that they are not authentic copies. You can't. Nobody can. If CBS knows they are forgeries, then they should reveal the source. First it has to be proven they are forgeries.

Let GWB declare them to be lies. He won't. That alone is reason enough to cast doubt that they may not be forgeries. I say it's time for GWB to put up or shut up.

Again, it can't be proved either way until the originals show up. At this point the documents have been shown to be forgeries with the only caveat that they aren't the originals. It is now cBS's job to show that the documents are infact real and not forgeries. cBS should have known better than to run with only copies of the documents - they are now paying the price for their arrogance.

It's time for cBS to put up or shut up - it's their "story"(and reputation) that is in shambles. The only way to fix both is for them to pony up the original documents. It would truly be sad if cBS continued to let a source ruin their already shaky reputation.

Pony up the docs blather.

CsG

Because you say so?? Because Rather pissed off the righties? Wrong again.

If CBS finds out they are forgeries, then they can divluge their source. If they can't prove they're forgeries then they have a responsibility to keep their source confidential. That's the way it works.

There is little question that they are fake. Pretty much every document expert has called them as such.

Show me one who can prove that. Just one with unrefuteable proof.

CBS's own experts had questions with the documents.
PRetty much anyone who knows anything about typesettings thinks they are forged.
ABC thinks they are forged

and

Frank Abagnale, played by Leonardo DiCaprio in the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie "Catch Me If You Can." In an email to FOX News Channel's Neil Cavuto, Abagnale wrote, "If my forgeries looked as bad as the CBS documents, it would have been, 'Catch Me In Two Days.' "


:Q

linkage

Wow, if a guy who's honored with a performance by Leo D calls Fox News (irrefutably the last bastion of journalistic accumen, integrity and objectivity) and calls into question the authenticity of these documents he's never actually seen before, then by golly than cinches it.

That's not to say the documents are authetic or not, that's not for me to judge, but your source of validation is retarded.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
My concern is that they way a question may be put to a person.

Just like public opinion polls, the wording of the question can lead to an entire differnet answer.
Also, just the way the questioner presents themselves and expains what they are doing can generate a bias.

An elderly lady is now being asked for her opinions with respect to a national media issue.
She gets her 15 minutes of fame if she answers the question one way vs another.

Too many variables exist with respect to this mess to be able to sort it out.

CBS does not have to reveal their source (their choice), but at least put the actual (not copies) documents out there for review.

At a bare minimum, lab tests may be able to disprove the ink/paper came from the current time frame.

CBS does not have orignals. Since these documents appear to be forged, there is no reason to continue to hide the source.

They should have the original ?forgery?

If all they can produce is photocopies, then the source must have the original ?forgery?.

They can produce the original (of what ever type) without compremising the source (based on their standards).

If the documents are non-classified docuements (and I have not read/seen anything to indicate differently), there is no reason that they can not be produced. If CBS can not do so, they are perpetuating the fraud. It would seem to be in their best interests if they believe the docs to be legit to produce them.

Prove that they are not authentic copies. You can't. Nobody can. If CBS knows they are forgeries, then they should reveal the source. First it has to be proven they are forgeries.

Let GWB declare them to be lies. He won't. That alone is reason enough to cast doubt that they may not be forgeries. I say it's time for GWB to put up or shut up.

Again, it can't be proved either way until the originals show up. At this point the documents have been shown to be forgeries with the only caveat that they aren't the originals. It is now cBS's job to show that the documents are infact real and not forgeries. cBS should have known better than to run with only copies of the documents - they are now paying the price for their arrogance.

It's time for cBS to put up or shut up - it's their "story"(and reputation) that is in shambles. The only way to fix both is for them to pony up the original documents. It would truly be sad if cBS continued to let a source ruin their already shaky reputation.

Pony up the docs blather.

CsG

Because you say so?? Because Rather pissed off the righties? Wrong again.

If CBS finds out they are forgeries, then they can divluge their source. If they can't prove they're forgeries then they have a responsibility to keep their source confidential. That's the way it works.

There is little question that they are fake. Pretty much every document expert has called them as such.

Show me one who can prove that. Just one with unrefuteable proof.

CBS's own experts had questions with the documents.
PRetty much anyone who knows anything about typesettings thinks they are forged.
ABC thinks they are forged

and

Frank Abagnale, played by Leonardo DiCaprio in the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie "Catch Me If You Can." In an email to FOX News Channel's Neil Cavuto, Abagnale wrote, "If my forgeries looked as bad as the CBS documents, it would have been, 'Catch Me In Two Days.' "


:Q

linkage

Wow, if a guy who's honored with a performance by Leo D calls Fox News (irrefutably the last bastion of journalistic accumen, integrity and objectivity) and calls into question the authenticity of these documents he's never actually seen before, then by golly than cinches it.

That's not to say the documents are authetic or not, that's not for me to judge, but your source of validation is retarded.

I take you dont know who this guy is....

 

[jjzelinski]

The alpha and omega of forensic science? Yes, I know who he is; the really enjoyable movie made it all clear!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, but the point here is that Rather is trying to pass unverified copies as "authentic" when they clearly are far from it. Do you want a "news" reporter to pass fake docs as real?

Well, you're assuming that they're not authentic. At this point, we really don't know. Until we get more information, it's just a lot of noise from both sides. Furthermore, it sounds like CBS took steps to verify the documents and source this story. It's not like some guy just faxed them some documents and they went on the air that night with them. Apparantly, there's a whole backstory here. Personally, I'd like to see an independent investigation performed.

No, i'm looking at the evidence we have from the copies. There is plenty "wrong" with them which is why I've stated that cBS and blather pony up the original docs.
cBS took steps? You mean misrepresenting the documents? You mean having a signature guy look at one memo?

If this is cBS's standard for verification then they deserve all the fall-out they are getting.

CsG

All of the opinions of the various document "experts" are moot anyway, Cad. You can't obviously authenticate a copy of a document. That's why they all spout off about what they "think" and then throw in the little caveat "Oh, well I can't definitively say they are authentic or whether they are forgeries."

Great that really helps. It's a whole lot of educated speculation.

Furthermore, you don't know the ins and outs of this investigation. How are you able to authoritatively say what CBS did or didn't do to get this story? You can't, that's the problem. Let's have an independent investigation and see what the real story is here.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, but the point here is that Rather is trying to pass unverified copies as "authentic" when they clearly are far from it. Do you want a "news" reporter to pass fake docs as real?

Well, you're assuming that they're not authentic. At this point, we really don't know. Until we get more information, it's just a lot of noise from both sides. Furthermore, it sounds like CBS took steps to verify the documents and source this story. It's not like some guy just faxed them some documents and they went on the air that night with them. Apparantly, there's a whole backstory here. Personally, I'd like to see an independent investigation performed.

No, i'm looking at the evidence we have from the copies. There is plenty "wrong" with them which is why I've stated that cBS and blather pony up the original docs.
cBS took steps? You mean misrepresenting the documents? You mean having a signature guy look at one memo?

If this is cBS's standard for verification then they deserve all the fall-out they are getting.

CsG

All of the opinions of the various document "experts" are moot anyway, Cad. You can't obviously authenticate a copy of a document. That's why they all spout off about what they "think" and then throw in the little caveat "Oh, well I can't definitively say they are authentic or whether they are forgeries."

Great that really helps. It's a whole lot of educated speculation.

Furthermore, you don't know the ins and outs of this investigation. How are you able to authoritatively say what CBS did or didn't do to get this story? You can't, that's the problem. Let's have an independent investigation and see what the real story is here.

No, it's not "moot" because like I've been saying- we need the originals to PROVE it eitherway but at this point from what can be looked at using copies - they look to be fake. Let's see the docs.

I never claimed I know everything they did or didn't do. But what they didn't do is authenticate the documents because they don't have the originals and their own experts can't say they are authentic without seeing the originals. Exactly - the problem here is that cBS used shoddy journalism and got caught trying to pass off the docs as authentic when they are far from being authenticated. Again - lets see the original docs. cBS and blathers reputation/credibility rest on those docs. Pony up the docs blather. tick tock tick tock....

CsG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, but the point here is that Rather is trying to pass unverified copies as "authentic" when they clearly are far from it. Do you want a "news" reporter to pass fake docs as real?

Well, you're assuming that they're not authentic. At this point, we really don't know. Until we get more information, it's just a lot of noise from both sides. Furthermore, it sounds like CBS took steps to verify the documents and source this story. It's not like some guy just faxed them some documents and they went on the air that night with them. Apparantly, there's a whole backstory here. Personally, I'd like to see an independent investigation performed.

No, i'm looking at the evidence we have from the copies. There is plenty "wrong" with them which is why I've stated that cBS and blather pony up the original docs.
cBS took steps? You mean misrepresenting the documents? You mean having a signature guy look at one memo?

If this is cBS's standard for verification then they deserve all the fall-out they are getting.

CsG

All of the opinions of the various document "experts" are moot anyway, Cad. You can't obviously authenticate a copy of a document. That's why they all spout off about what they "think" and then throw in the little caveat "Oh, well I can't definitively say they are authentic or whether they are forgeries."

Great that really helps. It's a whole lot of educated speculation.

Furthermore, you don't know the ins and outs of this investigation. How are you able to authoritatively say what CBS did or didn't do to get this story? You can't, that's the problem. Let's have an independent investigation and see what the real story is here.

No, it's not "moot" because like I've been saying- we need the originals to PROVE it eitherway but at this point from what can be looked at using copies - they look to be fake. Let's see the docs.

I never claimed I know everything they did or didn't do. But what they didn't do is authenticate the documents because they don't have the originals and their own experts can't say they are authentic without seeing the originals. Exactly - the problem here is that cBS used shoddy journalism and got caught trying to pass off the docs as authentic when they are far from being authenticated. Again - lets see the original docs. cBS and blathers reputation/credibility rest on those docs. Pony up the docs blather. tick tock tick tock....

CsG

Yes, the document "experts" opinions are MOOT. None of them can definitively prove anything. And of course neither can CBS. If you want the original documents, go talk to Bill Burkett. I'm sure he can help you out. That is, if he survives all of the death threats he's getting.

 

[burnedout]

Bill Burkett

From Burkett's own brief bio mentioned in a long, rambling piece he wrote.

Burkett was one of five subjects in James Moore's book, "Bush's War for ReElection," and one of the sources for information in the Michael Moore's film "Farenheit 911."

Another interesting remark from the same piece that was coincidentally written 2 weeks before RAthERGATE:

I know from your files that we have now reassembled, the fact that you did not fulfill your oath, taken when you were commissioned to "obey the orders of the officers appointed over you".

Like Ben Barnes, Burkett is little more than another Texas Democrat with an axe to grind. Again, like Barnes, none of the potential allegations were proven but instead dismissed.

 

[burnedout]

An interesting segment concerning David Van Os, Bill Burkett's attorney, from the New York Times:

[Hat tip: Ed Morrisey]

An article on Wednesday about disputed memos obtained by CBS News that cast doubt on aspects of President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard truncated a quotation from David Van Os, a lawyer for Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard officer whom Newsweek called a source of the memos. Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush's military service, Mr. Van Os posed a hypothetical chain of events in which someone - not Mr. Burkett, he said - reconstructed documents that the preparer believed existed in 1972 or 1973. Mr. Van Os then asked "what difference would even that make'' to the "factual reality of where was George W. Bush at the times in question and what was he doing?''

Incidentally, Mr. Van Os is running for seat on the TX Supreme Court.

 

[bamacre]

I ran across THIS.

I have no idea if it is accurate, but if it is, just hilarious, Word 2002?