CBS: We Were Deceived

[alnorth]

After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a 60 MINUTES report that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night, the NEW YORK TIMES is reporting in Monday runs. Developing...

Yeah, and I bet that plunging ratings had NOTHING to do with this change of heart, right?

[RINGLEADER]

Here's the story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20guard.html

[RINGLEADER]

CBS News Concludes It Was Misled on National Guard Memos, Network Officials Say

By JIM RUTENBERG

Published: September 20, 2004

After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a "60 Minutes'' report that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night.

Those officials, who asked not to be identified, said CBS News would most likely make an announcement as early as today that it had been deceived about the documents' origins, and that it was mounting an intensive news investigation of where they came from.

But these people cautioned that CBS News could still pull back from an announcement. Officials were meeting last night with Dan Rather, the anchor who presented the report, to go over the information it has collected about the documents one last time before making a final decision.

People at the network said it was now possible that officials would open a formal internal inquiry into how it moved forward with the report, which officials now say they are beginning to believe was too flawed to have gone on the air.

The report relied in large part on four memorandums purported to be from the personal file of Mr. Bush's squadron commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, who died 20 years ago. The memos, dated from the early 1970's, said that Colonel Killian was under pressure to "sugar coat'' the record of the young Lieutenant Bush and that the officer had disobeyed a direct order to take a physical.

Mr. Rather and others at the network are said to still believe that the sentiment in the memos accurately reflected Mr. Killian's feelings, but that the documents' authenticity is now in grave doubt.

The developments last night marked a dramatic turn for CBS News, which for a week stood steadfastly by its Sept. 8 report as various document experts asserted that the typeface of the memos could have been produced only by a modern-day word processor, not Vietnam War-era typewriters.

The seemingly unflappable confidence of Mr. Rather and top news division officials in the documents allayed fears within the network and created doubt among some in the news media at large that those specialists were correct. CBS News officials had said they had reason to be certain that the documents indeed came from the personal file of Colonel Killian.

Sandy Genelius, a network spokeswoman, said last week, "We are confident about the chain of custody; we're confident in how we secured the documents.''

But officials decided yesterday that they would most likely have to declare that they were misled about the records' origin after Mr. Rather and a top network executive, Betsy West, met in Texas with a man who was said to have helped the news division obtain the memos, a former Guard officer named Bill Burkett.

Mr. Rather interviewed Mr. Burkett on camera this weekend, and several people close to the reporting process said his answers to Mr. Rather's questions led officials to conclude that their initial confidence that the memos came from Mr. Killian's own files was not warranted. These people indicated that Mr. Burkett had previously led the producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, to have the utmost confidence in the material.

It was unclear last night whether Mr. Burkett told Mr. Rather that he had been misled about the documents' provenance or that he had been the one who did the misleading.

In an e-mail message yesterday, Mr. Burkett declined to answer any questions about the documents.

Yesterday, Emily J. Will, a document specialist who inspected the records for CBS News and said last week that she had raised concerns about their authenticity with CBS News producers, confirmed a report in Newsweek that a producer had told her that the source of the documents had said they were obtained anonymously and through the mail.

During an interview last night she declined to name the producer who told her this but said that the producer had been in a position to know. CBS News officials have disputed her contention that she warned the network the night before the initial "60 Minutes'' report that it would face questions from documents experts.

In the coming days CBS News officials plan to focus on how the network moved ahead with the report when there were warning signs that the memorandums were not genuine.

Ms. Will is one of two documents experts consulted by the network who said they raised doubts about the material before the segment was broadcast. Another expert, Marcel B. Matley, said in interviews that he had vouched only for Colonel Killian's signatures on the records and not the authenticity of the records themselves. Mr. Matley said he could not rule out that the signatures had been cut and pasted from official records pertaining to Colonel Killian.

In examining where the network had gone wrong, officials at CBS News turning their attention to Ms. Mapes, one of their most respected producers, who was riding particularly high this year after breaking news about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal for the network.

In a telephone interview this weekend, Josh Howard, the executive producer of the "60 Minutes'' Wednesday edition, said that he did not initially know who was Ms. Mapes' primary source for the documents but that he did not see any reason to doubt them. He said he believed Ms. Mapes and her team had appropriately answered all questions about the documents' authenticity and, he noted, no one seemed to be casting doubt upon the essential thrust of the report.

"The editorial story line was still intact, and still is, to this day,'' he said, "and the reporting that was done in it was by a person who has turned in decades of flawless reporting with no challenge to her credibility.''

He added, "We in management had no sense that the producing team wasn't completely comfortable with the results of the document analysis.''

Ms. Mapes has not responded to requests for comment.

Mr. Howard also said in the interview that the White House did not dispute the veracity of the documents when it was presented to them on the morning of the report. That reaction, he said, was "the icing on the cake'' of the other reporting the network was conducting on the documents. White House officials have said they saw no reason to challenge documents being presented by a credible news organization.

Several people familiar with the situation said they were girding for a particularly tough week for Mr. Rather and the news division should the network announce its new doubts.

One person close to the situation said the critical question would be, "Where was everybody's judgment on that last day?''

[Michael Michigan]

oops I was one minute late...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=99106

[Joe Seahawk]

Wow, it took them this long to finally realize the documents are phony.

CBS sucks at news.

[RINGLEADER]

Wow, it took them this long to finally realize the documents are phony.

CBS sucks at news.


I wonder if CBS is going to be able to convince Dan Rather to break the story about the memos being fake.

[/sarcasm]

[RINGLEADER]

What are the odds that Jaz will still say they're authentic even if CBS says they were fake?

Also, I bet that Bill Burkett interview that Dan Rather filmed this weekend never sees the light of day...except to show him as someone who deceived CBS.

[Joe Seahawk]

What are the odds that Jaz will still say they're authentic even if CBS says they were fake?

Also, I bet that Bill Burkett interview that Dan Rather filmed this weekend never sees the light of day...except to show him as someone who deceived CBS.

It's all an evil scheme by Rove... :deevee: :deevee: :p

[RINGLEADER]

Let's see how long the DNC keeps this page up:

http://www.democrats.org/news/200409090004.html

[Michael Michigan]

Let's see how long the DNC keeps this page up:

http://www.democrats.org/news/200409090004.html

:)

Beautiful.

Did you cache it?

[Michael Michigan]

What are the odds that Jaz will still say they're authentic even if CBS says they were fake?

Also, I bet that Bill Burkett interview that Dan Rather filmed this weekend never sees the light of day...except to show him as someone who deceived CBS.

Where is jAZ? Did he quit?

[Joe Seahawk]

Where is jAZ? Did he quit?

He never could admit the obvious about the memos...

BTW, did you get your secret encrypted RNC memo yet? got mine today!

:thumb:

ROFL

[Michael Michigan]

He never could admit the obvious about the memos...

BTW, did you get your secret encrypted RNC memo yet? got mine today!

:thumb:

ROFL

I got it along with my secret decoder ring.

I assumed that you sent it following the usual protocol.

;)

[RINGLEADER]

I got it along with my secret decoder ring.

I assumed that you sent it following the usual protocol.

;)

:(

My direct hardline fax to the RNC is down...

:(

[Michael Michigan]

:(

My direct hardline fax to the RNC is down...

:(

This is an outrage. Probably some kind of California conspiracy.

Let me get Rove on the phone.

He's "the fixer" afterall.

[Michael Michigan]

Yikes--

Off topic but did either of you catch this going over 60?

http://128.255.244.60/pricehistory/PriceHistory_GetData.cfm


09/19/04 DEM04 0.401
09/19/04 REP04 0.602

[KCWolfman]

Everyone else has proven the documents phony beyond a doubt (well, everyone but jAZ), and CBS is just now at "grave doubts"? Who is running the place, Duhnise?

Say it with me CBS, "We were wrong".

[Taco John]

CBS should follow Dubya's lead and blame it on the CIA.

Incredible how well the Bush administration pulled together to combat this forged document. I guess they learned how to finally spot them after they got tricked by the Zaire documents that led us into war.

Thankfully, Rather being duped by false documents just led us to think George Bush was a frat boy who had the road paved for him since childhood. Someone let me know how Bush being duped by documents turns out.

[Duck Dog]

CBS should follow Dubya's lead and blame it on the CIA.

Incredible how well the Bush administration pulled together to combat this forged document. I guess they learned how to finally spot them after they got tricked by the Zaire documents that led us into war.

Thankfully, Rather being duped by false documents just led us to think George Bush was a frat boy who had the road paved for him since childhood. Someone let me know how Bush being duped by documents turns out.


It doesn't bother you in the slightest that a major news network knowingly reported on fake documents in order to sway an election?

The same POTUS who's father when he was POTUS owned Rather’s ass on national TV, almost embarrassing Rather into tears? It's no secret Rather has it in for the Bush family.

Rather and his producers should be fired at least, and perhaps should spend a little time behind bars.

[Donger]

On Monday, Sep. 13 Dan Rather told CNN:

"I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been (sic). There isn't going to be--there's no--what you're saying apology? I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true..."

[KCWolfman]

CBS should follow Dubya's lead and blame it on the CIA.

Incredible how well the Bush administration pulled together to combat this forged document. I guess they learned how to finally spot them after they got tricked by the Zaire documents that led us into war.

Thankfully, Rather being duped by false documents just led us to think George Bush was a frat boy who had the road paved for him since childhood. Someone let me know how Bush being duped by documents turns out.
Yeah, who cares that a national federal broadcasting company attempted to illegally influence an election through forged documents?

[Velvet_Jones]

BTW, did you get your secret encrypted RNC memo yet? got mine today!

Is that the one where we are supposed to point and laugh at these people and also make balloon figures?

Or is that the one that where we are not supposed to gloat when another liberal bites the dust yet also giving the go-ahead for the dancing on liberal's graves party?

Now that I think of it, the first one must have come from the IRC (International order of retired clowns).

Velvet

[BIG_DADDY]

Yeah, who cares that a national federal broadcasting company attempted to illegally influence an election through forged documents?

I just don't understand why he even bothers posting this shit. What's with you these days Taco, you don't even bother trying to hide the spin anymore?

[Brock]

CBS should follow Dubya's lead and blame it on the CIA.

Incredible how well the Bush administration pulled together to combat this forged document. I guess they learned how to finally spot them after they got tricked by the Zaire documents that led us into war.

Thankfully, Rather being duped by false documents just led us to think George Bush was a frat boy who had the road paved for him since childhood. Someone let me know how Bush being duped by documents turns out.

After your fake outrage over the Swift boat veterans, no one is surprised by your defense of CBS.

[Cochise]

Yeah, who cares that a national federal broadcasting company attempted to illegally influence an election through forged documents?

Oh, no, the media diliberately perpetrating a fraud in an attempt to influence the election, if not outright working in concert with one of the campaigns, is not news at all. :rolleyes:

[Cochise]

After your fake outrage over the Swift boat veterans, no one is surprised by your defense of CBS.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[KCWolfman]

Oh, no, the media diliberately perpetrating a fraud in an attempt to influence the election, if not outright working in concert with one of the campaigns, is not news at all. :rolleyes:
Exactly, a PR liberal defending the liberal news media is hardly usual, is it?

[mikey23545]

Remember, Taco is a libertarian, not a Democrat....

[redbrian]

Updated 5:03 PM ET September 20, 2004


By DAVID BAUDER

NEW YORK (AP) - CBS apologized Monday and said it was misled about the authenticity of documents used to support a "60 Minutes" story that questioned President Bush's Vietnam War-era National Guard service, after several experts denounced them as fakes.

"We should not have used them," CBS News President Andrew Heyward said. "That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."

CBS also said it was commissioning an independent panel to review the incident, and would announce the name of the participants shortly.

The White House said the affair raises questions about the connections between CBS's source and Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign.

CBS's concession was a major blow to the credibility of the news organization and anchor Dan Rather, who reported the story and issued his own apology Monday.

"We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry," he said. "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism."



Almost immediately after the Sept. 8 story aired, document experts questioned memos purportedly written by Bush's late squadron leader, saying they appeared to have been created on a computer and not a typewriter that was in use during the 1970s.

CBS strongly defended its story, and it wasn't until a week later _ after the military leader's former secretary said she believed the memos were fake _ did the news division admit they were questionable.

Even then, Rather said no one had disputed the story's premise: that the future president had pulled strings to get a relatively cushy National Guard assignment and failed to satisfy the requirements of his service.

Rather this weekend interviewed Bill Burkett, a retired Texas National Guard official who has been mentioned as a possible source for the documents. His interview was to be broadcast on "CBS Evening News" on Monday.

CBS said Burkett acknowledged he provided the documents and said he deliberately misled a CBS producer, giving her a false account of their origin to protect a promise of confidentiality to a source.

The Associated Press could not immediately reach Burkett for comment.

Rather said he would not have gone ahead with the story Burkett admitted that the documents were not authentic.

"That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where _ if I knew then what I know now _ I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question," he said.

"Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully," he added.

The documents were said to have been written by Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, indicating he was being pressured to "sugarcoat" the performance ratings of a young Bush, then the son of a Texas congressman, and that Bush failed to follow orders to take a physical. Killian died in 1984.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush was told about the CBS statement as he flew to Derry, N.H.

"CBS is now for the first time publicly acknowledging that the documents were likely forged and they came from a discredited source," McClellan said. "There are a number of serious questions that remain unanswered and they need to be answered. Bill Burkett, who CBS now says is their source, in fact is not an unimpeachable source as was previously claimed. Bill Burkett is a source who has been discredited and so this raises a lot of questions. There were media reports about Mr. Burkett having senior level contacts with the Kerry campaign."

For "60 Minutes," it's the biggest ethical mess since the 1995 incident captured in the movie, "The Insider," which depicted the newsmagazine caving to pressure from CBS lawyers and not airing a whistleblowing report from an ex-tobacco executive.

The call for an independent review was also reminiscent of CNN's "Tailwind" scandal in 1998. The cable network retracted a story that the U.S. military had used nerve gas in Laos during the Vietnam war.

[KCWolfman]

Remember, Taco is a libertarian, not a Democrat....
Yeah, and Quentin Griffin is Barry Sanders

[Taco John]

It doesn't bother you in the slightest that a major news network knowingly reported on fake documents in order to sway an election?

The same POTUS who's father when he was POTUS owned Rather’s ass on national TV, almost embarrassing Rather into tears? It's no secret Rather has it in for the Bush family.

Rather and his producers should be fired at least, and perhaps should spend a little time behind bars.



Actually, it bothers me a great deal. But this administration went to war over fake documents, and I don't see you calling for Bush's head... So what's the point?

I find it hilarious that you hold Dan Rather to a higher standard than the President.

[Taco John]

Yeah, who cares that a national federal broadcasting company attempted to illegally influence an election through forged documents?


Yeah, who cares that the President of the United States illegally influenced the American people into going to war through forged documents...

ROFL

[Taco John]

After your fake outrage over the Swift boat veterans, no one is surprised by your defense of CBS.



Who's defending CBS? They're getting what's coming to them, and I think they deserve it. My observation, however, is about the herd. All this "fake outrage" over the forged documents scandal, and not a single one of you breathed a second word about the Bush Administration being duped by forged nigerian documents.

It's pretty much a checkmate position, and to prove it, just read the responses I've gotten back. None of them address the point I'm making. Instead, they'll go after me...

It's just all so hilarious.

[KCWolfman]

Yeah, who cares that the President of the United States illegally influenced the American people into going to war through forged documents...

ROFL
Really? What parallel universe did you come from?

In this one we told Saddam Hussein to either produce the WMDs he admitted he had before or bring out a list of where and when the weapons were destroyed. He failed to do so and thus continued constituting a threat.

I hope one day you get back to your universe in which a war was declared over false documents.

[KCWolfman]

Who's defending CBS? They're getting what's coming to them, and I think they deserve it. My observation, however, is about the herd. All this "fake outrage" over the forged documents scandal, and not a single one of you breathed a second word about the Bush Administration being duped by forged nigerian documents.

It's pretty much a checkmate position, and to prove it, just read the responses I've gotten back. None of them address the point I'm making. Instead, they'll go after me...

It's just all so hilarious.
Somebody was wrong again.

Of course, your debating style is similar to Dan Rather's. I have heard plenty of commentators speak on it.

[Taco John]

I just don't understand why he even bothers posting this shit. What's with you these days Taco, you don't even bother trying to hide the spin anymore?




Just doing what I can to get a bad president out of office. Pointing out obvious hypocrisies that exist among his "principled" supporters is just part of the job. It's nothing personal.

[Taco John]

Really? What parallel universe did you come from?

In this one we told Saddam Hussein to either produce the WMDs he admitted he had before or bring out a list of where and when the weapons were destroyed. He failed to do so and thus continued constituting a threat.

I hope one day you get back to your universe in which a war was declared over false documents.



Now that's an interesting tactic. Just flat out lie and deny the documents ever existed.

Oh well... Looks like I'll just have to expose another liar. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/) Apparently the documents did exist eh?

So, then. Now that we've established that Bush was duped by fake documents, are we going to start hearing for his head on a plate? Or is this my fault still, and we're going to attack me? ROFL

[the Talking Can]

Now that's an interesting tactic. Just flat out lie and deny the documents ever existed.

Oh well... Looks like I'll just have to expose another liar. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/) Apparently the documents did exist eh?

So, then. Now that we've established that Bush was duped by fake documents, are we going to start hearing for his head on a plate? Or is this my fault still, and we're going to attack me? ROFL

rep for dealing with reality

its funny, the White House uses that exact same excuses as Dan Rather..

[Radar Chief]

Now that's an interesting tactic. Just flat out lie and deny the documents ever existed.

Oh well... Looks like I'll just have to expose another liar. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/) Apparently the documents did exist eh?

So, then. Now that we've established that Bush was duped by fake documents, are we going to start hearing for his head on a plate? Or is this my fault still, and we're going to attack me? ROFL

Uh, you do realize there was more than just one document as evidence of that particular assertion, don’t you? Course admitting that would mean dealing with reality, right TC? (http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0719.asp)

[Taco John]

Uh, you do realize there was more than just one document as evidence of that particular assertion, don’t you? Course admitting that would mean dealing with reality, right TC? (http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0719.asp)



And you realize that the most important ones were forgeries, right?

So where are the "principled" people sounding off on this? Where were they then?

Of course we know this isn't about principles. Holding Bush accountable is the worst thing a conservative could possibly think about doing.

[Radar Chief]

And you realize that the most important ones were forgeries, right?

So where are the "principled" people sounding off on this? Where were they then?

Of course we know this isn't about principles. Holding Bush accountable is the worst thing a conservative could possibly think about doing.


One(s)? As in plural? Gonna need a link to that.

[KCWolfman]

Now that's an interesting tactic. Just flat out lie and deny the documents ever existed.

Oh well... Looks like I'll just have to expose another liar. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/) Apparently the documents did exist eh?

So, then. Now that we've established that Bush was duped by fake documents, are we going to start hearing for his head on a plate? Or is this my fault still, and we're going to attack me? ROFL
I stated a document did not exist? Could you quote that for me please?

Again, Hussein was told to produce WMDs or the details of the destruction of said weapons after 12 years of lackadasical efforts and outright collaboration with the group that demanded the inspections.

He failed to do so. Had he produced either, the document in question would have been moot - so I don't understand how the document is the reason for going to war.

Again, parallel universe time for the Taco family.

[KCWolfman]

And you realize that the most important ones were forgeries, right?

So where are the "principled" people sounding off on this? Where were they then?

Of course we know this isn't about principles. Holding Bush accountable is the worst thing a conservative could possibly think about doing.
Again -

Mr. Hussein you have "X" weeks to produce said weapons or show us what happened to said weapons.


Saddam failed to comply.


THAT was the reason - all else is fluff.

[Taco John]

Explain, explain away.

ROFL

It's not your father's Republican party. Accountability has been replaced with spinmeistering. Apparently, forged documents used to build a case to war are not worth discussion. But if Dan Rather got ahold of them! Look-out!

Hypocrisy, thy name is "Bushie."

[Radar Chief]

Explain, explain away.

ROFL

It's not your father's Republican party. Accountability has been replaced with spinmeistering. Apparently, forged documents used to build a case to war are not worth discussion. But if Dan Rather got ahold of them! Look-out!

Hypocrisy, thy name is "Bushie."


Again, documentS? As far as I know, there is one (1) known forged document that you’re trying to use to discount the multiple other reasons for going to war, never mind the fact that it doesn’t even disprove that one reason that you so desperately need it to. But of course it’s everyone else that’s “spinmeistering”.
Whiney deflection, thy name is Taco.

[DenverChief]

Now that's an interesting tactic. Just flat out lie and deny the documents ever existed.

Oh well... Looks like I'll just have to expose another liar. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/) Apparently the documents did exist eh?

So, then. Now that we've established that Bush was duped by fake documents, are we going to start hearing for his head on a plate? Or is this my fault still, and we're going to attack me? ROFL ROFL

[DenverChief]

Again -

Mr. Hussein you have "X" weeks to produce said weapons or show us what happened to said weapons.


Saddam failed to comply.


THAT was the reason - all else is fluff.

thats why we had to produce documents photos and drawings to the UN...because it was meaningless....we were going to war regardless of what we presented

[DanT]

Here's an example from today's edition of the libertarian website, lewrockwell.com, of one libertarian view on the comparison of document forgeries:


http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts70.html


Attention Deficit America
by Paul Craig Roberts


Excuse me, but the story is not CBS and the George W. Bush National Guard documents.

The story is: How did the US Congress, the opposition party, the news media, and the US public let the Bush administration start a war based on phony documents?

If someone deceived CBS and passed off forged documents as real, at least CBS consulted experts about the documents before going on the air.

Speaking of questionable documents, the Bush administration has swallowed a large number. What about the obviously forged "yellowcake" documents that were the basis for the "mistaken" claim that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program?

The Bush administration did not check out the "stovepiped" phony "intelligence" fed them by Iraqi exiles with an agenda and by neoconservatives determined to turn the "war on terror" into a war against Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

The Bush administration ignored all warnings from real experts and CIA and State Department analysts. Bush invaded a country that not only posed no threat to the United States, but also had no weapons of mass destruction and no connections to Osama bin Laden.

The Bush administration’s forged war has cost more than 1,000 American families their sons, husbands, fathers, brothers and a few their sisters, daughters and mothers. Another 7,000–8,000 American soldiers have been wounded, more than half too grievously to be returned to combat. Many have lost arms, legs, eyes.

What have we achieved with these enormous casualties?

We have committed war crimes by bombing residential neighborhoods and killing thousands of women and children.

We have made ourselves infamous as prison torturers.

We have created an insurgency that we cannot put down.

We have given bin Laden an enormous boost in credibility and terrorist recruitment.

We have lost the world’s sympathy.

We have aroused massive anger from Muslims the world over and started a process of Muslim reunification.

We have wasted $200 billion that had high opportunity costs in terms of real needs that went unmet.

We made these egregious mistakes because the Bush administration and the President of the United States used questionable documents that Dan Rather and CBS would have rejected.

You have to ask yourself, why is the front page story CBS? If CBS had forged the documents in order to intentionally mislead the public the way Bush’s government used phony documents to start a war, yes there would be a story.

If someone fooled CBS with forged documents, the only story is: what was that person’s agenda? Why did he do it? Did the forger intend it as an offset dirty trick to the "swift boats" dirty trick against Kerry, or was it a blow aimed at CBS?

The CBS report is about something we already know – the missing gap in Bush’s National Guard service. If the CBS report fails to illume that gap, then the story remains to be told. News organizations should get off CBS and on the story.

Whether documents are forged or authentic, the CBS investigation of Bush’s National Guard service is far less important than Bush’s war based on intentional deception.

Will the American public focus long enough to demand the real story?

September 21, 2004

Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

[KCWolfman]

Explain, explain away.

ROFL

It's not your father's Republican party. Accountability has been replaced with spinmeistering. Apparently, forged documents used to build a case to war are not worth discussion. But if Dan Rather got ahold of them! Look-out!

Hypocrisy, thy name is "Bushie."
Explain what? You are the one demanding documents when a simple ultimatum was given.

In fact, I distinctly remember you stating that the WMDs could not just disappear. No wonder you are voting for flip flop.

[KCWolfman]

thats why we had to produce documents photos and drawings to the UN...because it was meaningless....we were going to war regardless of what we presented
No we weren't. However, it is the last hapless and tenacious branch your libbies hold on to.

Had Hussein allowed the inspections or simply given a full accounting of what happened to weapons that were already catalogued then there would have been no reason to invade per the Bush ultimatum.

[KCWolfman]

Here's an example from today's edition of the libertarian website, lewrockwell.com, of one libertarian view on the comparison of document forgeries:


http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts70.html
Damn, we have aroused Muslim anger around the world and lost world sympathy?

You mean it gets worse than killing 3,000 innocent people in one town and hundreds more in flights across the east while denying our right to insure the treaties of dictators are met?

It may be a liberal website, but it is obviously an extremist author.

[DanT]

Damn, we have aroused Muslim anger around the world and lost world sympathy?

You mean it gets worse than killing 3,000 innocent people in one town and hundreds more in flights across the east while denying our right to insure the treaties of dictators are met?

It may be a liberal website, but it is obviously an extremist author.

KCWolfman,

I couldn't figure out your first and second paragraphs. If you intended for me to answer a question, I'd be happy to answer, but I'll need you to clarify what you're asking.

As for Paul Craig Roberts, I had identified him as a writer on a libertarian website, not a liberal one. Here's more about him, from his bio at the Hoover Institute:

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/roberts.html

The Honorable Paul Craig Roberts is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy, and research fellow at the Independent Institute.

A former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service, he is a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles and a columnist for Investor's Business Daily. In 1992, he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993, the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of its top seven journalists.

Roberts was a distinguished fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. From 1982 through 1993, he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During 1981–82, he served as assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy. President Ronald Reagan and Treasury secretary Donald Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy." From 1975 to 1978, Roberts served on the congressional staff, where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.

In 1987 the French government recognized Roberts as "the artisan of a renewal in economic science and policy after half a century of state interventionism" and inducted him into the Legion of Honor.

Roberts's books include The Tyranny of Good Intentions, coauthored with IPE fellow Lawrence Stratton (Prima Publishing, 2000); Chile: Two Visions—the Allende-Pinochet Era, coauthored with IPE fellow Karen Araujo (Universidad Nacional Andres Bello, 2000); The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America, coauthored with IPE fellow Karen LaFollette Araujo (Oxford University Press, 1997; in Spanish, 1999); The New Colorline: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, coauthored with Lawrence Stratton (Regnery, 1995; in paperback, 1997); Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, coauthored with Karen LaFollette (Cato Institute, 1990). Roberts's The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press, 1984) was praised by Forbes as "a timely masterpiece that will have real impact on economic thinking in the years ahead." Roberts is also the author of Alienation and the Soviet Economy (1971; republished in 1990) and Marx's Theory of Exchange, Alienation and Crisis (1973; republished in 1983; in Spanish, 1974).

Roberts has contributed chapters to numerous books and has published many articles in journals of scholarship, including the Journal of Political Economy, Oxford Economic Papers, Journal of Law and Economics, Studies in Banking and Finance, Journal of Monetary Economics, Public Finance Quarterly, Public Choice, Classica et Mediaevalia, Ethics, Slavic Review, Soviet Studies, Cardoza Law Review, the Independent Review, Rivista de Political Economica, and Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafspolitik. He has entries in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Economics and the New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance. He has contributed to Commentary, the Public Interest, the National Interest, Harper's, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, London Times, the Financial Times, Times Literary Supplement, the Spectator, Il Sole 24 Ore, Le Figaro, Liberation, and the Nihon Keizai Shimbun. He has testified before committees of Congress on 30 occasions.

Roberts is listed in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the World, the Dictionary of International Biography, Outstanding People of the Twentieth Century, and 1000 Leaders of World Influence.

Roberts has held numerous academic appointments and is a director of A. Schulman and the Value Line Investment Funds.

Roberts was educated at the Georgia Institute of Technology (B.S.), the University of Virginia (Ph.D.), the University of California at Berkeley and Oxford University, where he was a member of Merton College.



My post was intended to show that there's a strong strain of libertarian thought that looks at issues the way that Taco John does, including the kind of posts that appear regularly on lewrockwell.com, a libertarian website.

[Taco John]

But they'll still try to convince people that I'm not Libertarian.

And I still don't care what they think I am. Why would I care what complete hypocrites think of my politics? They constantly demand answers, but when pressed on their inconsistency, they don't want to give any answers. They want to attack the questions.

Can you believe someone is challenging this whole thing on the basis of whether I used the right tense or not with regards to the word "documents." Yeah. Completely blew me out of the water too... But my favorite was being attacked as a "PR Liberal."

Still... All the attacks, and the "conservatives" are floundering to come up with an answer as to why Bush gets a complete pass on the forgeries his Administration put up as evidence of Nuclear programs in Iraq.

[Taco John]

In fact, I distinctly remember you stating that the WMDs could not just disappear. No wonder you are voting for flip flop.


I still believe that WMDs could not just disappear. But from what I've read, there was nothing there to disappear since 1991. I'm open to taking in any new information that you might be able to present that would prove otherwise.

[Radar Chief]

But they'll still try to convince people that I'm not Libertarian.

And I still don't care what they think I am. Why would I care what complete hypocrites think of my politics? They constantly demand answers, but when pressed on their inconsistency, they don't want to give any answers. They want to attack the questions.

Can you believe someone is challenging this whole thing on the basis of whether I used the right tense or not with regards to the word "documents." Yeah. Completely blew me out of the water too... But my favorite was being attacked as a "PR Liberal."

Still... All the attacks, and the "conservatives" are floundering to come up with an answer as to why Bush gets a complete pass on the forgeries his Administration put up as evidence of Nuclear programs in Iraq.

Dude, if you’ve got information of other documents come forward with it. I’m perfectly willing to read it and comment afterwards.
What your doing is deflecting and spinning instead of answering the question. Something you’re accusing others of, Mr. Hypocrite.

[Taco John]

Dude, if you’ve got information of other documents come forward with it. I’m perfectly willing to read it and comment afterwards.
What your doing is deflecting and spinning instead of answering the question. Something you’re accusing others of, Mr. Hypocrite.




Spin and divert. Spin and divert.

By all means. Avoid the issue entirely, and just spin and divert so you don't have to answer the question.

[the Talking Can]

Here's an example from today's edition of the libertarian website, lewrockwell.com, of one libertarian view on the comparison of document forgeries:


http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts70.html

nice article...and remember, we're not supposed to be outraged about Dick Cheney using an admitted liar, Ahmed Chalabi (personal guest of Mr. Bush at his SOTU), to sell the war....but we are supposed to spend weeks crying about a moron like Dan Blather...that's what republicans call "priniciple"...that tells you everything you need to know, well that and Robert Novak (what's up with that investigation?)...

[DenverChief]

No we weren't. However, it is the last hapless and tenacious branch your libbies hold on to.

Had Hussein allowed the inspections or simply given a full accounting of what happened to weapons that were already catalogued then there would have been no reason to invade per the Bush ultimatum.

Because we knew he kept the WMD under his pillow in the palace :rolleyes:

[DenverChief]

nice article...and remember, we're not supposed to be outraged about Dick Cheney using an admitted liar, Ahmed Chalabi (personal guest of Mr. Bush at his SOTU), to sell the war....but we are supposed to spend weeks crying about a moron like Dan Blather...that's what republicans call "priniciple"...that tells you everything you need to know, well that and Robert Novak (what's up with that investigation?)... ROFL

[WilliamTheIrish]

I love that lewrockwell site. I owe you a thank you DanT for putting me onto that site before the war. Those dudes pull no punches with this administration.

Sometimes I don't agree with them but damn, that was a kill shot read.

[DanT]

I love that lewrockwell site. I owe you a thank you DanT for putting me onto that site before the war. Those dudes pull no punches with this administration.

Sometimes I don't agree with them but damn, that was a kill shot read.


Yeah, that site kicks ass. It really makes you realize how completely dominated both major parties are by statists who think that the solution to an Uncle Sam that keeps pissing into the wind is to build him more water towers to drink from.

[KCWolfman]

I still believe that WMDs could not just disappear. But from what I've read, there was nothing there to disappear since 1991. I'm open to taking in any new information that you might be able to present that would prove otherwise.
What happened in 1991? Where did they go? And why didn't Hussein report it?

More importantly, if people truly ascribe to your conspiracy theory - don't you see a huge hole? Why produce false documents for a nation that might say "Come on in, look, here are our records. We don't have any of that stuff anymore"? Just silly, my simple friend.

[KCWolfman]

KCWolfman,

I couldn't figure out your first and second paragraphs. If you intended for me to answer a question, I'd be happy to answer, but I'll need you to clarify what you're asking.

As for Paul Craig Roberts, I had identified him as a writer on a libertarian website, not a liberal one. Here's more about him, from his bio at the Hoover Institute:

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/roberts.html



My post was intended to show that there's a strong strain of libertarian thought that looks at issues the way that Taco John does, including the kind of posts that appear regularly on lewrockwell.com, a libertarian website.
I said Extremist. There are no "extremist libertarians" on the planet?

[KCWolfman]

Because we knew he kept the WMD under his pillow in the palace :rolleyes:
Ah, the voice of liberal reason. Thank you, Dan Rather.

[DenverChief]

Ah, the voice of liberal reason. Thank you, Dan Rather.

speaking of liars, Remind me where the WMD are again?

[Hel'n]

speaking of liars, Remind me where the WMD are again?

Hey, just a sec... Dan Rather took the best information he had... I mean it was vetted and everything... and he had no ulterior motives but the truth... and he took that information that everyone had told him was true and he ran with it... He acted on it...

He did all the right things a journalist should do... He can't help it if the information was wrong... He still had to make a decision... He had to show leadership... And if he had it to do over again, why he would probably do the exact same thing!

Just call it a "catastrophic success."

:p

[Inspector]

Yeah, who cares that the President of the United States illegally influenced the American people into going to war through forged documents...

ROFL

I just can't get this figured out. Somewhere I heard this deal about some resolution that Iraq (Saddam) did not adhere to - or something - and we (U.S.) simply did what the UN was suppossed to do.

I'm clearly no political expert - and never claimed to be - so maybe someone can help me out here. (Being serious - no sarcasm) Wasn't there something about Saddam not fullfilling some kind of responsibility to some UN deal that the UN wouldn't back up? And we went into Iraq as a result.

My memory sucks, I can't remember the details now. And I have absolutly no recollection of any news about forged papers causing the U.S. to go after Saddam and his terrorist cronies....

I'm here to be educated - not to argue.

[Inspector]

I stated a document did not exist? Could you quote that for me please?

Again, Hussein was told to produce WMDs or the details of the destruction of said weapons after 12 years of lackadasical efforts and outright collaboration with the group that demanded the inspections.

He failed to do so. Had he produced either, the document in question would have been moot - so I don't understand how the document is the reason for going to war.

Again, parallel universe time for the Taco family.

Ah, here it is. I think this is what I was remembering. I should have finished reading this thread before posting...

[Inspector]

Again -

Mr. Hussein you have "X" weeks to produce said weapons or show us what happened to said weapons.


Saddam failed to comply.


THAT was the reason - all else is fluff.

Yep, now I remember - this is it.

[the Talking Can]

Hey, just a sec... Dan Rather took the best information he had... I mean it was vetted and everything... and he had no ulterior motives but the truth... and he took that information that everyone had told him was true and he ran with it... He acted on it...

He did all the right things a journalist should do... He can't help it if the information was wrong... He still had to make a decision... He had to show leadership... And if he had it to do over again, why he would probably do the exact same thing!

Just call it a "catastrophic success."

:p

exactly...every excuse Bush supporters used to defend the 1001 lies about Iraq...but we've known for a long time that Bush is held to no standard at all....

[the Talking Can]

I love that lewrockwell site. I owe you a thank you DanT for putting me onto that site before the war. Those dudes pull no punches with this administration.

Sometimes I don't agree with them but damn, that was a kill shot read.

hey, William, I know that politically we only agree about Saudia Arabia...but I respect the fact that you don't defend the obviously absurd...and I respect the fact that you're going to vote republican based on certain principles, in spite of Bush's clear shortcomings, becuase you're not a party hack....I only wish the Dems had a better candidate to offer you (though obviously I think Bush has to go)....I think we share a certain (very?) muddy libertarianism underneath it.....

[WilliamTheIrish]

hey, William, I know that politically we only agree about Saudia Arabia...but I respect the fact that you don't defend the obviously absurd...and I respect the fact that you're going to vote republican based on certain principles, in spite of Bush's clear shortcomings, becuase you're not a party hack....I only wish the Dems had a better candidate to offer you (though obviously I think Bush has to go)....I think we share a certain (very?) muddy libertarianism underneath it.....

Hope I don't disappoint you to bad when I don't vote R. My mind was made up long ago. Occasionally I teeter, usually cause because I worry about the the ol changing horse midstream thingy, but then I pop about a dozen Prilosec and handful of Rushocodone and I'm able to slog through...

My gripes:
1) I HATE it that we went to war under the pretext of WMD's and they are gone. Either used or sold or hidden. They didn't have to f' it up like that. But for some reason (my mother?) I have a hard time criticizing the President during wartime. Dammit Mom!!!!

2) That the administration took Colin Powell down the road with them. Always thought he was Presidential material. (but WTF do I know? I voted for this President because he sold me on him being a fiscal conservative) .. but he's dead to me now as politician.

3) a myriad of domestice issues that make my BP go red line...

Usually when I'm here and I give grief, it's because I hate the phuggin Mohammedens that are sawing guys' heads off. Guys that shoot RPG's from mosques in the Sunni triangle and our war guys don't blow them and the mosque off the planet. To me that's just friggin stupid. Other countries (Russia) would level the place and be done with it.

Then somebody like manny will come along and point out that we have blasted 10k innocents into hereafter and for some reason I want to kick manny in the nuts instead of kicking my President in the sack. How f'd up is that?

"Honey, bring me the Limbaugh candy jar" (I'm teetering again) :)

[Matt Helm]

But they'll still try to convince people that I'm not Libertarian.

And I still don't care what they think I am. Why would I care what complete hypocrites think of my politics? They constantly demand answers, but when pressed on their inconsistency, they don't want to give any answers. They want to attack the questions.

Can you believe someone is challenging this whole thing on the basis of whether I used the right tense or not with regards to the word "documents." Yeah. Completely blew me out of the water too... But my favorite was being attacked as a "PR Liberal."

Still... All the attacks, and the "conservatives" are floundering to come up with an answer as to why Bush gets a complete pass on the forgeries his Administration put up as evidence of Nuclear programs in Iraq.


What about the forgeries left behind by the Clinton administraton?

[the Talking Can]

Hope I don't disappoint you to bad when I don't vote R. My mind was made up long ago. Occasionally I teeter, usually cause because I worry about the the ol changing horse midstream thingy, but then I pop about a dozen Prilosec and handful of Rushocodone and I'm able to slog through...

My gripes:
1) I HATE it that we went to war under the pretext of WMD's and they are gone. Either used or sold or hidden. They didn't have to f' it up like that. But for some reason (my mother?) I have a hard time criticizing the President during wartime. Dammit Mom!!!!

2) That the administration took Colin Powell down the road with them. Always thought he was Presidential material. (but WTF do I know? I voted for this President because he sold me on him being a fiscal conservative) .. but he's dead to me now as politician.

3) a myriad of domestice issues that make my BP go red line...

Usually when I'm here and I give grief, it's because I hate the phuggin Mohammedens that are sawing guys' heads off. Guys that shoot RPG's from mosques in the Sunni triangle and our war guys don't blow them and the mosque off the planet. To me that's just friggin stupid. Other countries (Russia) would level the place and be done with it.

Then somebody like manny will come along and point out that we have blasted 10k innocents into hereafter and for some reason I want to kick manny in the nuts instead of kicking my President in the sack. How f'd up is that?

"Honey, bring me the Limbaugh candy jar" (I'm teetering again) :)

well, see what I get for assuming?

About Powell...I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree..I felt he let the country down by not running for president, and I was ready to vote for him over anybody (I seriously wonder what skeleton is in his closet). But he sold his soul to President Bush and its a god damn shame. He knew these clowns were in waaaaaay over their heads and still he went to the UN and lied to the entire world. Now he is comprimised and Bush gets to pretend he didn't know anything about it. And I bet Bush sleeps like a baby at night.

We haven't killed one ****ing Saudia Arabian, but we've mowed down several thousand Iraqis......in the name of Sept. 11. I'll never- EVER - understand this. I think of Prince Bandar slapping his best friend George Bush on the back and I want to hurl.

oh well...I'll cast my meaningless vote in Kansas....Bush will be re-elected in a land slide, and the Chiefs will become the Bengals. 2004 will not be remembered fondly.

[Taco John]

What about the forgeries left behind by the Clinton administraton?



ROFL


Just like I thought... Instead of answering the charge, they instead work to hold everybody else accountable EXCEPT the guy in office. The herd is way too predictable.

The only answer that we've gotten about the forgeries that Bush presented has been a re-hash of the argument for going into Iraq in the first place. Except that all the stuff that we went in for turned out to be false as well.

Why do so-called "conservatives" have such an easy time forcing everybody else to be accountable, but themselves?

[Radar Chief]

Spin and divert. Spin and divert.

By all means. Avoid the issue entirely, and just spin and divert so you don't have to answer the question.

:LOL: So, I take it by this response you don’t have or can’t find evidence of more than one forged document? ROFL

[Radar Chief]

Because we knew he kept the WMD under his pillow in the palace :rolleyes:

Which one? Thanks to the UN’s Oil for lavish palaces program he built a bazillion of’em.

[Radar Chief]

speaking of liars, Remind me where the WMD are again?

Good question. Since you seem to be such an expert on it, why don’t you tell us?

[the Talking Can]

Good question. Since you seem to be such an expert on it, why don’t you tell us?

ssssssssssshhhhhh....I'm hunting waaaaaabits...........

[Radar Chief]

ssssssssssshhhhhh....I'm hunting waaaaaabits...........

Good for you, just don’t use a rifle with a pistol grip or detachable magazine. :thumb:

[KCWolfman]

speaking of liars, Remind me where the WMD are again?
Speaking again from PRIOR to the very first invasion - I don't give a damn if we don't find a single bad aspirin, the invasion is the right thing to do.

Even Kerry said so, or didn't, or did, or didn't depending on which way he is blowing the public this week.

[Taco John]

So no conservatives are going to demand Bush's resignation for falling for a forged document that he presented as a reason to go to war?

Odd. I thought for sure some "principled" person would demand the same accountability from the president that they demand from Dan Rather.

[KCWolfman]

So no conservatives are going to demand Bush's resignation for falling for a forged document that he presented as a reason to go to war?

Odd. I thought for sure some "principled" person would demand the same accountability from the president that they demand from Dan Rather.
When did he present the document? Because, frankly, your statement is a lie unless he presented it PRIOR to the invasion as you state it was a reason to go to war.

The reason we were given in the US was that Hussein failed to meet compliance with a treaty and he was given an ultimatum for that failed treaty. That reason is still valid today.


Now you may introduce your fluff, extraneous deflection material, and other unimportant data.

[Radar Chief]

So no conservatives are going to demand Bush's resignation for falling for a forged document that he presented as a reason to go to war?

Odd. I thought for sure some "principled" person would demand the same accountability from the president that they demand from Dan Rather.

Glad to see we’re back to one document again, although I’ll have to assume your talking to someone else since I’ve yet to express an opinion on Dan Blather much less call for his resignation/prosecution.

[Taco John]

When did he present the document? Because, frankly, your statement is a lie unless he presented it PRIOR to the invasion as you state it was a reason to go to war.


He presented this in his 2003 State of the Union address. He claimed, based on forged documents, that Saddam Hussein was trying to get uranium in Africa. That following March, we went to war. So yes, it was presented PRIOR to the invasion as a reason to go to war. And, yes, the documents were forged. Some say they are "obvious fakes."

In addition, Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council outlining the case against Iraq, referring to the forged documents and the 500 tons of uranium that Saddam was supposedly trying to extract from Niger.

[Hel'n]

He presented this in his 2003 State of the Union address. He claimed, based on forged documents, that Saddam Hussein was trying to get uranium in Africa. That following March, we went to war. So yes, it was presented PRIOR to the invasion as a reason to go to war. And, yes, the documents were forged. Some say they are "obvious fakes."

In addition, Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council outlining the case against Iraq, referring to the forged documents and the 500 tons of uranium that Saddam was supposedly trying to extract from Niger.


Will you please quit confusing them with the facts? Eating crow doesn't go down well with their rabbit stew...

;)

[Radar Chief]

He presented this in his 2003 State of the Union address. He claimed, based on forged documents, that Saddam Hussein was trying to get uranium in Africa. That following March, we went to war. So yes, it was presented PRIOR to the invasion as a reason to go to war. And, yes, the documents were forged. Some say they are "obvious fakes."

In addition, Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council outlining the case against Iraq, referring to the forged documents and the 500 tons of uranium that Saddam was supposedly trying to extract from Niger.

There you go with “document(s)” again. As far as I know, there is one (1), as in single/lone/uno, document (see how I did that without adding the “s”? You may want to practice) that was proven to be a forgery.
If you have information otherwise, please post it.

[KCWolfman]

He presented this in his 2003 State of the Union address. He claimed, based on forged documents, that Saddam Hussein was trying to get uranium in Africa. That following March, we went to war. So yes, it was presented PRIOR to the invasion as a reason to go to war. And, yes, the documents were forged. Some say they are "obvious fakes."

In addition, Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council outlining the case against Iraq, referring to the forged documents and the 500 tons of uranium that Saddam was supposedly trying to extract from Niger.
Obviously anyone who used the documents and vouched for them should pay a penalty. BTW - Why do you keep saying documentS? It was a single document. Does it somehow make your argument stronger?

But your premise is still built upon a house of straw.
#1. Hussein had the opportunity to dismiss all charges and he did not see fit to do so. The reasons for war were legitimate and a reasonable end before conflict was offered and refused.

#2. The SINGLE document you speak of was not the basis for the war, no matter how much you wail and beat your chest, unlike Rather and his story. 12 years of lies and a failure to comply with a simple treaty was the reason for war.

#3. GWB never stated to the American people that the document was real and he was sure of it after it was proven false.


So yes, whomever supplied the document to GWB should be fired. Whomever trusted the document should forward an apology to the American people, including GWB. But should it be laid upon the same level of a fake story built upon a single document? For someone who is supposedly "equitable" and even handed with the candidates, you have left all reason aside when it comes to ANY documents and GWB or Kerry.

[Hel'n]

There you go with “document(s)” again. As far as I know, there is one (1), as in single/lone/uno, document (see how I did that without adding the “s”? You may want to practice) that was proven to be a forgery.
If you have information otherwise, please post it.


If it's one document it's okay? If it's more than one it's not?

What kind of standards are your promoting?

This is gymnastics at its best...

[KCWolfman]

If it's one document it's okay? If it's more than one it's not?

What kind of standards are your promoting?

This is gymnastics at its best...
Did he state thus? He pointed out an obvious error on TJs behalf. Now you want to read more into it than he actually stated.

[Radar Chief]

If it's one document it's okay? If it's more than one it's not?

What kind of standards are your promoting?

This is gymnastics at its best...

Please quote where I posted that.

Don’t you think we need to get the evidence straight before debating it?