ABC news just reported on the 6 PM news that 2 document analysts who were
employed by CBS told CBS before the program aired that the documents had
numerous problems and could not be authenticated. They interviewed the
analysts, one saying she e-mailed CBS the night before the broadcast warning
them that if they went on the air with those documents, by Thursday morning
they would be getting the same questions from hundreds of document analysts
that she raised. One expert CBS quoted on Friday now says he could not
authenticate any documents. He only looked at the signature.

ABC also produced a typewriter expert who said that the IBM Selectric
Composer (the most advanced typewriter at the time) could not produce those
documents.

The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the source
for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate that
any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no other
body to take the lead on this.

ScottW

In related news, Texans for Truth is now offering a $50,000 award to anyone
who can prove that Bush reported to service between May 1972 and May 1973.
Does anyone actually think that he was there during that time? I sure as
hell don't. And to be honest, I don't really care! What happened 35 years
ago means nothing!

http://texansfortruth.com/



"ScottW" wrote in message
news:QdN1d.90376$yh.74553@fed1read05...
ABC news just reported on the 6 PM news that 2 document analysts who were
employed by CBS told CBS before the program aired that the documents had
numerous problems and could not be authenticated. They interviewed the
analysts, one saying she e-mailed CBS the night before the broadcast
warning
them that if they went on the air with those documents, by Thursday
morning
they would be getting the same questions from hundreds of document
analysts
that she raised. One expert CBS quoted on Friday now says he could not
authenticate any documents. He only looked at the signature.

ABC also produced a typewriter expert who said that the IBM Selectric
Composer (the most advanced typewriter at the time) could not produce
those
documents.

The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the source
for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate
that
any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no other
body to take the lead on this.

ScottW

"Greg Williams" wrote in message
...
And to be honest, I don't really care! What happened 35 years
ago means nothing!


I couldn't agree more. But I do care about a major broadcast (public
airways) network engaging in potentially election altering fraud right now.

ScottW

In article QdN1d.90376$yh.74553@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

ABC news just reported on the 6 PM news that 2 document analysts who were
employed by CBS told CBS before the program aired that the documents had
numerous problems and could not be authenticated. They interviewed the
analysts, one saying she e-mailed CBS the night before the broadcast warning
them that if they went on the air with those documents, by Thursday morning
they would be getting the same questions from hundreds of document analysts
that she raised. One expert CBS quoted on Friday now says he could not
authenticate any documents. He only looked at the signature.

ABC also produced a typewriter expert who said that the IBM Selectric
Composer (the most advanced typewriter at the time) could not produce those
documents.

The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the source
for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate that
any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no other
body to take the lead on this.

I only saw the last half of the ABC report, but it looks like CBS has
blown it.

The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting, or do they want a Swift vets
investigation too?

We've already seen the absurdity of Robert Novak calling on CBS to
reveal its sources.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message


The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,

Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction if it
gores my ox.

From: "Greg Williams"

Does anyone actually think that he was there during that time? I sure as
hell don't. And to be honest, I don't really care! What happened 35 years
ago means nothing!

http://texansfortruth.com/

Does it matter if he continues to lie about it today?

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:QdN1d.90376$yh.74553@fed1read05

ABC news just reported on the 6 PM news that 2 document analysts who
were employed by CBS told CBS before the program aired that the
documents had numerous problems and could not be authenticated.

Also posted at:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/polit...Noted_Now.html

which points to:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/I..._040914-1.html

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:QdN1d.90376$yh.74553@fed1read05...
ABC news just reported on the 6 PM news that 2 document analysts who were
employed by CBS told CBS before the program aired that the documents had
numerous problems and could not be authenticated. They interviewed the
analysts, one saying she e-mailed CBS the night before the broadcast
warning
them that if they went on the air with those documents, by Thursday
morning
they would be getting the same questions from hundreds of document
analysts
that she raised. One expert CBS quoted on Friday now says he could not
authenticate any documents. He only looked at the signature.

ABC also produced a typewriter expert who said that the IBM Selectric
Composer (the most advanced typewriter at the time) could not produce
those
documents.

The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the source
for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate
that
any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no other
body to take the lead on this.

ScottW



I DESPISE Congressional investigations. Politicians are incapable of truth-
fully, honestly and competently investigating anything.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

We've already seen the absurdity of Robert Novak calling on CBS to
reveal its sources.


What is wrong with that? They duped and used CBS. I don't
see why CBS is beholden to them to protect their identity.
Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.

Clyde 'while Fester's still around, just call me' Slick wrote:

Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.

Something extraordinarily fishy about this whole episode.
They were obvious blatant forgeries too easily discredited.
Normally, you'd wonder who this would help, but first
consider who this hurts ... obviously Kerry, with Bush
merely being an incidental beneficiary. Now, who this
really helps is the Clintons, both in unchallenged continuing
control of the Democratic party, and particularly Hillary's
presumptive bid for the presidency in 2008. Yep, this has
all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical minds
of Begala and Carville.


GeoSynch

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...



I DESPISE Congressional investigations. Politicians are incapable of
truth-
fully, honestly and competently investigating anything.

I want to see Dan Rather squirming on TV in front of a Congressional
Committee under oath. You won't get that kind of entertainment from the FBI
or some Special Investigator.

ScottW

"GeoSynch" wrote in message
k.net...
Clyde 'while Fester's still around, just call me' Slick wrote:

Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.

Something extraordinarily fishy about this whole episode.
They were obvious blatant forgeries too easily discredited.
Normally, you'd wonder who this would help, but first
consider who this hurts ... obviously Kerry, with Bush
merely being an incidental beneficiary. Now, who this
really helps is the Clintons, both in unchallenged continuing
control of the Democratic party, and particularly Hillary's
presumptive bid for the presidency in 2008. Yep, this has
all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical minds
of Begala and Carville.

Wouldn't that be great to see revealed. The serpent slain.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:

[T]his has all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical
minds of Begala and Carville.

Wouldn't that be great to see revealed. The serpent slain.

Nah, that'd be no fun at all.

That slippery snake is too clever to have himself directly or
indirectly linked to the chain of events. Also, the 2008 race
would be a bore without that beady-eyed psycho-snake
making political mischief and giving the Republicans fits.


GeoSynch

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:32:39 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

Clyde 'while Fester's still around, just call me' Slick wrote:

Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.

Something extraordinarily fishy about this whole episode.
They were obvious blatant forgeries too easily discredited.
Normally, you'd wonder who this would help, but first
consider who this hurts ... obviously Kerry, with Bush
merely being an incidental beneficiary. Now, who this
really helps is the Clintons, both in unchallenged continuing
control of the Democratic party, and particularly Hillary's
presumptive bid for the presidency in 2008. Yep, this has
all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical minds
of Begala and Carville.


GeoSynch

Actually it strikes me more likely that it might come from the mind of
the great political trickster, Karl Rove. Do you really think that
Begala and Carville would sabotage a four year Democratic term just to
help Hillary? If so, I think you need to step back and think
logically. Giving the Repbulicans four more years is in no way helpful
to either Senator Clinton *nor* the Democratic Party platform
(especially when you consider the possibility of another couple of
Supreme Court justice appointments).

No, the more likely source would be Rove and *his* ilk. That's what's
fishy to me, *if* they are forgeries, which isn't yet proven. What's
bizarre is CBS' gullibility if this ends up being the case.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:47:56 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...



I DESPISE Congressional investigations. Politicians are incapable of
truth-
fully, honestly and competently investigating anything.

I want to see Dan Rather squirming on TV in front of a Congressional
Committee under oath. You won't get that kind of entertainment from the FBI
or some Special Investigator.

ScottW

If it's a Rove operation, we won't likely be seeing that any time
soon.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:32:39 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

Clyde 'while Fester's still around, just call me' Slick wrote:

Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.

Something extraordinarily fishy about this whole episode.
They were obvious blatant forgeries too easily discredited.
Normally, you'd wonder who this would help, but first
consider who this hurts ... obviously Kerry, with Bush
merely being an incidental beneficiary. Now, who this
really helps is the Clintons, both in unchallenged continuing
control of the Democratic party, and particularly Hillary's
presumptive bid for the presidency in 2008. Yep, this has
all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical minds
of Begala and Carville.


GeoSynch

Actually it strikes me more likely that it might come from the mind of
the great political trickster, Karl Rove. Do you really think that
Begala and Carville would sabotage a four year Democratic term just to
help Hillary? If so, I think you need to step back and think
logically. Giving the Repbulicans four more years is in no way helpful
to either Senator Clinton *nor* the Democratic Party platform
(especially when you consider the possibility of another couple of
Supreme Court justice appointments).

No, the more likely source would be Rove and *his* ilk. That's what's
fishy to me, *if* they are forgeries, which isn't yet proven. What's
bizarre is CBS' gullibility if this ends up being the case.


Dave, if it came from Rove, it is a very, very dumb move.
A 'smart' Democrat would not have released it to
60 minutes, "at least" not yet. Better to hold onto it
and not leak it until the day before the election,
when the Republicans would not have time to counter it.
I think Rove would have thought that the Democrats
might do that, so, sensing it could easily backfire
against the Reps, Rove would instigate this.
I'm not saying he's ethical, I'm just saying he
is to smart to do something so dangerous that
could easily backfire on him.

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

We've already seen the absurdity of Robert Novak calling on CBS to
reveal its sources.


What is wrong with that?

Novak refused to identify the source he used to expose Valerie Plame.

They duped and used CBS. I don't
see why CBS is beholden to them to protect their identity.
Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.

I want to know who burned CBS, too.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,

Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction if it
gores my ox.

ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
content reflected what they were thinking back then.

Why forge something with accurate content?

Bloggers over-react. That's the nature of blogging.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,

Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction
if it gores my ox.

ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
content reflected what they were thinking back then.

Typical obfuscation of the main topic and far more relevant fact:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/I..._040914-1.html
Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News
she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the
weekend before the broadcast.

"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I
found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been
produced by a typewriter," she said.

Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and
strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the
documents.

"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they
were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday
if they ran that story," Will said.

But the documents became a key part of the 60 Minutes II broadcast
questioning President Bush's National Guard service in 1972. CBS made no
mention that any expert disputed the authenticity.

"I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply," Will told
ABC News.

---------------------

Why forge something with accurate content?

Why obfuscate the fact that the main topic of the ABC report was far more
damning to the objectivity and reliabilty of CBS news?

Bloggers over-react. That's the nature of blogging.

Obfuscators and those who deceive themselves obfuscate and deceive
themselves. That's their nature!

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:18:58 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:32:39 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

Clyde 'while Fester's still around, just call me' Slick wrote:

Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.

Something extraordinarily fishy about this whole episode.
They were obvious blatant forgeries too easily discredited.
Normally, you'd wonder who this would help, but first
consider who this hurts ... obviously Kerry, with Bush
merely being an incidental beneficiary. Now, who this
really helps is the Clintons, both in unchallenged continuing
control of the Democratic party, and particularly Hillary's
presumptive bid for the presidency in 2008. Yep, this has
all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical minds
of Begala and Carville.


GeoSynch

Actually it strikes me more likely that it might come from the mind of
the great political trickster, Karl Rove. Do you really think that
Begala and Carville would sabotage a four year Democratic term just to
help Hillary? If so, I think you need to step back and think
logically. Giving the Repbulicans four more years is in no way helpful
to either Senator Clinton *nor* the Democratic Party platform
(especially when you consider the possibility of another couple of
Supreme Court justice appointments).

No, the more likely source would be Rove and *his* ilk. That's what's
fishy to me, *if* they are forgeries, which isn't yet proven. What's
bizarre is CBS' gullibility if this ends up being the case.


Dave, if it came from Rove, it is a very, very dumb move.

Only if he can't hide his envolvement.

A 'smart' Democrat would not have released it to
60 minutes, "at least" not yet. Better to hold onto it
and not leak it until the day before the election,
when the Republicans would not have time to counter it.

It seems too dumb for a Democratic operative to have come up with (but
I could be wrong). It just seems too easy to cast doubt on the
documents. The key would be the ability to avoid any links.

I think Rove would have thought that the Democrats
might do that, so, sensing it could easily backfire
against the Reps, Rove would instigate this.
I'm not saying he's ethical, I'm just saying he
is to smart to do something so dangerous that
could easily backfire on him.

Only if he thinks that he's not savvy enough to bury any connection.
I'm just sayin' that it's certainly a possibility that he's behind it,
since he's done dirty tricks in the past. What would be choice is if
he maneuvered it but thought that he was smarter than he was.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,

Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction
if it gores my ox.

ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
content reflected what they were thinking back then.

Typical obfuscation of the main topic and far more relevant fact:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/I...ments_040914-1
.html

I saw the complete report this morning, thanks. The Dallas Morning News
tracked down Killian's typist. I may take the trouble of registering
with their website to read more. I'll bet the story is linked somewhere
out there in blogland.

Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
presidential record.

Why forge something with accurate content?

Why obfuscate the fact that the main topic of the ABC report was far more
damning to the objectivity and reliabilty of CBS news?

I've already acknowledged CBS's foul-up.

Bloggers over-react. That's the nature of blogging.

Obfuscators and those who deceive themselves obfuscate and deceive
themselves. That's their nature!

Do tell.

MINe 109 wrote:
[snip]

Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
presidential record.

I wouldn't take issue with your ranking of the priorities, but there is
surely another issue -- and not an insignificant one. It certainly looks
like CBS News received warnings from at least some of the consultants
they asked to authenticate the documents (there's no reason to doubt
what those consultants are now saying), and they therefore knew that
very serious questions could be raised about their authenticity. Surely
they would have to realize that other document-authentication experts
would be raising the same questions very shortly after they broke the
story. Nonetheless, they went ahead with it. It's very hard not to
conclude that the most reasonable explanation for this is that they were
extremely eager to take a shot at Bush: do you doubt that, if the shoe
were on the other foot, and that the documents pertained to Kerry, CBS
News would have at least waited and made further efforts to authenticate
the documents?

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls are
looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.

In article ,
johnebravo836 wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
[snip]

Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
presidential record.

I wouldn't take issue with your ranking of the priorities, but there is
surely another issue -- and not an insignificant one. It certainly looks
like CBS News received warnings from at least some of the consultants
they asked to authenticate the documents (there's no reason to doubt
what those consultants are now saying), and they therefore knew that
very serious questions could be raised about their authenticity. Surely
they would have to realize that other document-authentication experts
would be raising the same questions very shortly after they broke the
story. Nonetheless, they went ahead with it. It's very hard not to
conclude that the most reasonable explanation for this is that they were
extremely eager to take a shot at Bush: do you doubt that, if the shoe
were on the other foot, and that the documents pertained to Kerry, CBS
News would have at least waited and made further efforts to authenticate
the documents?

That's certainly a side issue, and not a good one for CBS. If one is to
set aside journalistic integrity to take a shot at Bush, why do it for
such a weak accusation?

But, no, I don't think an anti-Kerry accusation would be better vetted.
Look at how the Swift Vets charges were circulated: big publicity for
the smears, little or none for the refutations. It's tough for Democrats
and liberals to get a fair shake in the media. The right wing has done a
great job setting up alternative media (the so-called "echo chamber")
and organizing to put pressure on the traditional media, who appear to
be more afraid of accusations of liberal bias than in doing their job in
challenging those in power. Right wing disinformation abounds; people
still think Gore said he invented the internet.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls are
looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.

Hence the suspicion that Rovian dirty tricks are involved.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
johnebravo836 wrote:

[snip]

But, no, I don't think an anti-Kerry accusation would be better vetted.

Here I would have to disagree -- I can't imagine that CBS News would
have broken such a story about Kerry without investigating the
authenticity of the documents *much* more thoroughly. Certainly, once
they were told by consultants they hired that the documents were highly
questionable, they would have taken further steps to look into it, and
waited with the story. Certainly you don't doubt that Dan Rather
personally is more sympathetic to Kerry, do you? For that reason alone,
I would have thought you'd agree that documents pertaining to Kerry
would have received additional scrutiny. That would just be human nature.

Look at how the Swift Vets charges were circulated: big publicity for
the smears, little or none for the refutations.

That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any
reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so
I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.

It's tough for Democrats
and liberals to get a fair shake in the media.

Needless to say, only very liberal viewers are likely to see it that
way. Conservatives are just as vehement in insisting that *they* can't
get a fair shake, as I'm sure you're aware.

In any event, "the media" that people rely on for news is no longer
limited to the big three (or four, maybe) networks, what with the
proliferation of cable news channels, the internet and the incredible
variety of websites that offer different perspectives, and, of course,
talk radio. "The Media" isn't the monolith that it used to be. Liberals
shouldn't be having any trouble getting their perspective heard. Now,
whether the general voting public is particularly interested in what
they have to say is an entirely different matter . . .

The right wing has done a
great job setting up alternative media (the so-called "echo chamber")

You have in mind things like Fox News, I assume? I watch it quite a bit
myself, despite the fact that I'm a moderately liberal Democrat; it's
never a bad idea to keep abreast of what the enemy is up to. I have
to say, though, that having watched as much of it as I have, there's no
mystery at all in my mind as to why the major networks, and especially
the other cable news networks, are losing viewers to Fox News. (That's
not necessarily entirely complementary to Fox News, needless to say . . . )

and organizing to put pressure on the traditional media, who appear to
be more afraid of accusations of liberal bias

The other, older cable news networks are apparently getting their clocks
cleaned in the ratings game by Fox News, and I'm sure the people in
charge of programming at those networks have taken note of that fact.

I've seen a number of articles that indicate that if you ask people
whether they are liberal or conservative, about 30-35% classify
themselves as conservatives, while about 15-20% say they're liberal.
Roughly half the public, therefore, is in the middle (minus the more
extreme among us who are even further to the left or right, but those
have got to be far fewer than the liberals and conservatives). In short,
conservatives appear to outnumber liberals by approximately 2 to 1, and
about half the voters are in the middle. It's unrealistic to expect that
news networks would not recogize that their audiences are significantly
more moderate or conservative than they are liberal.

than in doing their job in challenging those in power.

If you think that's their main job, you're going to be disappointed, and
in my view, that's probably how it should be: their main job should be
to find out and disseminate the facts as fairly, and as objectively, as
they can. "Challenging those in power" is only a small part of that, but
it is surely a part.

Right wing disinformation abounds; people
still think Gore said he invented the internet.


Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls are
looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.


Hence the suspicion that Rovian dirty tricks are involved.

If he was (it's highly unlikely we'll ever know, of course), I have to
tip my hat to his evil genius. The Republicans have always been far more
effective than the Democrats at playing down-and-dirty Presidental
politics. Maybe that's simply because the electorate is more likely to
be disposed in favor of the accusations they level. In any event, I
can't help but be astonished that CBS News went with this story when
they did, knowing what they apparently knew.

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
presidential record.

Thanks for giving us yet another demonstration of your need to obfuscate
facts that don't agree with your world view.

If you're merely confused, just re-read the thread title!

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
presidential record.

Thanks for giving us yet another demonstration of your need to obfuscate
facts that don't agree with your world view.

You're just going on reflex. Besides, if anyone's obfuscating, it would
be the person trimming the posts to remove the bit where I tell you I
saw the ABC report, which I haven't disputed in any way. I've also
changed my opinion on the CBS documents after seeing other new reports.
No world view problems here!

If you're merely confused, just re-read the thread title!

I just re-read the thread title, but it didn't change anything. I've
commented on the ABC story.

In article ,
johnebravo836 wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
johnebravo836 wrote:

[snip]

But, no, I don't think an anti-Kerry accusation would be better vetted.

Here I would have to disagree -- I can't imagine that CBS News would
have broken such a story about Kerry without investigating the
authenticity of the documents *much* more thoroughly. Certainly, once
they were told by consultants they hired that the documents were highly
questionable, they would have taken further steps to look into it, and
waited with the story. Certainly you don't doubt that Dan Rather
personally is more sympathetic to Kerry, do you? For that reason alone,
I would have thought you'd agree that documents pertaining to Kerry
would have received additional scrutiny. That would just be human nature.

Ah, but I was looking at CBS's record instead of adopting a right-wing
stereotype of a liberal Dan Rather.

You're entitled to disagree.

Look at how the Swift Vets charges were circulated: big publicity for
the smears, little or none for the refutations.

That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any
reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so
I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.

All fared badly, fairness-wise. And the NG story has been floating
around for months, and was revived in the last few weeks, since Ben
Barnes repeated his story about getting W into the guard at a Kerry
rally here in Austin. The docs were a small part of Rather's story, and
oddly, no one is disputing their content.

Indeed, the White House tried to put the NG story to bed in February by
releasing what they said were all the relevant papers, but that led to
the US News story.

It's tough for Democrats
and liberals to get a fair shake in the media.

Needless to say, only very liberal viewers are likely to see it that
way. Conservatives are just as vehement in insisting that *they* can't
get a fair shake, as I'm sure you're aware.

That doesn't make it true. They've been playing the media like a drum
since the Clinton years.

In any event, "the media" that people rely on for news is no longer
limited to the big three (or four, maybe) networks, what with the
proliferation of cable news channels, the internet and the incredible
variety of websites that offer different perspectives, and, of course,
talk radio. "The Media" isn't the monolith that it used to be. Liberals
shouldn't be having any trouble getting their perspective heard. Now,
whether the general voting public is particularly interested in what
they have to say is an entirely different matter . . .

The right wing has done a
great job setting up alternative media (the so-called "echo chamber")

You have in mind things like Fox News, I assume? I watch it quite a bit
myself, despite the fact that I'm a moderately liberal Democrat; it's
never a bad idea to keep abreast of what the enemy is up to. I have
to say, though, that having watched as much of it as I have, there's no
mystery at all in my mind as to why the major networks, and especially
the other cable news networks, are losing viewers to Fox News. (That's
not necessarily entirely complementary to Fox News, needless to say . . . )

AM radio, WSJ editorial page, blogs, etc.

and organizing to put pressure on the traditional media, who appear to
be more afraid of accusations of liberal bias

The other, older cable news networks are apparently getting their clocks
cleaned in the ratings game by Fox News, and I'm sure the people in
charge of programming at those networks have taken note of that fact.

Goodbye, Phil Donahue! Hello, Michael Savage-Weiner!

I've seen a number of articles that indicate that if you ask people
whether they are liberal or conservative, about 30-35% classify
themselves as conservatives, while about 15-20% say they're liberal.
Roughly half the public, therefore, is in the middle (minus the more
extreme among us who are even further to the left or right, but those
have got to be far fewer than the liberals and conservatives). In short,
conservatives appear to outnumber liberals by approximately 2 to 1, and
about half the voters are in the middle. It's unrealistic to expect that
news networks would not recogize that their audiences are significantly
more moderate or conservative than they are liberal.

I'd guess that if you ask about specific issues, many of those
"conservatives" will show "liberal" thinking. The right has succeeded in
making 'liberal' a dirty word.

than in doing their job in challenging those in power.

If you think that's their main job, you're going to be disappointed, and
in my view, that's probably how it should be: their main job should be
to find out and disseminate the facts as fairly, and as objectively, as
they can. "Challenging those in power" is only a small part of that, but
it is surely a part.

Unfortunately, this devolves into the 'he said/he said' trap, in which
journalists don't comment on the truthfulness of charges but comment
instead on the spin.

Right wing disinformation abounds; people
still think Gore said he invented the internet.


Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls are
looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.


Hence the suspicion that Rovian dirty tricks are involved.

If he was (it's highly unlikely we'll ever know, of course), I have to
tip my hat to his evil genius. The Republicans have always been far more
effective than the Democrats at playing down-and-dirty Presidental
politics. Maybe that's simply because the electorate is more likely to
be disposed in favor of the accusations they level. In any event, I
can't help but be astonished that CBS News went with this story when
they did, knowing what they apparently knew.

My thought is that the original source recreated the memos. This doesn't
make it right for CBS to do as they did, but it does raise the
possibility that they found the original source to be personally
credible.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than
his presidential record.

Thanks for giving us yet another demonstration of your need to
obfuscate facts that don't agree with your world view.

You're just going on reflex.

Dismissive attitude noted.

Besides, if anyone's obfuscating, it
would be the person trimming the posts to remove the bit where I tell
you I saw the ABC report, which I haven't disputed in any way.

No, you just tried to change the subject to one that is essentially
off-topic.

I've also changed my opinion on the CBS documents after seeing other new
reports. No world view problems here!

So, what's your new opinion of the hour?

If you're merely confused, just re-read the thread title!

I just re-read the thread title, but it didn't change anything. I've
commented on the ABC story.

....and then tried to change the topic to one that's on your agenda.

MINe 109 wrote:

[snip]


That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any
reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so
I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.


All fared badly, fairness-wise.
And the NG story has been floating
around for months, and was revived in the last few weeks, since Ben
Barnes repeated his story about getting W into the guard at a Kerry
rally here in Austin. The docs were a small part of Rather's story, and
oddly, no one is disputing their content.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear -- I was referring to how the major broadcast
networks handled the SWIFT Boat group story.

[snip]

My thought is that the original source recreated the memos. This doesn't
make it right for CBS to do as they did, but it does raise the
possibility that they found the original source to be personally
credible.

That may be, but once they had been put on notice by their own
consultant that the authenticity of the documents was questionable, that
should have created some corresponding doubt (or at least hesitation)
about the original source of those documents, I would think! I'm just
amazed that they could have been so foolish.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:10:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Dismissive attitude noted.

Irony alert! Irony alert!

In article ,
johnebravo836 wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

[snip]


That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any
reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so
I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.


All fared badly, fairness-wise.
And the NG story has been floating
around for months, and was revived in the last few weeks, since Ben
Barnes repeated his story about getting W into the guard at a Kerry
rally here in Austin. The docs were a small part of Rather's story, and
oddly, no one is disputing their content.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear -- I was referring to how the major broadcast
networks handled the SWIFT Boat group story.

That's what I meant. The Swift story was repeated often but but debunked
hardly at all.

[snip]

My thought is that the original source recreated the memos. This doesn't
make it right for CBS to do as they did, but it does raise the
possibility that they found the original source to be personally
credible.

That may be, but once they had been put on notice by their own
consultant that the authenticity of the documents was questionable, that
should have created some corresponding doubt (or at least hesitation)
about the original source of those documents, I would think! I'm just
amazed that they could have been so foolish.

I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos, they were
comfortable shopping for consultants.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than
his presidential record.

Thanks for giving us yet another demonstration of your need to
obfuscate facts that don't agree with your world view.

You're just going on reflex.

Dismissive attitude noted.

Yep. To paraphrase Eddie DeBartolo, you've got to bring it to get it.

Besides, if anyone's obfuscating, it
would be the person trimming the posts to remove the bit where I tell
you I saw the ABC report, which I haven't disputed in any way.

No, you just tried to change the subject to one that is essentially
off-topic.

That's what you're doing here. However, you're wrong because the ABC
story was about a CBS story about Bush's National Guard service.

Voila!

I've also changed my opinion on the CBS documents after seeing other new
reports. No world view problems here!

So, what's your new opinion of the hour?

"Accurate but fake."

If you're merely confused, just re-read the thread title!

I just re-read the thread title, but it didn't change anything. I've
commented on the ABC story.

...and then tried to change the topic to one that's on your agenda.

It's not like I attacked someone out of the blue.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

We've already seen the absurdity of Robert Novak calling on CBS to
reveal its sources.


What is wrong with that?

Novak refused to identify the source he used to expose Valerie Plame.


Being that he wasn't defrauded by the source, he should keep
his source confidential.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,

Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction if it
gores my ox.

ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
content reflected what they were thinking back then.


The forged document dontains a forged Killian signature. It was not
what Killian was thinking

Why forge something with accurate content?


It wasn't accurate content. The reason to forge a document
with 'that' content was because no real document with
'that' content exists.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
From: "Greg Williams"

Does anyone actually think that he was there during that time? I sure as
hell don't. And to be honest, I don't really care! What happened 35
years
ago means nothing!

http://texansfortruth.com/

Does it matter if he continues to lie about it today?



What lie would that be? He's said he served and got an honorable discharge.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:18:58 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .


Actually it strikes me more likely that it might come from the mind of
the great political trickster, Karl Rove. Do you really think that
Begala and Carville would sabotage a four year Democratic term just to
help Hillary? If so, I think you need to step back and think
logically. Giving the Repbulicans four more years is in no way helpful
to either Senator Clinton *nor* the Democratic Party platform
(especially when you consider the possibility of another couple of
Supreme Court justice appointments).

No, the more likely source would be Rove and *his* ilk. That's what's
fishy to me, *if* they are forgeries, which isn't yet proven. What's
bizarre is CBS' gullibility if this ends up being the case.


Dave, if it came from Rove, it is a very, very dumb move.

Only if he can't hide his envolvement.

I don't think you understand what I just said. It doesn't matter
whether knowledge of any Rove involvement were there. It is just
a REALLY DUMB idea to give the other side negative info
about your guy, even if forged, You ahve NO control over how
and when they might use that info. If they had saved it until
the last minute, it would backfire on Rove, cause of the content, not
because knowledge of Rove involvvement.


A 'smart' Democrat would not have released it to
60 minutes, "at least" not yet. Better to hold onto it
and not leak it until the day before the election,
when the Republicans would not have time to counter it.

It seems too dumb for a Democratic operative to have come up with (but
I could be wrong). It just seems too easy to cast doubt on the
documents. The key would be the ability to avoid any links.


Well, the doubt did come right quick! But they might not
have figured that.

I think Rove would have thought that the Democrats
might do that, so, sensing it could easily backfire
against the Reps, Rove would instigate this.
I'm not saying he's ethical, I'm just saying he
is to smart to do something so dangerous that
could easily backfire on him.

Only if he thinks that he's not savvy enough to bury any connection.
I'm just sayin' that it's certainly a possibility that he's behind it,
since he's done dirty tricks in the past. What would be choice is if
he maneuvered it but thought that he was smarter than he was.

For argument's sake I'll temporarily assume he did it. Now, don't Kerry's
advisers look like a bunch of idiots?

"johnebravo836" wrote in message
...


MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
johnebravo836 wrote:

[snip]

But, no, I don't think an anti-Kerry accusation would be better vetted.

Here I would have to disagree -- I can't imagine that CBS News would have
broken such a story about Kerry without investigating the authenticity of
the documents *much* more thoroughly. Certainly, once they were told by
consultants they hired that the documents were highly questionable, they
would have taken further steps to look into it, and waited with the story.
Certainly you don't doubt that Dan Rather personally is more sympathetic
to Kerry, do you? For that reason alone, I would have thought you'd agree
that documents pertaining to Kerry would have received additional
scrutiny. That would just be human nature.

Look at how the Swift Vets charges were circulated: big publicity for the
smears, little or none for the refutations.

That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was dug
up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was already
floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any minimally
competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any reports as
to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so I can't
comment on how fair their coverage of it was.

It's tough for Democrats and liberals to get a fair shake in the media.

Needless to say, only very liberal viewers are likely to see it that way.
Conservatives are just as vehement in insisting that *they* can't get a
fair shake, as I'm sure you're aware.

In any event, "the media" that people rely on for news is no longer
limited to the big three (or four, maybe) networks, what with the
proliferation of cable news channels, the internet and the incredible
variety of websites that offer different perspectives, and, of course,
talk radio. "The Media" isn't the monolith that it used to be. Liberals
shouldn't be having any trouble getting their perspective heard. Now,
whether the general voting public is particularly interested in what they
have to say is an entirely different matter . . .

The right wing has done a great job setting up alternative media (the
so-called "echo chamber")

You have in mind things like Fox News, I assume? I watch it quite a bit
myself, despite the fact that I'm a moderately liberal Democrat; it's
never a bad idea to keep abreast of what the enemy is up to. I have to
say, though, that having watched as much of it as I have, there's no
mystery at all in my mind as to why the major networks, and especially the
other cable news networks, are losing viewers to Fox News. (That's not
necessarily entirely complementary to Fox News, needless to say . . . )

and organizing to put pressure on the traditional media, who appear to be
more afraid of accusations of liberal bias

The other, older cable news networks are apparently getting their clocks
cleaned in the ratings game by Fox News, and I'm sure the people in charge
of programming at those networks have taken note of that fact.

I've seen a number of articles that indicate that if you ask people
whether they are liberal or conservative, about 30-35% classify themselves
as conservatives, while about 15-20% say they're liberal. Roughly half the
public, therefore, is in the middle (minus the more extreme among us who
are even further to the left or right, but those have got to be far fewer
than the liberals and conservatives). In short, conservatives appear to
outnumber liberals by approximately 2 to 1, and about half the voters are
in the middle. It's unrealistic to expect that news networks would not
recogize that their audiences are significantly more moderate or
conservative than they are liberal.

than in doing their job in challenging those in power.

If you think that's their main job, you're going to be disappointed, and
in my view, that's probably how it should be: their main job should be to
find out and disseminate the facts as fairly, and as objectively, as they
can. "Challenging those in power" is only a small part of that, but it is
surely a part.

Right wing disinformation abounds; people
still think Gore said he invented the internet.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls are
looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.


Hence the suspicion that Rovian dirty tricks are involved.

If he was (it's highly unlikely we'll ever know, of course), I have to tip
my hat to his evil genius. The Republicans have always been far more
effective than the Democrats at playing down-and-dirty Presidental
politics. Maybe that's simply because the electorate is more likely to be
disposed in favor of the accusations they level. In any event, I can't
help but be astonished that CBS News went with this story when they did,
knowing what they apparently knew.

One report I heard said they were sitting on this story for 5 years. It's
probably just a coincidence that they broke so close to the election.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,

Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction
if it gores my ox.

ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
content reflected what they were thinking back then.

Typical obfuscation of the main topic and far more relevant fact:


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/I...ments_040914-1
.html

I saw the complete report this morning, thanks. The Dallas Morning News
tracked down Killian's typist. I may take the trouble of registering
with their website to read more. I'll bet the story is linked somewhere
out there in blogland.

Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
presidential record.


Not a very good Democratic election strategy, eh?
What kind of idiots are running the Kerry campaign?

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
johnebravo836 wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
johnebravo836 wrote:

[snip]

But, no, I don't think an anti-Kerry accusation would be better vetted.

Here I would have to disagree -- I can't imagine that CBS News would
have broken such a story about Kerry without investigating the
authenticity of the documents *much* more thoroughly. Certainly, once
they were told by consultants they hired that the documents were highly
questionable, they would have taken further steps to look into it, and
waited with the story. Certainly you don't doubt that Dan Rather
personally is more sympathetic to Kerry, do you? For that reason alone,
I would have thought you'd agree that documents pertaining to Kerry
would have received additional scrutiny. That would just be human nature.

Ah, but I was looking at CBS's record instead of adopting a right-wing
stereotype of a liberal Dan Rather.

You're entitled to disagree.

Look at how the Swift Vets charges were circulated: big publicity for
the smears, little or none for the refutations.

That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any
reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so
I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.

All fared badly, fairness-wise. And the NG story has been floating
around for months, and was revived in the last few weeks, since Ben
Barnes repeated his story about getting W into the guard at a Kerry
rally here in Austin. The docs were a small part of Rather's story, and
oddly, no one is disputing their content.

Indeed, the White House tried to put the NG story to bed in February by
releasing what they said were all the relevant papers, but that led to
the US News story.

It's tough for Democrats
and liberals to get a fair shake in the media.

Needless to say, only very liberal viewers are likely to see it that
way. Conservatives are just as vehement in insisting that *they* can't
get a fair shake, as I'm sure you're aware.

That doesn't make it true. They've been playing the media like a drum
since the Clinton years.

In any event, "the media" that people rely on for news is no longer
limited to the big three (or four, maybe) networks, what with the
proliferation of cable news channels, the internet and the incredible
variety of websites that offer different perspectives, and, of course,
talk radio. "The Media" isn't the monolith that it used to be. Liberals
shouldn't be having any trouble getting their perspective heard. Now,
whether the general voting public is particularly interested in what
they have to say is an entirely different matter . . .

The right wing has done a
great job setting up alternative media (the so-called "echo chamber")

You have in mind things like Fox News, I assume? I watch it quite a bit
myself, despite the fact that I'm a moderately liberal Democrat; it's
never a bad idea to keep abreast of what the enemy is up to. I have
to say, though, that having watched as much of it as I have, there's no
mystery at all in my mind as to why the major networks, and especially
the other cable news networks, are losing viewers to Fox News. (That's
not necessarily entirely complementary to Fox News, needless to say . .
. )

AM radio, WSJ editorial page, blogs, etc.

and organizing to put pressure on the traditional media, who appear to
be more afraid of accusations of liberal bias

The other, older cable news networks are apparently getting their clocks
cleaned in the ratings game by Fox News, and I'm sure the people in
charge of programming at those networks have taken note of that fact.

Goodbye, Phil Donahue! Hello, Michael Savage-Weiner!

I've seen a number of articles that indicate that if you ask people
whether they are liberal or conservative, about 30-35% classify
themselves as conservatives, while about 15-20% say they're liberal.
Roughly half the public, therefore, is in the middle (minus the more
extreme among us who are even further to the left or right, but those
have got to be far fewer than the liberals and conservatives). In short,
conservatives appear to outnumber liberals by approximately 2 to 1, and
about half the voters are in the middle. It's unrealistic to expect that
news networks would not recogize that their audiences are significantly
more moderate or conservative than they are liberal.

I'd guess that if you ask about specific issues, many of those
"conservatives" will show "liberal" thinking. The right has succeeded in
making 'liberal' a dirty word.

than in doing their job in challenging those in power.

If you think that's their main job, you're going to be disappointed, and
in my view, that's probably how it should be: their main job should be
to find out and disseminate the facts as fairly, and as objectively, as
they can. "Challenging those in power" is only a small part of that, but
it is surely a part.

Unfortunately, this devolves into the 'he said/he said' trap, in which
journalists don't comment on the truthfulness of charges but comment
instead on the spin.

Right wing disinformation abounds; people
still think Gore said he invented the internet.


Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls
are
looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.


Hence the suspicion that Rovian dirty tricks are involved.

If he was (it's highly unlikely we'll ever know, of course), I have to
tip my hat to his evil genius. The Republicans have always been far more
effective than the Democrats at playing down-and-dirty Presidental
politics. Maybe that's simply because the electorate is more likely to
be disposed in favor of the accusations they level. In any event, I
can't help but be astonished that CBS News went with this story when
they did, knowing what they apparently knew.

My thought is that the original source recreated the memos. This doesn't
make it right for CBS to do as they did, but it does raise the
possibility that they found the original source to be personally
credible.

If they never saw the originals how could they find their source credible?

"johnebravo836" wrote in message
...


MINe 109 wrote:
[snip]

Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
presidential record.

I wouldn't take issue with your ranking of the priorities, but there is
surely another issue -- and not an insignificant one. It certainly looks
like CBS News received warnings from at least some of the consultants
they asked to authenticate the documents (there's no reason to doubt
what those consultants are now saying), and they therefore knew that
very serious questions could be raised about their authenticity. Surely
they would have to realize that other document-authentication experts
would be raising the same questions very shortly after they broke the
story. Nonetheless, they went ahead with it. It's very hard not to
conclude that the most reasonable explanation for this is that they were
extremely eager to take a shot at Bush: do you doubt that, if the shoe
were on the other foot, and that the documents pertained to Kerry, CBS
News would have at least waited and made further efforts to authenticate
the documents?

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls are
looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.


Man, you gave me a great idea. I'm going to set up a table near
my polling place and sell nose clips to the Democratic voters.