"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!