This was sent to me by a liberal. Wondering what you guys think. Sounds very far fetched to me - not to mention irrelevant but it is curious.
A LibTurd LSD induced wet dream.
I read the whole screed after it was posted on FR a few days ago. The author spends 90% of his time bashing Bush and trying to connect dots that can’t be connected, then almost in passing dismisses the “fake but acccurate” forgeries as unimportant because someone dredged up a typewriter from the 70s that has superscripts. Of course, we knew that all along, the point being that the faked documents were FAKES, they never existed in typewritten form. The technical forensic analysis showed the documents were absolutely identical to a modern Word document and no typewriter would have ever produced output that perfectly matched to a computer output 30+ years later.
FAKE Fake fake, Rather is a lying partisan publicity hack who is driven by his steaming pile of ego to try to prove he was an actual journalist before he dies, and he ain’t gonna make it.
Rather’s only purpose on earth has been to create the “Fake but Accurate” standard for left-wing forgery by which future fabrications can be judged.
There is one key point, deep into the article, where the author finally gets to the point and there his whole argument immediately breaks down:
The morning before the broadcast was scheduled to air, CBS showed the memos to the White House for a response. Dan Bartlett was the network’s contact. Before Bartlett was interviewed, he emailed copies of the memos to Albert Lloyd, Bush’s longtime National Guard expert. In an interview in 2008, Lloyd told me he immediately recognized them as forgeries: “I looked at them and I said, ‘Don’t do a damned thing with these, because these are fake.”
Bartlett, however, appears to have ignored Lloyd’s assessment. When asked by CBS whether he doubted the authenticity of the memos, Bartlett replied, “I’m not saying that at all,” adding that he only questioned the timing of their release. His interpretation of the memos, in fact, was that they “reaffirm what we’ve said all along.”
And so, on September 8, Rather’s report aired on the Wednesday edition of 60 Minutes.
So the article claims that someone in the Bush White House recognized the documents as forgeries right away and says "Don’t do a damned thing with these, because these are fake.". What does that even mean? Then the article claims "Bartlett, however, appears to have ignored Lloyd’s assessment," because he didn't say that the documents were fake. How does that make sense? So CBS uses the documents, claiming that they are real, and then gets in trouble for doing so. But then the article turns around and claims that the objections to the authenticity of the documents proved not to be accurate.
So what is it? Are the documents forgeries or not? The article doesn't say. It notes that the White House concluded that they were fake right away but does not say why. It faults the White House for not warning CBS that the documents were fake and theorizes that it was a deliberate set-up to withhold this assessment. But then the article states that the case against the documents collapsed leaving the impression that they are real.
Only a crazy, evil leftist would claim so many contradictory things at once.
this is why I don’t buy Texas Monthly.
there’s the BS in the story about proportional typewriters existing in 1973. They did, but they ware TYPESETTERS, not used to write memos by secretaries.
Can you imagine a secretary banging out all her memos on a refrigerator sized typesetter costing 100,000$ Didn’t happen. Would never happen.
They STILL are not admitting the papers were FAKE, even after the secretary who supposedly typed them said they were fake!
Who says people are rational creatures? This is certifiable insanity that they won’t let go of
“Truth or Consequences” a place in New Mexico?
It always makes me think of: “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.” (Proverbs 16:6)
“Truth or Consequences” a place in New Mexico?
It always makes me think of: “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.” (Proverbs 16:6)
At the time this was supposedly going down, 1972-1973, I was working in a print shop that had one of the few varieties of machines that would produce right and left justified type directly on paper. One would type a line at a time and after the line was complete, one pushed a button and the machine would print that line on paper. It was slow, clumsy and even an experienced operator made lots of mistakes. No one would have used such a device to type memos.
To a Liberal truth is relative. They seem to have a “Santa Claus” truth...you know, how we tell our kids that Santa is “real” “in a way”. They decide what they want to be true and then adjust things to fit, rather than the other way around, which is belief coming after facts are found.
I have a broader objection to the whole issue of bringing up Bush’s military career from the early ‘70’s. This was 2003, Bush had been president for 4 years. Any voter who wanted to consider his ability as Commander in Chief merely needed to review what they knew from the prior 4 years. His time in the TANG was mostly irrelevent by this time for the average voter.
Meanwhile, Kerry, had not been CIC and it was therefore relevent to look at his 70’s military career and those men who knew him, for voters to assess him as CIC.
But the liberal lapdog democrat press ignored the “Swiftboat” guys or discounted their testimony, but when highly dubious memos showed up questioning Bush’s service, these were presented as “Holy Grails” of inside scoop.
My late father was an Army officer, retired in 1972. He told me that the second they showed those documents on the screen, he knew that they were fakes.