What Did Dan Rather Know? And When Did He Know It?

.... I think the person responsible for this incredibly botched forgery must possess several qualities: (1) remarkable deviousness, (2) breathtaking amorality, (3) an intellectual facility for generating possibilities rather than probabilities, and (4) a lack of solid experience with typewriters and word processors by which to verify the possibilities generated by his imagination.

Let's now get to the heart of the matter. The story here is not Bush's TANG service. The story is not these documents. The story is not even forged memos. The story is

ONE OF THE WORLD'S PREMIER NEWS ORGANIZATIONS
TRIED TO PASS OFF FORGED DOCUMENTS
— INEPT-BEYOND-BELIEF FORGED DOCUMENTS —
TO IMPUGN THE INTEGRITY OF THE PRESIDENT
IN AN ELECTION YEAR DURING A TIME OF WAR

Moreover, they used, and sullied,
the good name & good reputation
of a deceased military officer
to do it.

Many questions are raised by this scenario: Who, precisely, actually forged the documents? How did CBS get them? What expert(s) did CBS have examine the documents for authenticity? Elmer Fudd? Daffy Duck? And, did anybody at CBS have any clue that the documents are forgeries?

According to the DUmmies, Dan Rather was just a victim of a devious KARL ROVE plot. Many there actually believe that KARL ROVE forged these documents. I kid you not. Here is a sampling of recent DUmmie commentary on this topic:

If this is a forgery, I'm sure it's another in a long line of Karl Rove's stunts. But it's not a forgery. Come on, CBS vetted it with experts, of which there must be many. On the other hand, the detractors are all right-wing bloggers. (Who you know will attack anything that knocks bush.)

My only question Is how thoroughly did CBS review these documents? How many experts did they show these documents to before going on with the story? What were their background and area of expertise?

CBS is a creditable news source. They didn't get that way by being stupid. These docs were probably gone over with a fine tooth comb until they were sure it didn't have any nits.

what document? it doesn't matter. the guy's a deserter who kills for fun he is doomed to failure I don't care if they say it was hand-typed by Rove and given to Rather by Andrew Card dressed as Huggy Bear.

So Rove gave them to CBS? Is CBS that gullible?

There are real docs that the Whitehouse had and they created forgery forms of these docs and passed them off to discredit the real ones if they ever surfaced. It mucks it up enough that if real versions surfaced, noone would ever believe it - the "forgery" meme is planted.

I agree - its a fraud Walt has showed two other era documents "as proof" that have the superscripted "th" and none of them even closely resemble the document 60 mins had - they fell for it hook line and sinker. They look completely different in the way it was done. If I knew how to PSP them side by side I would but I am looking at them now and this 60 mins thing was a fraud and Rove is ROFL at them.

Oh, please. Like a bunch of amateurs on the Internet would be able to figure out something that CBS News stuck its neck out over and never thought to investigate. Riiight.

Yikes. I started out thinking this was a Rove plant, after reading http://www.warblogging.com / - then I was convinced it wasn't. I've been crazy all day about this thing. Now I'm back where I started. I need to be sedated.

What's with all you paranoid people? Get a grip!!! This is exactly what goo defence attorneys do...CREATE DOUBT!!!! There's absolutely no reason to think these doxs are forgeries! NONE!!!

Document is forgery -- this can become the basis of an allegation that the whitehouse continues to deceive the public by lying to us, sometimes in very clever ways.

CBS has to have something to substantiate the authenticity of the memos. If it doesn't, it has cost itself any credibility it had. Obviously, this wouldn't be good for a it's news division. CBS' story had to be thoroughly vetted!

Oh good GOD! Stop and think for a moment...IF it were discovered that they were a forgery then the media would HOT after the story of who did it and why. The blowback from that would be bigger than the actual story.

What crap. The issue is are they believable? Hell yes. And what the f*ck does a wife or son for that matter really know about husband/dad. Well sh*t, let's ask Hillary. What's really Rovian is to suggest the documents are fake. Chimp has been an underachiever his whole goddamn life, much to our pain, so why would they NOT be authentic?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.