[daviscupper]

I don't agree. Dan Rather used these documents and a know partisan fundraiser for the Kerry campaign to smear George Bush. Then Dan says "I believe these are genuine documents." He should have multiple sources for such inflamatory and damaging evidence, instead of relying soley on a partisan who used the alleged testimony of dead people to base his attack on Bush. In my opinion Dan is the one who should be ashamed and proving these documents are authentic and be prepared to answer all questions concerning their authenticity.

[bism]

In my many years in the USAF I do not recall the military using dates like in the fake memo. Should be something like 110471.

Old Bism

[ssaftler]

Since when has Dan Blather (or CBS) let something like journalistic standards get in their way of a good smear on the Republicans?

For a maddening look inside these smear-merchants, go rent "Shattered Glass," a relatively true story of an investigative journalist gone crazy when his bosses (at CBS, I believe) saw the glory and never bothered with standards.

[pawdoggie]

What rings false to me about this particular memo is the "CYA" in the SUBJECT line. While military (including USAF Reserve) officers occasionally engage in "CYA" to protect themselves, the use of this term in the subject line would be considered extremely unprofessional, if (for example) this document were subsequently produced to explain the author's actions regarding "LT" Bush. The more appropriate (and professional) SUBJECT would be "Memorandum for the Record". If, on the other hand, this was simply the author's note to himself alone, why bother with the heading, and the externals?