Posted on 09/11/2004 12:19:33 AM PDT by kattracks
How convenient. Originals produced by a typewriter would have strike marks (indents) on the paper. Word doucuments from a printer wouldn't. So it gets back to where did CBS get them? Whoever gave them to CBS would either be a forger or a thief. Take your pick.
According to an article on Drudge, the expert CBS used was a handwriting expert and not a document or printing expert. Without the original, how do we know that the Lt. Colonel signature wasn't scanned and superimposed on a forged document.
This kind of flimsy evidence of authenticity would never hold up in a civil court. The court would require the originals.
And now Rather is committing career suicide because he still wants to believe that he got a genuine Bush-smearing "scoop". The old fool is scrunching his eyes real tight and covering his ears as he shakes his head and yells, "I-can't-hear-you-I-can't-hear-you-I-can't-hear-you-I-can't-hear-you...."
The best part is that he is taking CBS and '60 Minutes' down with him - - and they're LETTING him!
Cool by me. Good riddance to bad garbage.
Mary Mapes, Rather's 60 Minutes producer, broke the Abu Grabib prison story.....did she know Nick Berg??? He also was at Abu Grarib.
Alsoshe is from Seattle and as I recall, soe girl sent a pic of Abu to another girl....was this girl Mary Mapes??
Has Mary Mapes and Nick Berg ever met or has Michael Moore and Mary Mapes ever met?
I have this nagging feeling about Mary Mapes being fed the Abu Grabib story by either Moore or Berg.....anyone know anything??
shhhhhhhhhhhh. Loose lips sink ships.
Howlin, read my reply at #68 and tell me what you think....thanks.
Could also be "Dan Rather forgeries along."
I have a shirt with GW in cowboy wear branding that jacka$$ does that count as being a GOP operative...oh, and I've sent him less than $100 so far.
You got it. Pass the word against any product shown on that liar's network.
Even the old gals with a lingering crush on Ché have got to be repulsed by this doddering fool.
I would like to know more about Mary Mapes. That CBS guy sure made a point of what a dedicated, honest producer she is, and how she vets everything multiple times.
Red flags went up in my thinking. I think he even introduced the subject of Mary Mapes, because people were mostly concentrating on Rather at the time.
I think I will do a little snooping around and see what I can discover.
Still, the very best one was dedicated to Lewinsky, who was giving a speech in NY. I kid you not, this was the headline:
"MONICA GIVES ORAL PRESENTATION".
Let me know what you discover.
She was threatened with jail for withholding transcripts of an interview she did with one of the James Byrd dragging defendants. CBS went to court and they eventually turned over the information (Rather was named as well for refusing to release the unedited video tape). They lost the case.
She also appeared with Seymour Hersh on the Charlie Rose show, just prior to the Abu Ghraib story breaking.
There isn't much easily found information on her. I will keep digging later today. I need to leave for a couple of hours, but I am not giving up on this.
Meanwhile, over at kausfiles:
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Friday, Sept. 10, 2004, at 2:24 AM PT
Patterico shoots down a promising pro-Kerry Web conspiracy theory--namely that the potential forgery of the CBS Bush guard documents was spotted so quickly on the Web that the person who spotted it ("Buckhead," poster #47 at Free Republic) must have been tipped off in advance. That would suggest that any forgery was planted, presumably by pro-Bush forces. But it seems this whole theory, promoted in this morning's ABC News Note, was based on a misreading of time stamps by ABC. In reality, Buckhead had a couple of hours to come up with his post--something he confirms in an email to Patterico. ... ABC has corrected its mistake (without withdrawing the now seemingly groundless insinuation). NPR hasn't corrected the error, according to Patterico, and David Brock's Media Matters still posts it. ... P.S.: Media Matters might want to decide if a) the documents are authentic, as argued at the top of their Web page or b) the documents are forgeries planted by Republicans, as argued at the bottom of their Web page. Lawyers are allowed to plead in the alternative, but a) and b) can't both be true, and the evidence for each of those propositions is also evidence against the other one. 1:10 A.M. Pacific Time (that's 4:10 to you, Ambinder)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2106296/
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.