Posted on 09/13/2004 7:39:52 PM PDT by jhouston
Edited on 09/13/2004 8:04:19 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
See my post above. My comments made on Sept. 11th. FV
You see? Dan Rather USED the handwriting analyst and after the analyst was already at home having lunch, Rather said therefore, CBS stood by their statements on the memo. Liberals USE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME TO WIN and Rather's done it with the handwriting dude.
That's beautiful -- I added to it a little. Here's my fax:
To: CBS News (212-975-1893); Attn: Andrew Haywerd, President, CC: Dan RaTHer ("TH" is superscripted in the fax)
CBS is falling down, falling down, falling down, CBS is falling down, because of Dan RaTHer. Take the keys and lock them up, lock them up, lock them up; Take the keys and lock them up, for conspiring to subvert an election.
You can run but you cannot hide – not from the truth – not anymore. Yes, It’s a while new world – competition – accountability – prison… whod’a thought?
Have a nice day!
Sincerely, Murph
Great!
Brit Hume JUST TOASTED CBS AGAIN TONIGHT!!! LOL HE SAID THAT ONE OF CBS'S "EXPERTS" DID HANDWRITING ANALYSIS (FOR PERSONALITY_ LIKE A CARNIVAL GUY) AND THE OTHER "EXPERT" REPAIRED TYPERWRITERS IN THE PAST!!!!!!!!!
If I remember right (don't feel like logging into WaPo) he signature expert said he could only judge the one document that had a signature--he could say nothing of the three that didn't. Am I remembering that right? There were six documents on USA today site. Two with signatures that matched each other (but not Killian's real one), one with a signature that didn't match anything (closer to Killian's but still a clear fake), and three with no signature.
So if I'm remembering this "expert"'s statement correctly, what is the possibility that CBS gave their "expert" three unsigned documents and one of the pair with a matching signature, and gave him the other fake document to compare against?
What if the "expert" was told one of the fake signed documents was authentic and asked to judge the other one?
As a former liberal, I am very excited by this story (and have spent waaayyy too much time following it!) for exactly that reason. If someone tells a liberal their favorite icon is a liar, they won't believe it. But if their favorite icon proves himself to be a liar, the liberal bug in their brain will have no defense.
election related threads:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=napalminthemorning
I know this is late, I'm new so forgive me but Thanks for correcting me.
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.