1 posted on
09/14/2004 6:16:19 AM PDT by
kattracks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
To: kattracks
Dan's attempt to smear the President with forged documents backfired big-time, that's why the big liberals down at CBS are so "distressed."
To: kattracks
Dan Rather has damaged his beloved Democrats beyond repair, another nail in the liberal coffin. He was a buffoon in Vietnam and Afghanistan and he is a buffoon today. Park it Dan, just go home.
106 posted on
09/14/2004 6:41:09 AM PDT by
Eighth Square
(We've met the enemy - no doubt about that!)
To: kattracks
"I'm confused by some of what I've heard today," he offered, before insisting that if Rather's documents were indeed forged, it was an innocent mistake. "You're dealing with genuine professionals. The last thing in the world that any of these people would want is to phony something," he told the Times.
If they think that I think they're the paragons of pristine honesty and integrity, then they are ignorant. O'Reilly gave that same crapola last night.
If he "was looking out for us" then why don't I call him daddy? We don't need Papa Doc, we got us Papa Bill.
There are others who do their job and do it far better. They are MAKING THEMSELVES obsolete.
107 posted on
09/14/2004 6:41:18 AM PDT by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proudly Supporting BUSH/CHENEY 2004!)
To: kattracks
"I'm confused by some of what I've heard today," he offered, before insisting that if Rather's documents were indeed forged, it was an innocent mistake. If it was an "innocent mistake" .. one would think a Journalist would want to correct the record
108 posted on
09/14/2004 6:41:21 AM PDT by
Mo1
(Why is the MSM calling the Vietnam Vets and POW's a suspected group??)
To: kattracks
You're dealing with genuine professionals. In a manner like unto 'ladies of the evening'.
109 posted on
09/14/2004 6:41:38 AM PDT by
tbpiper
To: kattracks
Hey Dano-saur, What did you know and when did you know it??
Pray for W and Our Troops
116 posted on
09/14/2004 6:44:01 AM PDT by
bray
(Some men have skeletons in their closets, some have killing fields!!)
To: kattracks
Dan really put himself on the line and I can't imagine him knowingly defending something he knew not to be the case." I can!
To: kattracks
These idiots thought that because they were able to fool one handwriting expert with questionable credentials that they could fool the world.
I'm beginning to think that someone at CBS created the forged documents to support the story they've been working on for the last two years. If the docs had come from an "unimpeachable source" as CBS contends, then why the need to hire a document expert before they released them? My suspicion is that they hired a document expert to see if they could fool him. After they got assurances that they had fooled their "expert" they ran with the story thinking they could fool everyone.
Hey CBS, prove me wrong!
To: kattracks
Sort of reminds me of the movie, "Guide for the Married Man" when Robert Morse is teaching the virtuous Walter Matthau the art of the adulterous husband. "Even when caught red handed, Deny, Deny, Deny.
To: kattracks
IF Captain Dan was not in on the manufacturing of the documents, he should be feverishly ferreting out who it is that has destroyed his career instead of pretending the emperor is still sporting a designer wardrobe.
120 posted on
09/14/2004 6:44:32 AM PDT by
Let's Roll
(For a guy who shirks his own job, Kerry sure is eager to tell others what they should do ...)
To: kattracks
I think this story was part of a much larger attempt to discredit Bush. The sugar coating memo was a feint. The real purpose was to raise questions about why he missed the physical. Kitty's book coming out, immediately following that story, was meant to plant a seed that Bush missed the physical because of drug use. The rest of the campaign would be spent answering questions about drug use while in the guard. Talk about smear tactics and dirty tricks; if you connect the dots this was an organized attempt to smear Bush in the worst way. Kudos to the bloggers who blew it apart before they could take it to the next level.
124 posted on
09/14/2004 6:45:11 AM PDT by
Algae
To: kattracks
==="You're dealing with genuine professionals.===
Professional Political whores.
To: kattracks
There is no shortage of tall buildings in NY (hint, hint).
To: kattracks
Ah the richness the irony. Perhaps someone should tell Dan that "there is a cancer on CBS news" ...
133 posted on
09/14/2004 6:51:16 AM PDT by
PMCarey
To: kattracks
134 posted on
09/14/2004 6:52:52 AM PDT by
handy
(Forgive me this day, my daily typos...The Truth is not a Smear!)
To: kattracks
"You're dealing with genuine professionals. The last thing in the world that any of these people would want is to phony something," he told the Times.
No, we're dealing with genuine liberals and the last thing in the world these genuine liberals want in Bush re-elected. They have their priorities, you know.
Bush will be re-elected in Nove and shortly after that, I believe, is when we'll see Rather scoot on out.
135 posted on
09/14/2004 6:53:01 AM PDT by
petconservative
(Kerry, um you said 'bring it on' so we brought it on.)
To: kattracks
-"Another CBS source said there was increasing nervousness over the star anchorman's decision to stonewall on an independent investigation into his dubious Guard report." Sounds like there might be some people at CBS that may not want to 'go down with the ship'!
To: kattracks
Dan's hatred of Bush drove him to the edge of the cliff.
139 posted on
09/14/2004 6:55:04 AM PDT by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
To: kattracks
Has "America's Most Trusted Journalist", Walter Cronkite issued a statement about this? It would seem a natural to hear him defend his boy, Dan...
142 posted on
09/14/2004 6:57:30 AM PDT by
Guna
To: kattracks
I can't imagine him knowingly defending something he knew not to be the case."Why not? Rather himself said that he believes that a person can be a liar and still be an honest person.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson