Posted on 09/14/2004 9:11:12 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
There are Reports that the Swift Boat Vets have new evidence that prove Kerry lied, primarily old Military documents.
Now given the fact that the BUSH docs have been proven to be forgeries by anyone with a few brain cells firing.. yet CBS refuses to back off of them, keeping it in the headlines... I am starting to wonder.
Is the purpose of the 60 Min. II report not so much to bash Bush, but to be used as an undermining of these new documents?
After all its not a hard argument, well the last batch were fake, why should we believe these suddenly new found docs any more than the ones that attacked Bush?
This is the only logical reason I can come up with for Rather and CBS to continue to carry water on these obvious fakes is so that they can be used as a counter argument against any new documents that may come to life attacking Kerry.
Just something to chew on.
Actually, that's what I've been saying for a while. I don't think that CBS released them for that purpose, but I think that the Kerry campaign passed them on for that reason. The purpose was to fill the airwaves with so much garbage that when the Kerry fraud was exposed, the voters would just yawn.
When's the next Swift Boat ad?
I hear they are really going to clobber Kerry and reference GENUINE documents recently made available.
I was just thinking something similar this morning. To date, Bush has not even remotely made his campaign about his or Kerry's military service. Something I think the Kerry camp has desperately wanted and frankly could care less how phony the documents looked. If new revelations are coming out about Kerry, then it will look like tit-for-tat, thus creating an illusion that both parties are still fighting the Vietnam war.
I should add that this flood of garbage is an attempt to convince the voters that this is all about somehting that happened thirty years ago, and that they should all move on, much like the impeachment was all about sex.
That is true.
Yesterday they had the whole campaing literature/Air Force thing that was trumpted at all the usual places, and it got debunked and never even made it on television.
This is what happens when you have anti-Military people trying to smear the military - they don't have enough information to pull it off.
I agree with you. Politically aware people like us know what's going on, but this is all about Joe Six-Pack and Soccer moms, who don't really pay attention to politics. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people who voted for Clinton twice.
IMHO they are trying to muddy the waters, so that they say, "both sides do dirty tricks, therefore I will ignore all of this stuff, from Rather AND from the Swifties." Who benefits from this tradeoff? Kerry.
He never had any to start with?
I wasn't referring to you in my post, (I figured you knew that, but I wanted to make sure ;))
No, CBS and Danny have their *** in a crack. Checkmate.
Dan Rather hates GWB so much he was not thinking clearly when the DNC operatives told him the fakes were fool proof and Dan thought his oh so elite status as a leader of the always accurate main stream media would never allow the story to be questioned.
"If Kerry blew his brains out...."
Do you have a better explanation as to what happened to them?
Don't be so harsh. Unlike the forged national guard documents, we do know that Kerry COULD blow that hard.
Plus...why drag Dan Rather down? Dan's whole career is simply going down the drain...and I doubt that Dan is that stupid.
I always put it down to the effects of being a rich bitch's poodle.
Watch people in everyday life who do this, and notice that in a relatively short period of time, other people begin to avoid such a person. The only people who will hang with a CCC person are other CCC people. But only if they are allowed to CCC, too. CCC people want a CCC dialog, not a perpetual CCC monologue from one person.
This is one of the basic reasons Kerry will not be elected president. He's a CCC person.
I'm getting curiouser and curiouser about this thing. Prior to yesterday I was writing this off as a normal 60 Minutes screw up, they've done poor research before and doubtless will again. But the way to handle normal screw ups is to apologize and move on, that keeps the story from getting legs and lets it die a normal newscycle death.
Then Dan defended it Friday. OK, not part of the normal script but still it should wind down this week and be forgotten by next week, still in line for a normal newscycle death.
Then Dan defended it MONDAY! He brought the story into the new week, presented new "defenses", according to the normal news cycle pattern that makes this story fair game through NEXT Friday (in general stories are good through the week after the last interesting thing that happened). Now the rule of thumb in the world of scandals is that it's not the scandal that gets you, it's the coverup; because when people try to cover something up they start being stupid, doing things they wouldn't do normally. Dan has been around the block too often for me to think he doesn't know the "through next week" rule, which means he just did something stupid, something he wouldn't normally do. So this could be deeper than I thought.
depends on if these are OFFICIAL MILIRATY DOCUMENTS, the memo's Dan Rather used were NOT OFFICIAL MILITARY DOCUMENTS
Only if the documents are printed in proportional, superscripted fonts typed by President Ford.
bump
if it's a diversion, it's the dumbest diversion in history.
When he mouthed off to CNN, he broke it off on Viacom.
For someone who is supposedly a hardened news guy with experience in the shoving-a-microphone-in-the-bad-guy's-face, he blundered big time.
"Unimpeachable source" who won't give him the originals.
I, too, was very surprised he addressed it on Monday.
I think they are going to cave on this. I really do.
Dan's ego got in the way of "No Comment".
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.