Posted on 09/15/2004 8:32:14 PM PDT by Williams
Isn't there an absolute logical inconsistency to relying on the word of anyone who steps forward to vouch for the substance of forged documents? Let's set the stage.
Some totally dishonest person has created false evidence. They had to think about making it look real. Names, dates, terminology, issues. They not only forge documents, but in this case U.S. military records of a dead officer, in order to smear the President of these United States. Already it seems there has to be a special place in Hell for this person.
Not only have they created these fakes, their motives are so impure that they endeavor to bring their false evidence to national attention on the eve of an election. This person has done something very wrong, and they did it to have a big, improper influence on their nation. The fraud is on all the American people.
Now CBS news trots out a person or two to what? Vouch for the facts in the forgeries? Whoa! First, it looks like one of these witnesses, Burkette, may be the forger. Now folks, that would be one heck of a bad witness.
But I'll take any witness they bring forward for this extremely unusual purpose - to vouch for the "accuracy" of one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people. If these stories were true, why the need for false evidence?
CBS is seriously implying that Public Enemy #1 - this despicable forger - acted out of some "good motive." Their forgeries - including usurping the faked signature of an honorable deceased officer - were an attempt to reveal "the truth"?
Folks, if it were true there wouldn't be a forgery, there would be real documents. IF the people involved were good people they would not have engaged in a massive fraud on our election. The entire premise of a "good" forger and a "good faith" forgery is insane, illogical, and itself an attempted deception.
Had there been no forgeries from an anonymous source, Burkette was already discredited and believed unstable years ago. His word was meaningless (which is exactly why someone created these forgeries). Without the forgery, Mrs. Knox's sudden recollections of vague things would not have been a big story. Indeed, she is trying to say the forgeries are some "honest" attempt to recreate the "real ones."
Folks, if you have seen some important documents, and you are an honest person, you do NOT create fakes to "inform" the nation. You either have the real ones or you tell people about them but you do NOT becaome a liar and possibly a criminal in order to deliver the "truth."
A forger is a liar. The forgeries are created to lie. Anyone who says the forgeries are accurate is either extremely confused or themselves a liar. Forgery on a massive scale is simply inconsistent with any concept of truth telling. And once the stink of these forgeries was out, no honest newsperson would endeavor to convince us that the forgeries were the "real thing."
Vanity: Killian's ex-secretary came forward last week to corroborate the CBS story
Houston Chronicle ^ | 9/15/04
Posted on 09/15/2004 12:32:58 AM PDT by ambrose
We have now seen a slew of interviews with Marian Carr Knox, 86, former secretary to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.
Her story seems to shift with each new interview - and becoming increasingly negative towards Bush.
What's the deal with this lady?
I have an answer, and it is quite simple. It was told to us in the Houston Chronicle today, but it was buried in disjointed paragraphs.
To start out with, Knox contacted the Houston Chronicle herself. They did not find her - she found them. What did she have to tell them last week?
--------------------------------
Last week, Knox said she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time with the Texas Air National Guard, although she did recall a culture of special treatment for the sons of prominent people, such as Bush and others.
So there you have it. Last week, she came forward to SUPPORT the CBS story against charges that Killian did not keep a personal file.
She disclaimed any personal knowledge of W's time in the Guard - Her only mission last week was to corroborate CBS's claim that Killian kept personal 'CYA" files.
For whatever reason, the Chronicle chose to not run her story last week.
By today, the documents had been completely discredited. So now she comes forward to state the obvious: these documents ARE bogus... BUT HOLD ON... she now suddenly has knowledge about Bush's time in the Guard, and these fake documents really just represent the things that were said in the "real" documents.
Got it now? That's her deal.
Anonymous Bush Hater: I want to bring down George Bush, but no one will believe my obviously fabricated story without proof. Hmm... I need proof!
*tap* *tap* *printer hums...*
Anonymous Bush Hater: AT LAST! I HAVE MY PROOF!!! Now to fax these from Kinko's! Nothing will stop me now!!!
Free Republic PJ Patrol: Not so fast Evil Doer!!! We know you forged those documents!
Anonymous Bush Hater: Nothing can stop me now! The DNC and Dan Rather will believe anything I say! I have the proof!!!
Free Republic PJ Patrol: Hahahahahaha! Go ahead and do your worst because we'll be waiting to turn it back on you!
Nicely done, Williams. Ethics, logic. And the antiwar "intellectual" movement essentially eliminated them from campus curricula. Now we know why.
ping
ping
And the Hitler diaries were a forgery, but they mentioned the oncoming Russian armies, and indeed Russia took Berlin, so that means they were authentic.
Don't you love leftist logic?
Good question! I am going to add this to my last vanity post I did on this. Good work!
Excellent logic. Great post, even if it's all vanity.
*applause*. Well done.
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.