[ambrose]

See under the section heading "The Politics"... This explains why there are six documents posted on the USA Today website, and not just the four that See BS referred to.

[ambrose]

link:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-12-bush-documents_x.htm

[Fenris6]

USA Today needs to come clean - who is the forger?

[Carling]

Hmm, so three major news outlets received the same documents independently?

I say three because I believe the Boston Globe also received them as well.

Folks, the DNC is involved in this, and this makes Watergate look like amateur hour.

[abner]

Ping!

[FairOpinion]

"It is unclear where the documents, if they are real, had been kept in the intervening three decades."

I would say this is a darn good question.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

I have a sneaking suspicion that it's this talion.com that is behind this smear.

1) Burkett was one of their clients in 2000 when this first surfaced.
2) They are Washington-based, as was the See BS producer (Maples) prior to when she started working for See BS out of Dallas.
3) They orchestrated the DNC DUI dirty trick perpetrated against Bush in 2000.
4) They provide experts for journalists on a deadline --- hmmmm.. where do you think the handwriting expert See BS used came from?

Now, if we could only link these smelly partisan hacks definitively to the DNC and Kerry to complete the puzzle.

[madison46]

Ping

[plushaye]

"No matter how it turns out, for now the controversy over the documents has blunted criticism of Bush's Guard record, which has been a persistent irritant for Bush since he first campaigned for the White House. It has sapped the power from an issue that had appeared to be a weapon for the Democrats against Bush."

This paragraph is the most important one for the Bush campaign. The DNC/CBS+Boston Globe/Kerry campaign/probably Burkett failed in ATTACK 1 of the FORTUNATE SON campaign. There will be more strikes this week but the first one was not only a dud but a major backfire.

[ambrose]

forgibe my typo:




independently

[CFC__VRWC]

Interesting how only now, when the walls are closing in on Dan Rather and CBS over these forgeries, does USA Today come forward and admit they received copies as well. I believe they call this "running for the tall grass."

[thegreatbeast]

I'm declaring John Sasso as the man behind this; this job has his mo stamped all over it. You'd think he'd have learned that the truth will out.

[sissyjane]

CBS, USA TODAY ,and what is the third media source that recieved the documents??

This just shows that someone was shopping these documents!!

CBS did not uncover them......there was no investigation....there was only A SMEAR thet someone wanted to be broadcast!!

[okiegop]

This issue will not die out and go away even if SeeBS tries to apologize and explain it away as a mistake. This will become as big an issue in history as Watergate. This campaign is now officially over. Kerry is toast.

[Jeff Chandler]

FreeRepublic is the Pit Bull of the New Media.

[technomage]

Well, this is going to be veeerrrrryyyy interesting!!

[Mo1]

A document dump??

I don't know .. something still smells

[nutmeg]

bttt

[M1911A1]

It is encouraging to see that GoogleNews has taken the issue off the front of their site.

I hope it means that this leftist leaning bunch is sizing up the fallout before it continues to push the DNC/CBS line on this.

[rolling_stone]

...."USA TODAY obtained copies of the documents independently soon after the 60 Minutes segment aired Wednesday, from a person with knowledge of Texas Air National Guard operations. The person refused to be identified out of fear of retaliation. It is unclear where the documents, if they are real, had been kept in the intervening three decades".....

I am confused, if the person refused to be identified, was that to USA today or did he identify himself to them then refuse to let them identify him to readers? Is this poorly written or am I just tired? Oh if he refused to be identified, how did they know he had knowledge of the Texas Air National Guard? Yes it sounds like Burkett with the "fear of retaliaton" & TANG comments, the where have the docs been for three decades.... What could he be afraid of, maybe a criminal investigation?

[Weirdad]

Quoting the article: "USA TODAY obtained copies of the documents independently soon after the 60 Minutes segment aired Wednesday, from a person with knowledge of Texas Air National Guard operations. The person refused to be identified out of fear of retaliation. It is unclear where the documents, if they are real, had been kept in the intervening three decades."

"Obtained copies" (?) or "were provided with copies"? If USA Today was able to obtain such copies in such a short time then they are much better at investigation than you'd expect; but if that's true then it is amazing that the "provider" has not been definitively located by anyone else yet. Moreover, if USA Today found out who to ask for the records it would have made a better story to for them to print who had them than to just get additional copies, and it makes specious their claim that they "obtained" them. Since when does a "newspaper" offer anonymity to a source when there is no good reason to?