Posted on 10/09/2008 9:03:17 PM PDT by Alice in Wonderland
Sen. Barack Obama designated a personal aide as his direct contact for the 2007 Kenyan presidential campaign of Raila Odinga, who later was appointed prime minister after his election loss was followed by widespread, deadly violence that destroyed or damaged 800 Christian churches, according to e-mails obtained by WND senior staff writer Jerry Corsi during a trip to Kenya.
snip . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The way I understood it, Corsi was given the emails by the 'source'. The first sentence of the article reads:
Sen. Barack Obama designated a personal aide as his direct contact for the 2007 Kenyan presidential campaign of Raila Odinga, who later was appointed prime minister after his election loss was followed by widespread, deadly violence that destroyed or damaged 800 Christian churches, according to e-mails obtained by WND senior staff writer Jerry Corsi during a trip to Kenya.
The @ symbol might be left out if you were, say, posting something to Craigslist but didn’t want a spambot to find your address, but you would have no reason to leave that symbol out when you are typing an email. Spambots don’t scour emails.
“The large version clearly shows an 8.”
Why would someone fake a date that hasn’t even happened yet? It must be a smudged 6. Besides, December 22, 2008 will not be a Friday as it was in 2006.
Gentlemen (assuming you are both male),
I would point out that December 22nd, 2008 has not yet occurred, nor is it a Friday (it is a Monday). Dec 22 in 2006 was a Friday.
Therefore, to have the bottom date actually be a 2008, the data would have to have been printed from (1) a computer whose calendar data was terminally defective, or (2) produced by a typewriter/text editor with no auto-dating used.
The last number in the year matches in form both of the 6s in the timestamp on the second. Especially when comparing the ‘36’ combination in the time to the ‘08’ in the year (the rounding and kerning make the digits flow together).
I share a healthy scepticism, but I do not believe that the date is actually 2008 in the second sample. I fervently wish for the information to be accurate, explosive, and damning, but I especially want it to be unimpeachable. In the case of these two emails, I do not see evidence of fraudulent data, but I also do not see damning proof of malfeasance on B. Hussein’s part.
Time will tell...
“Of course, if someone had copies of a McCain letter written in crayon on the back of a bar napkin addressing the Ghost of Hitler, Olbermann would jump on his desk live and dry-hump the air in victory until his spine severed itself”
Oh hell! That is the funniest thing I’ve ever read! I’m choking on my own lack of oxygen!
“Of course, if someone had copies of a McCain letter written in crayon on the back of a bar napkin addressing the Ghost of Hitler, Olbermann would jump on his desk live and dry-hump the air in victory until his spine severed itself. Oh hell! That is the funniest thing I’ve ever read! I’m choking on my own lack of oxygen!”
I am laughing so hard I can’t breath!!!!! We will survive this and McCain/Palin will come out victorious!!
Great Ghu, how could anyone presented with unverifiable paper printouts of allegedly incriminating e-mails react with anything other than laughter and derision?
The obvious explanation is that the forger made a typographical error. An actual e-mail printout couldn’t possibly have this type of error, since the date information would be copied directly from the header to the printer without human intervention.
The eights are sixes, just overexposed and smudged.
You have assumed that there is a forgery, while the 6s in the time stamp also resemble the last digit in the year. Willful ignorance?
Even if that is the case, it's the language that gives it all away.
The structure and grammar just aren't right. As some Freepers have noted in other threads, it reads like a Nigerian scam EMail.
I mean, "I will kindly wish"? "I have already instructed him"? "In future"?
"In future" is particularly telling here (I'm a bit of an Anglophile and this struck me immediately). It is characteristically British. They will say "in future" or "in hospital" as opposed to the characteristically American which would be "in the future" or "in the hospital."
It's pretty clear that whomever wrote the first EMail, English wasn't their first language, and the English they were using wasn't American English but the Queen's English.
It's worth remembering that Kenya, along with quite a few other African nations, was a former British colony, and when they speak English, they speak the Queen's English, not American English.
It looks for all the world that Corsi was scammed by some Kenyans.
I don’t know where to put this or if you’ve seen it already.
One of the “undecided voters” on the panel at the Town Hall Debate - Ben Raybin - describes the experience in a guest article posted at BuzzFlash.com. The tagline at the end of the article notes that Raybin, now a law student at Vanderbilt University, is “a former staff writer for BuzzFlash.”
Buzz Flash is a left-wing, pro-Obama, “independent media” website, as anyone can tell by looking at the site or even just their store, the BuzzFlash Progressive Marketplace, where you can support the cause by purchasing Obama stickers, liberal books and Joan Baez records.
As for Raybin, when he was an undergrad student at the University of Chicago - where Obama once served on the law school faculty - Raybin wrote this article for The:New:City, an Australian “web journal of urban and political affairs,” while he was studying for a semester at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia
In the article, Raybin writes about what the Australian Labour Party can learn from America’s Democratic Party as the ALP seeks to defeat Australia’s conservative party.
Does Raybin look like an undecided voter to you?
He did to Gallup and Tom Brokaw.
Original story in the link.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/bill-hobbs/2008/10/10/undecided-voter-debate-wrote-
I stand by what I see and it is clearly an 8. Others here have noticed it, too.
As for why someone would fake it, I can think of reasons. The first one that comes to mind is that whoever put these two together hoped that in our excitement we wouldn't notice that date. Then Corsi would be discredited when he produces the emails he has in his possession next week.
In the article, it was mentioned that these two emails were NOT given to WND by Corsi, but by some "former Orange Democratic official" who wished to remain anonymous.
I remain skeptical of these two emails. I suggest we all wait until Monday, when Corsi produces what he has. If what he has can be verified, jumping the gun will jeopardize all his efforts.
See post #196. My response there pretty much covers what you brought up.
I can’t speak for the other FReeper, but I’m a female. :-)
I just wonder how much Corsi paid for this fiction?
Well, Maam,
I also stand by my visual inspection, but second your call to wait and see.
Have a great day, FRiend! ;-P
You have a great day, too.
Here’s hoping Corsi knocks it outta the ballpark next week!
:-)
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.