NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955784/

So now the documents that CBS "scooped" the other networks with to question Bush's national guard duty look to be forgeries.

"Documents unearthed by CBS News that raise doubts about whether President Bush fulfilled his obligations to the Texas Air National Guard include several features suggesting that they were generated by a computer or word processor rather than a Vietnam War-era typewriter, experts said yesterday."

Now WHO would do such a thing? ;) Even the family of the man who "wrote" them says they are fake. This will help Bush in the end I think.

What liberal media?????? Liberal media doesn't exist, pal.

What's wrong questioning Bush's military service? He did the exact same thing to Kerry last month...did he not?

What liberal media?????? Liberal media doesn't exist, pal.

What's wrong questioning Bush's military service? He did the exact same thing to Kerry last month...did he not?

Nope...Bush has said many times that Kerry served honorably. It looks like these documents are fake. Not the first time the networks have made up stuff and presented it as facts....

NBC and the SUV rollover tests comes to mind....;)

Nope...Bush has said many times that Kerry served honorably. It looks like these documents are fake. Not the first time the networks have made up stuff and presented it as facts....

NBC and the SUV rollover tests comes to mind....;)

I really don't care so much about Bush's military service....and if the documents are proven fake, its not like its the first time someone has taken bogus documents and run with them *cough niger uranium cough*

I really don't care so much about Bush's military service....and if the documents are proven fake, its not like its the first time someone has taken bogus documents and run with them *cough niger uranium cough*

Actually, the niger uranium has been proven to be true.

Might want to see someone about that cough.

Actually, the niger uranium has been proven to be true.

Might want to see someone about that cough.

Then feel free to provide your source for that

I really don't care so much about Bush's military service....and if the documents are proven fake, its not like its the first time someone has taken bogus documents and run with them *cough niger uranium cough*

Well, if they are fake, and it looks more and more like they are since they were produced on a modern printer and not a 1970's era typewriter, then it does go to show the obvious bias of the media. Afterall, what Bush did 35 years ago has no relevance to todays world. He has been in office for 4 years and his ANG service was not an issue.

Kerry on the other hand has portrayed himself to be a war hero and some who were there questioned him on it and he kind of looked bad in defending himself. I do find it funny that the man who they interviewed claimed he was coerced by the Bush family, yet he signed an affidavit in 1999 saying he had no contact with the Bush family. :rolleyes:

I really don't care so much about Bush's military service....and if the documents are proven fake, its not like its the first time someone has taken bogus documents and run with them *cough niger uranium cough*

Haha. That's funny. We go to war on fake Niger uranium documents. I wonder what would happen if we tell the families of the 1,005 soldiers who died in this war that we went to war on faulty intelligence (and the negligence of the pResident)...

Haha. That's funny. We go to war on fake Niger uranium documents. I wonder what would happen if we tell the families of the 1,005 soldiers who died in this war that we went to war on faulty intelligence (and the negligence of the pResident)...
Well maybe Bush will apologise to them when he meets them during the military funerals.



Oh that's right. He doesn't attend any.

Well maybe Bush will apologise to them when he meets them during the military funerals.



Oh that's right. He doesn't attend any.

Shows how much he cares. :mad:

Then feel free to provide your source for that

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2688222

Afterall, what Bush did 35 years ago has no relevance to todays world. He has been in office for 4 years and his ANG service was not an issue.
Sorry, Biff, but you don't get to decide what I think is relevant. I don't care if Kerry was the first one to bring up the whole Vietnam issue, or whether he or Bush are running on that issue.

*I* am an American voter, and *I* get to decide what's relevant to *me*. Not Biff Pileon, not the media, not the Internet ... ME. And I think Bush's conduct as a soldier 35 years ago is just as relevant as Kerry's conduct 35 years ago. And as it happens, *I* thought his ANG service was an issue 4 years ago, too.

Nope...Bush has said many times that Kerry served honorably. It looks like these documents are fake. Not the first time the networks have made up stuff and presented it as facts....

NBC and the SUV rollover tests comes to mind....;)

This shouldn't surprise too many people. After all look at some of the documents the Bush government used to go to war with Iraq and Powell even used them at the UN and they were fakes too. I guess the government is liberal too then huh.. *LOL* people make honest mistakes, or they don't, make up our minds. :rolleyes:

Haha. That's funny. We go to war on fake Niger uranium documents. I wonder what would happen if we tell the families of the 1,005 soldiers who died in this war that we went to war on faulty intelligence (and the negligence of the pResident)...


Who supplied those documents? Was it not British Intelligence?

Actually, the niger uranium has been proven to be true.

Might want to see someone about that cough.

Yes it turned out to be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the document they used were faked and forged. Just because some thing turns out to be true, that doesn't let people off the hook for using faked documents does it?

Sorry, Biff, but you don't get to decide what I think is relevant. I don't care if Kerry was the first one to bring up the whole Vietnam issue, or whether he or Bush are running on that issue.

*I* am an American voter, and *I* get to decide what's relevant to *me*. Not Biff Pileon, not the media, not the Internet ... ME. And I think Bush's conduct as a soldier 35 years ago is just as relevant as Kerry's conduct 35 years ago. And as it happens, *I* thought his ANG service was an issue 4 years ago, too.

Good for you....so vote the way you please. I do find it funny that Kerry keeps saying that it is the Republicans that keep bringing up Vietnam when it was his doing to begin with. He is a funny fellow who will be remembered for the "feel good politically correct" convention that did nothing....

This shouldn't surprise too many people. After all look at some of the documents the Bush government used to go to war with Iraq and Powell even used them at the UN and they were fakes too. I guess the government is liberal too then huh.. *LOL* people make honest mistakes, or they don't, make up our minds. :rolleyes:

Yes, documents supplied by British and Russian intelligence. ;)

I find it funny that this is proof of a 'liberal' media. How long did it take to uncover them as possible fakes and push the story out? It seems just a few hours after the original screening.
Yet how long was between the Swift ads and the media got round to checking their stories?

To really prove 'liberal' media, let's look at some Political headlines for Washington Times, over the last few days:
"Bush's Guard service recycled at election time"
"White House accuses Kerry of 'coordinating' Guard attacks"
"President derides Kerry for 'hidden' tax proposal"
"CBS documents look forged, colonel's son says"
"Kerry blames Bush for Medicare increase"
"Bush ties Kerry to party's far left"
"Poll puts Bush ahead by 11%"
"Kerry campaign forced to regroup"
"Vietnamese side with Kerry"
"Bush mocks a new Kerry 'U-turn'"
"Kerry campaign denies 'shake-up'"
"Bush aims to avoid father's mistakes"
"Bush camp welcomes Kerry talk on war, security"
"Bush returns to Oaklahoma with good news"
"Kerry's hot pursuit of demons and worms"
"WMDs 'only' reason for war, Kerry says"

Shall we do a "Where' Wally"? Spot the liberal bias in those headlines!

Who supplied those documents? Was it not British Intelligence?

Well, there has been some talk in the media (not proven as far as I know though) that the Israeli spy working in the Pentagon might have planted it. I guess we may never find out. But that is one of the speculations and I freely admit "speculation" Although we do know the document was a fake.

What the British supplied was a University students essay from 1994 as proof of WMD in Iraq. Which turned out to also be used by Powell at the UN.

So, if these type of examples are what we call "intelligence" I'd hate to see what we call stupid ;)

I find it funny that this is proof of a 'liberal' media. How long did it take to uncover them as possible fakes and push the story out? It seems just a few hours after the original screening.
Yet how long was between the Swift ads and the media got round to checking their stories?

Well, since Dan Rather has come out and stated that he is a Democrat and if you have ever watched the leading questions he has asked Democrat candidates and the argument he engaged in with Bush 1 then you might see that CBS news is indeed biased. Newsmen should NEVER state their political leanings as it destroys their objectivity. Now everyone KNOWS where Rather stands on every issue....and he is the one who "scooped" this story. ;)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955784/

So now the documents that CBS "scooped" the other networks with to question Bush's national guard duty look to be forgeries.

"Documents unearthed by CBS News that raise doubts about whether President Bush fulfilled his obligations to the Texas Air National Guard include several features suggesting that they were generated by a computer or word processor rather than a Vietnam War-era typewriter, experts said yesterday."

Now WHO would do such a thing? ;) Even the family of the man who "wrote" them says they are fake. This will help Bush in the end I think.

"Abra cadabra," *spins his wand and shakes it three times* "I summon you conservative ditto head from the depths of the abyss to make inane and senseless comments to further spread your own conservative propeganda...."

He was in the guard, he wormed his way out of duty? WHO CARES! This shouldn't even be an issue. I can't believe anyone seriously would care about this either on kerry's side or GW's. Lets talk about the issues of today for a change. For a change of pace lets look at their platforms. then lets decide.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2688222

Thanks for the link, but I don't believe it offers damning evidence.

What I consider a key phrase from the article is this, "But how much credibility these reports had was not clear. The Senate committee criticized the CIA for "inconsistent and at times contradictory" reports to policy-makers on the uranium issue. An internal CIA memo from June 17, 2003, said, "We no longer believe there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."

Regardless of that issue, I don't believe that possible "fake" documents about Bush's ANG service is indicative of liberal bias in the media as a whole, just poor reporting. One that slipped through the cracks, so to speak.

Thanks for the link, but I don't believe it offers damning evidence.

What I consider a key phrase from the article is this, "But how much credibility these reports had was not clear. The Senate committee criticized the CIA for "inconsistent and at times contradictory" reports to policy-makers on the uranium issue. An internal CIA memo from June 17, 2003, said, "We no longer believe there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."

Regardless of that issue, I don't believe that possible "fake" documents about Bush's ANG service is indicative of liberal bias in the media as a whole, just poor reporting. One that slipped through the cracks, so to speak.

Alrighty, here's another one:
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/1926_0_4_0_C/

Wait, Bush uses information from Brittish intelligence (who reportedly used "fake" documents) and the media comes unglued in it's frenzy to attack him on it. It's been shouted as reasons for everything from Bush's impeechment to his execution. Yet when Dan Rather uses 'fake' documents about Bush's service that's simply poor reporting, slipping through the cracks so to speak?

Alrighty, here's another one:
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/1926_0_4_0_C/

Wait, Bush uses information from Brittish intelligence (who reportedly used "fake" documents) and the media comes unglued in it's frenzy to attack him on it. It's been shouted as reasons for everything from Bush's impeechment to his execution. Yet when Dan Rather uses 'fake' documents about Bush's service that's simply poor reporting, slipping through the cracks so to speak?

No, I don't believe people can have it both ways. Either is was an honest mistake by the media and the faked documents to go to war with Iraq, again honest mistake.

Or..

Both were complete idiots. You can't have it both ways. Although at least Dan Rather's faked documents didn't get any one killed ;)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2688222
[quote]
But how much credibility these reports had was not clear. The Senate committee criticized the CIA for "inconsistent and at times contradictory" reports to policy-makers on the uranium issue.

An internal CIA memo from June 17, 2003, said, "We no longer believe there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."

But beyond internal correspondence, "to date, the intelligence community has not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa," the Senate committee said.
[/qoute]
I seriously feel safe with those documents... :)
No one has yet to prove that the claims are true... sounds like they aren't proven,...

So why is CBS liberal yet?

No, I don't believe people can have it both ways. Either is was an honest mistake by the media and the faked documents to go to war with Iraq, again honest mistake.

Or..

Both were complete idiots. You can't have it both ways. Although at least Dan Rather's faked documents didn't get any one killed ;)

You and TheOneRule are right about not having it both ways, thats why my vote is for the latter.

"Abra cadabra," *spins his wand and shakes it three times* "I summon you conservative ditto head from the depths of the abyss to make inane and senseless comments to further spread your own conservative propeganda...."

Actually I am a registered Libertarian....good try though. ;)

Good for you....so vote the way you please. I do find it funny that Kerry keeps saying that it is the Republicans that keep bringing up Vietnam when it was his doing to begin with. He is a funny fellow who will be remembered for the "feel good politically correct" convention that did nothing....
I agree that Kerry shouldn't have started talking about Vietnam in the first place, but the Republicans do seem to have a hard time letting it go. Maybe if they stop mentioning it, Kerry will stop too.

Surely the "feel good politically correct" convention that did nothing is better than the "grumpy old man hatefest" convention that did nothing?

"Documents unearthed by CBS News that raise doubts about whether President Bush fulfilled his obligations to the Texas Air National Guard include several features suggesting that they were generated by a computer or word processor rather than a Vietnam War-era typewriter, experts said yesterday."

Now WHO would do such a thing? ;) Even the family of the man who "wrote" them says they are fake. This will help Bush in the end I think.
Surely the fact that CBS are reporting that these documents are fake shows that they aren't biased against Bush.

Surely the fact that CBS are reporting that these documents are fake shows that they aren't biased against Bush.

CBS is not the one that reported them as fake....MSNBC did.

What liberal media?????? Liberal media doesn't exist, pal.

Actually, some news sources do have a bias one way or the other -- know how I know? FOX news executives recently admitted in court that of COURSE they have a bias, just as ANY NEWS MEDIA has the right to have one.

So if they not only KNOW they have one, and that OTHERS have one, but also ENCOURAGE THE RIGHT for a news outlet to have a bias, why do we hear so many complaints about "the liberal media"? They're just exercising their right to have one.

I find it funny that this is proof of a 'liberal' media. How long did it take to uncover them as possible fakes and push the story out? It seems just a few hours after the original screening.
Yet how long was between the Swift ads and the media got round to checking their stories?

To really prove 'liberal' media, let's look at some Political headlines for Washington Times, over the last few days:
"Bush's Guard service recycled at election time"
"White House accuses Kerry of 'coordinating' Guard attacks"
"President derides Kerry for 'hidden' tax proposal"
"CBS documents look forged, colonel's son says"
"Kerry blames Bush for Medicare increase"
"Bush ties Kerry to party's far left"
"Poll puts Bush ahead by 11%"
"Kerry campaign forced to regroup"
"Vietnamese side with Kerry"
"Bush mocks a new Kerry 'U-turn'"
"Kerry campaign denies 'shake-up'"
"Bush aims to avoid father's mistakes"
"Bush camp welcomes Kerry talk on war, security"
"Bush returns to Oaklahoma with good news"
"Kerry's hot pursuit of demons and worms"
"WMDs 'only' reason for war, Kerry says"

Shall we do a "Where' Wally"? Spot the liberal bias in those headlines!

Oh wait, you mean like these headlines from the Washington Post?


Records Say Bush Balked At National Guard Order
Kerry Rips Cheney Statement
Edwards: Bush Should Renounce Cheney Comments
Cheney Says Strikes Likely if Kerry Wins (a gross distortion of Cheney’s words)
Carter Calls Miller Disloyal
Kerry Hits Bush on Record Deficit Predictions

These ones are about Bush specifically

Domestic Questions Remain
It’s a Whole Old Ballgame
Bush Promises ‘a Safer World’
Bush Tries Again With Financial Proposals
Mixed Achievements
Bush Backtracks on Terrorism Remark
Series of Misjudgments Cost President His Lead

And now, these are about John Kerry

GOP Prism Distorts Some Kerry Votes
Kerry Takes Off Gloves With Sharp Remarks
Kerry Sharpens Contrast With Bush
Kerry Unveils Ad Countering Attacks
Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete And Flawed
Some Veterans Still Bitter at Talk of Crimes
Kerry: Ad Groups Do Bush’s ‘Dirty Work’
Kerry Detours to Visit Town Snubbed by Bush
Kerry Comes Out Fighting In Swing States



The media has already come out and said they are in favor of John Kerry. They will do everything they can to describe his campaigh as "refreshing" and "vibrant".

Oh wait, you mean like these headlines from the Washington Post?


Records Say Bush Balked At National Guard Order
Kerry Rips Cheney Statement
Edwards: Bush Should Renounce Cheney Comments
Cheney Says Strikes Likely if Kerry Wins (a gross distortion of Cheney’s words)
Carter Calls Miller Disloyal
Kerry Hits Bush on Record Deficit Predictions

These ones are about Bush specifically

Domestic Questions Remain
It’s a Whole Old Ballgame
Bush Promises ‘a Safer World’
Bush Tries Again With Financial Proposals
Mixed Achievements
Bush Backtracks on Terrorism Remark
Series of Misjudgments Cost President His Lead

And now, these are about John Kerry

GOP Prism Distorts Some Kerry Votes
Kerry Takes Off Gloves With Sharp Remarks
Kerry Sharpens Contrast With Bush
Kerry Unveils Ad Countering Attacks
Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete And Flawed
Some Veterans Still Bitter at Talk of Crimes
Kerry: Ad Groups Do Bush’s ‘Dirty Work’
Kerry Detours to Visit Town Snubbed by Bush
Kerry Comes Out Fighting In Swing States



The media has already come out and said they are in favor of John Kerry. They will do everything they can to describe his campaigh as "refreshing" and "vibrant".

Until the media rave about how Bush "exceeded expectations" in the debates. This assumes, of course, that Bush has the courage to participate in all of them.

Until the media rave about how Bush "exceeded expectations" in the debates. This assumes, of course, that Bush has the courage to participate in all of them.

Actually..... Bush has never lost a debate. Ever....

The media has had a definate conservative slant since the mid 90's. Bill O'Reilly last night said that Kerry ought to call a press conference and answer all the questoins about his service. He said that Bush already did so by admitting to mistakes when he was younger.

Can you see Woodruff, Blitzer, Matthews, Hannity, O'Reilly, et.al. if all Kerry did was to admit to youthful indiscretions? (hmmm, where've I heard that before?) They want meat, they want blodd, but they consistantly let Bush and his administration walk by accepting thier non-answers. :headbang:

What liberal media?????? Liberal media doesn't exist, pal.

What's wrong questioning Bush's military service? He did the exact same thing to Kerry last month...did he not?


What color is the sky on the planet you live on? The Liberal Media has ignored the Swift Boat Vets for months, now some bogus anti Bush docs appear out of nowhere and they are tripping over themselves trying to air it. "Unfit for Command" gets ignored but the discredited Kitty Kelly's new "Biography" gets 3 days with The Perky Katie Couric.

Oh wait, you mean like these headlines from the Washington Post?


Records Say Bush Balked At National Guard Order
Kerry Rips Cheney Statement
Edwards: Bush Should Renounce Cheney Comments
Cheney Says Strikes Likely if Kerry Wins (a gross distortion of Cheney’s words)
Carter Calls Miller Disloyal
Kerry Hits Bush on Record Deficit Predictions

These ones are about Bush specifically

Domestic Questions Remain
It’s a Whole Old Ballgame
Bush Promises ‘a Safer World’
Bush Tries Again With Financial Proposals
Mixed Achievements
Bush Backtracks on Terrorism Remark
Series of Misjudgments Cost President His Lead

And now, these are about John Kerry

GOP Prism Distorts Some Kerry Votes
Kerry Takes Off Gloves With Sharp Remarks
Kerry Sharpens Contrast With Bush
Kerry Unveils Ad Countering Attacks
Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete And Flawed
Some Veterans Still Bitter at Talk of Crimes
Kerry: Ad Groups Do Bush’s ‘Dirty Work’
Kerry Detours to Visit Town Snubbed by Bush
Kerry Comes Out Fighting In Swing States



The media has already come out and said they are in favor of John Kerry. They will do everything they can to describe his campaigh as "refreshing" and "vibrant".

And Ironically, Bush leads in the WashingtonPost-ABCNews Poll for the first time! Now that's funny.

Actually..... Bush has never lost a debate. Ever....

Get your lips off of Bush's... ahem... you don't know where it's been. And does it stink with your nose so far up his ass?

Would you like to show me where it says Bush has never lost a debate?

Here are some links I have found showing Bush losing to Gore:

http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/2000%20Files/Oct%2000/FTR-10-04-00GlpDebate.htm (well at least those who watched the debate think so)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/956062.stm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll001017_postdebate.html

_____________________
you got MODED :D

Nope...Bush has said many times that Kerry served honorably. It looks like these documents are fake. Not the first time the networks have made up stuff and presented it as facts....

NBC and the SUV rollover tests comes to mind....;)
Not that it's super relivant, but it was SUVs catching fire, not flipping over. They still do that.

What's being ignored is that CBS itself is now re-investigating it in the hope that if they are faked they can be the first to make the correction in order to protect thier integrity.

The fact that the Swifts and Unfit...existed for days before the media investigated and the CBS report existed for minutes before someone investigated being used as an example of liberal bias???? Huh? HUH???

The guy who got Bush in did in 1999 say it wasn't the Bush family that asked him but a Bush family friend.(which I believe he's telling the truth that no family member asked him) The rest of that excuse needs a lot of rationalization.

Yes, Kerry brought up his service. I have a ton of friends who are Eagle Scouts (don't know how that happened, since they're supposed to be rare, but moving on...) and when they apply for jobs they never fail to put it on their aps, cause it gets them the job. However, despite how many times the Bush camp says so, its not the only thing Kerry has brought up, but it certainly is the only thing they think they can run against, apparently. Or surrogates and hangers on at least seem to think that. Even without these allegations (and they don't look like they'll stick, which I called WOO HOO!) if people where really being comparative about bush and kerry in the seventies bush wouldn't stand a chance. Seems only the bushies really care what Kerry was doing in the seventies. I say this again, give it a whirl--bushies, you don't bring up Vietnam. See how long it takes for the other side to.

If CBS was as liberal as this thread hopes to paint them they wouldn't have wussed out on The Reagans and they would have accepted the MoveOn.org ad for the Superbowl. Instead they are a corperation. Which party gives the best handjobs to corperations?

Get your lips off of Bush's... ahem... you don't know where it's been. And does it stink with your nose so far up his ass?

Would you like to show me where it says Bush has never lost a debate?

Here are some links I have found showing Bush losing to Gore:

http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/2000%20Files/Oct%2000/FTR-10-04-00GlpDebate.htm (well at least those who watched the debate think so)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/956062.stm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll001017_postdebate.html

_____________________
you got MODED :D


Just repeating what Kerry said the other night. He said it...and Bush did beat Gore in the debates. As for my lips....I have never placed them anywhere that my GF tells me not to. ;)

Just repeating what Kerry said the other night. He said it...and Bush did beat Gore in the debates. As for my lips....I have never placed them anywhere that my GF tells me not to. ;)

Kerry saying it doesn't make it true. Could you provide a source that definitavely shows Bush always winning every debate?

I looked myself and only found one that shows that Bush and Kerry can both claim that neither of them have ever lost a debate but I dndn't see where they got that info from.

I personally think Kerry was trying to give Bush and the Replicons a false sense of security.

Actually, the niger uranium has been proven to be true.

Might want to see someone about that cough.
not the thing bush was referring to, its just a coincidence it was actually happening

Kerry saying it doesn't make it true. Could you provide a source that definitavely shows Bush always winning every debate?

I looked myself and only found one that shows that Bush and Kerry can both claim that neither of them have ever lost a debate but I dndn't see where they got that info from.

I personally think Kerry was trying to give Bush and the Replicons a false sense of security.

I think Kerry and Co. will "misunderestimate" Bush and be surprised. ;)

stuff like this is EXACTLY why biff is ignored

even the so called "liberal" media (aka not FOX news) is conservative

I think Kerry and Co. will "misunderestimate" Bush and be surprised. ;)

I agree as well Biff! They will misunderestimate him!

The Kerry campaigned foisted these documants on CBS, and Rather Biased didn't have them checked at all, just ran with it.

The Kerry campaigned foisted these documants on CBS, and Rather Biased didn't have them checked at all, just ran with it.
wow, maybe if we use ad hoinem attacks that are sound clever when paired with peoples name we will become magically correct?

you gain 10 points for trying and lose 50 for being a moron.

Dan Rather responds to the critics:


RATHER: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology?
QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or...
RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don't like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.




And just to let everyone know, in case your not aware, people think the documents which are from the early 70's were made in a Modern Day Word Processor rather then a 70's type writer.


For example the th at the end of 7th, is raised and smaller. A common practice in Word Processors, but not common at all in 70's Word Processors.

Also apparently, the guy who wrote the memo, said nice things about President Bush previosly. The "tone" of these new memos do not match his previous comments. And his signature is different then his previous ones.

Of course the guy that wrote the Memo has passed away. So no one can ask him the truth. How convienient.


Oh, and apparently it was the Kerry campaign that gave the documents to CBS.


BURN!

wow, maybe if we use ad hoinem attacks that are sound clever when paired with peoples name we will become magically correct?

you gain 10 points for trying and lose 50 for being a moron.
You gain no points for wit, and you lose 10000 points for being pathetic.

Dan Rather responds to the critics:


RATHER: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology?
QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or...
RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don't like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.




And just to let everyone know, in case your not aware, people think the documents which are from the early 70's were made in a Modern Day Word Processor rather then a 70's type writer.


For example the th at the end of 7th, is raised and smaller. A common practice in Word Processors, but not common at all in 70's Word Processors.

Also apparently, the guy who wrote the memo, said nice things about President Bush previosly. The "tone" of these new memos do not match his previous comments. And his signature is different then his previous ones.

Of course the guy that wrote the Memo has passed away. So no one can ask him the truth. How convienient.


Oh, and apparently it was the Kerry campaign that gave the documents to CBS.


BURN!
and of course the swift boat vets against kerry arnt lying bastards but these guys are:rolleyes:

Get your lips off of Bush's... ahem... you don't know where it's been. And does it stink with your nose so far up his ass?

Would you like to show me where it says Bush has never lost a debate?

Here are some links I have found showing Bush losing to Gore:

http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/2000%20Files/Oct%2000/FTR-10-04-00GlpDebate.htm (well at least those who watched the debate think so)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/956062.stm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll001017_postdebate.html

_____________________
you got MODED :D

First link means Gore won and Bush lost. Gore 76 to Bushes 70 in how they did.
Second.
A CNN/USA Today Gallup poll taken immediately after the debate on Tuesday night indicated that 48% of registered voters favoured the Democrat candidate, Al Gore.

In contrast, 41% thought his opponent, the Republican candidate George W Bush, did the better job.
Thus Bush lost a second time.
Score so far Gore 2 Bush 0

Third, final debate they are a tie? Okay so Bush had a tie, he isn't that bad.

So that shows Gore winning... the debates and Bush having lost them...
Guess that means Biff will admit that Bush has lost a debate or two (but only 1 or 2)
I keep thinking of Biff from that one play :The Death of a Salesman

Dan Rather responds to the critics:


RATHER: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology?
QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or...
RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don't like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.




And just to let everyone know, in case your not aware, people think the documents which are from the early 70's were made in a Modern Day Word Processor rather then a 70's type writer.


For example the th at the end of 7th, is raised and smaller. A common practice in Word Processors, but not common at all in 70's Word Processors.

Also apparently, the guy who wrote the memo, said nice things about President Bush previosly. The "tone" of these new memos do not match his previous comments. And his signature is different then his previous ones.

Of course the guy that wrote the Memo has passed away. So no one can ask him the truth. How convienient.


Oh, and apparently it was the Kerry campaign that gave the documents to CBS.


BURN!

There is no proof they were faked. There are doubts is all. But there are more damning things to go after Bush for. I think this is all a waste of time to draw attention away from those things.

There is no proof they were faked. There are doubts is all. But there are more damning things to go after Bush for. I think this is all a waste of time to draw attention away from those things.
So it is a waste of time to shine the light on the fact that forged documents are used no in the media's lie about Bush? :rolleyes:

So it is a waste of time to shine the light on the fact that forged documents are used no in the media's lie about Bush? :rolleyes:

No I'm sayign people should get over going after Bush for his National Gaurd service.

Although if the media is holding up falkse documents claimign them to be true, then yes they should be scrutinized.

and of course the swift boat vets against kerry arnt lying bastards but these guys are:rolleyes:


Well, we can't really prove the Swift Boat guys are lying because its their word against Kerry's word.


And since Kerry refuses to release his Vietnam Medical Records, the only person that looks to be lying is him. What's he trying to hide?


Also, the Swift Boat guys revealed that Kerry lied about going into Cambodia. And that revelation forced the Kerry campaign to admit that Kerry never entered Cambodia illegally on Christmas Day.


So if anything thats Swift Boat Guys-1 Kerry-0

Actually I am a registered Libertarian....good try though. ;)

I have some libertarian leanings too. But I'm not certain about that parties exact position. When it comes to the constitution I feel it should be read very strictly. Therefore, I think national government should be smaller since any powers not specifically given to the national government go to the states (or even better local level if possible). I also support smaller government (on each level) altogether. Is this a position the libertarian party holds as well. Since your a member I thought you might be able to answer my question.

I have some libertarian leanings too. But I'm not certain about that parties exact position. When it comes to the constitution I feel it should be read very strictly. Therefore, I think national government should be smaller since any powers not specifically given to the national government go to the states. Is this a position the libertarian party holds as well. Since your a member I thought you might be able to answer my question.

Yep, thats it in a nutshell. States rights are a large part of the Libertarian stance. Join the party...;)

Yep, thats it in a nutshell. States rights are a large part of the Libertarian stance. Join the party...;)

Eh, I'd prefer just to register independent (no party), so that when whatever party sends those black helicopters on the day we turn into 1984 they wont' be comin for me lol.

Well, we can't really prove the Swift Boat guys are lying because its their word against Kerry's word.


And since Kerry refuses to release his Vietnam Medical Records, the only person that looks to be lying is him. What's he trying to hide?


Also, the Swift Boat guys revealed that Kerry lied about going into Cambodia. And that revelation forced the Kerry campaign to admit that Kerry never entered Cambodia illegally on Christmas Day.


So if anything thats Swift Boat Guys-1 Kerry-0
hey, welcome to the real world, it looks like you are new here, let me fill you in on some things
the SBV are lying bastards

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818634/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html?nav=rss_politics/elections/2004


http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/militaryrecords_1.pdf
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=29302

you, sir, are a simpleton

Alleysia, a thing to remember about Chess Squares. Say anything that goes against his thought process and he'll Ignore you.

The Swift Boat Guys do have questions around him but they were right about Cambodia.

I saw the link to Kerry's record and 2 years are missing so they are incomplete.

CBS is really owned by communists.

CBS is really owned by communists.
Actually they are owned by Viacom (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/viacom.asp), which if you follow that link you'd see that they look like capatilists to me...

(sorry, but I made a passing overgeneralization as a joke and someone played literal police with me and it still iratates...)

Didn't read the whole thread - so this may have been stated at least once already.

Al Gore did win.

But gwbushy took office courtesy of the Supremes.

The United States lost.

Didn't read the whole thread - so this may have been stated at least once already.

Al Gore did win.

But gwbushy took office courtesy of the Supremes.

The United States lost.

WRONG!! The US Supreme Court STATED that the Florida Supreme Court was Re-writing Florida Election Laws. Thus, this invalidated the recount since there is a guideline in Florida regarding recounts and how they are supposed to be counted. The Florida Supreme Court rewrote them and the US Supreme Court told them that the 1st time, and sent it back. The Florida Supreme Court didn't listen thus They declared that Florida Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and declared the recount over.

Also, every liberal media I can think of went down there and recounted all the ballots and even they said that Bush won the State.

Granted, Gore won the popular vote but if you paid attention in Government Class, you would've known that the election is NOT decided by the Popular Vote but by a thing called the Electoral College. With Florida going Bush, it gave Bush the Election. So Yes Bush did win the Presidency.

As for the US Losing, we haven't lost anything.

What color is the sky on the planet you live on? The Liberal Media has ignored the Swift Boat Vets for months, now some bogus anti Bush docs appear out of nowhere and they are tripping over themselves trying to air it. "Unfit for Command" gets ignored but the discredited Kitty Kelly's new "Biography" gets 3 days with The Perky Katie Couric.


WTF? Are you smoking some reefer? The media is 100% PRO-BUSH! I have not seen one thing about Kitty Kelly's book being reported and I've heard everything about those Swift Boat Liars.

I think you're the one living on another planet. :rolleyes:

Well, we can't really prove the Swift Boat guys are lying because its their word against Kerry's word.


And since Kerry refuses to release his Vietnam Medical Records, the only person that looks to be lying is him. What's he trying to hide?


Also, the Swift Boat guys revealed that Kerry lied about going into Cambodia. And that revelation forced the Kerry campaign to admit that Kerry never entered Cambodia illegally on Christmas Day.


So if anything thats Swift Boat Guys-1 Kerry-0

Go look at this post: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6986888&postcount=42

Game over. Have a nice day.

hey, welcome to the real world, it looks like you are new here, let me fill you in on some things
the SBV are lying bastards

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818634/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html?nav=rss_politics/elections/2004


http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/militaryrecords_1.pdf
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=29302

you, sir, are a simpleton

You, sir, are exactly right. The Swift Boat Vet Liars were proven false and to be lying. For more proof on this, go here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6986888&postcount=42

Don't try telling me those stories are fake because they're not.

Have a nice day.

Some pictures:

Lt. Col Jerry Killan's actual signature (on the left) compared w/ CBS's version (on the right):

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/sigs.jpg

Do those look the same to you?

The geniune memo (in 1970's font):

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/Doc20.gif

The forgery:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/Aug18memo.jpg

Do these look the same to you?

If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'll sell to you...

Some pictures:

Lt. Col Jerry Killan's actual signature:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/sigs.jpg

The one from CBS:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/sigs.jpg

Do those look the same to you?

The geniune memo:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/Doc20.gif

The forgery:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/Aug18memo.jpg

Do these look the same to you?

If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'll sell to you...

Well for one its the wrong date...August then Sept.
Same signature.

Well for one its the wrong date...August then Sept.
Same signature.

Look at the signatures again. The actual one of the Lt. Col is on the left. The CBS version is on the right.

Look at the signatures again. The actual one of the Lt. Col is on the left. The CBS version is on the right.
I meant the one CBS and the one actual picture you showed are same.
Why did you show it twice?

Plus you shouldn't say forgery but possible forgery. Until proven in court of law its only just a possibility.

Look at the signatures again. The actual one of the Lt. Col is on the left. The CBS version is on the right.
i take it you right your signature exactly the same every time you sign something?

i take it you right your signature exactly the same every time you sign something?

And I take it you write your signature in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY each time you sign something?

Look at that huge discrepancy.

And I take it you write your signature in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY each time you sign something?

Look at that huge discrepancy.
depending on how hard i try and how fast im doing it yes my signature can be setup completely different

im not saying those are the same persons signature, im saying your reasoning for them not being is flawed

Take it to a handwriting specialist. I'm sure that they can compare the two and see if they are different or not!

I haven't dredged through the five pages of this thread, both because I don't care enough about the subject and because I'd probably get mad at some stupid ass thing someone said, but this thread (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603) at the Daily Kos--a partisan site, no question (but then again, so is Little Green Footballs, and someone had the balls to reference them on another thread last night, so nyaah)--has gone into excruciating detail about what kinds of documents were possible to create back in the late 60s on IBM typewriters, and funny thing--these documents could very well have been created. There's also a lot of discussion about the history of Times New Roman font and how letters in the documents that CBS used floated above and below the regular line just like a typewriter does, and so on.

I'm not kidding when I say it's excruciating detail.

Anyway, as I said last night whether or not these documents are real or fake makes no difference to me as far as Bush is concerned--this election needs to be about his incompetence since 2000, not his actions 30 years ago. I still tend to believe they're real because of statements made by Killian's commander--a Bush supporter--that essentially verify what Killian was reported to have written in those memos, and mostly because--unless I missed something--the Bush campaign has been most noticeably "no comment" on the subject of their authenticity. If they were definitely forged, the Bush campaign would be out front brandishing it about, and yet, the best they come up with is a statement from Scott McClellan saying "we don't know."

gone into excruciating detail about what kinds of documents were possible to create back in the late 60s on IBM typewriters, and funny thing--these documents could very well have been created. There's also a lot of discussion about the history of Times New Roman font and how letters in the documents that CBS used floated above and below the regular line just like a typewriter does, and so on.

I'm not kidding when I say it's excruciating detail.

damn. someday i want to try being a rightwinger for a little while. you get to just make shit up and have it be all over the news in an uncritical manner until some non-journalist calls bullshit on you. and then there aren't any consequences. it must be awesome.

Oh yeah--to all the people at LGF who were claiming that the typewriters of the time couldn't do proportional spacing, well, I'll let the picture do the talking for me.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/type54.jpg

That ad is from 1941, just a few years prior to the service period in question. Yeah, I'm still calling bullshit on the debunking until someone pops out a forger and some other positive proof that the docs aren't legit.

Oh yeah--to all the people at LGF who were claiming that the typewriters of the time couldn't do proportional spacing, well, I'll let the picture do the talking for me.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/type54.jpg

That ad is from 1941, just a few years prior to the service period in question. Yeah, I'm still calling bullshit on the debunking until someone pops out a forger and some other positive proof that the docs aren't legit.
Ah, the tools of NS. One page of claims, two pages of premature ball spiking, three more pages of unfocused ruckus (and maybe a mod warning) and then SUBSTANCE. What, no one looked into this? Jesus f'n christ, you all just ASSUMED that it couldn't have been done or that the technology didn't exist????????

Goddamn. GODDAMN!!!! That's it, I'm not reading any more threads until they get to the sixth page.

Surely the fact that CBS are reporting that these documents are fake shows that they aren't biased against Bush.
Surely CBS had to report the documents are fake...it isn't like they had a choice, when EVERYONE else is reporting them as fake.

Maybe Dan Rather should join Jayson Blair and Howell Raines in the dustbin of journalistic ethics (or lack thereof.) Unfortunately, in each case, they have dragged an institution's reputation through the mud, in order to have their moment in the spotlight.

Ah, the tools of NS. One page of claims, two pages of premature ball spiking, three more pages of unfocused ruckus (and maybe a mod warning) and then SUBSTANCE. What, no one looked into this? Jesus f'n christ, you all just ASSUMED that it couldn't have been done or that the technology didn't exist????????

Goddamn. GODDAMN!!!! That's it, I'm not reading any more threads until they get to the sixth page.
On any thread of this type, that's probably for the best. You'll notice that in my first post at the top of this page, I noted that I hadn't waded through the first five pages for precisely that reason.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2688222


Bleah, the republicans have been buying out our paper for a couple years now.

On any thread of this type, that's probably for the best. You'll notice that in my first post at the top of this page, I noted that I hadn't waded through the first five pages for precisely that reason.
Just mad at myself for thinking they had actually looked into this rather than pulling crap out of thier ass. Silly me.

Surely CBS had to report the documents are fake...it isn't like they had a choice, when EVERYONE else is reporting them as fake.

Maybe Dan Rather should join Jayson Blair and Howell Raines in the dustbin of journalistic ethics (or lack thereof.) Unfortunately, in each case, they have dragged an institution's reputation through the mud, in order to have their moment in the spotlight.When did CBS report them as fake? Last I heard (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml), CBS was standing by the memos and the story as a whole, and thus far the "evidence" debunking them has been shaky at best.

Oh yeah--to all the people at LGF who were claiming that the typewriters of the time couldn't do proportional spacing, well, I'll let the picture do the talking for me.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/type54.jpg

That ad is from 1941, just a few years prior to the service period in question. Yeah, I'm still calling bullshit on the debunking until someone pops out a forger and some other positive proof that the docs aren't legit.

Did you see the superscript on the CBS docs? Hmmm?

The IBM machine couldn't have possibly done it, AS IT STATES IN THE MACHINE'S OWN MANUAL.

But, if you think it's possible, there's a 10,500 dollar reward from DefeatJohnJohn.com if you can recreate an exact copy of the CBS docs using one.

The media has had a definate conservative slant since the mid 90's.That would be 1996, when FoxNews came online to bring balance to the stage.
Bill O'Reilly last night said that Kerry ought to call a press conference and answer all the questoins about his service. He said that Bush already did so by admitting to mistakes when he was younger.And what part of O'Reilly's statement do you have an issue with? Bush has admitted to the skeletons in his closet that are factual. Kerry has yet to give one consistent explanation about his past.
Can you see Woodruff, Blitzer, Matthews, Hannity, O'Reilly, et.al. if all Kerry did was to admit to youthful indiscretions? (hmmm, where've I heard that before?) They want meat, they want blodd, but they consistantly let Bush and his administration walk by accepting thier non-answers. :headbang:Here's the issue I have with your statement. Woodruff, Blitzer, Matthews, Rather, Jennings, Couric, et al, would have a snit, saying how horrible it is that the Republicans have made Kerry's past an issue, why can't we move on, and the discovery of Kerry's past is some kind of political move by Karl Rove. They would also have Carville, McAuliffe, Rangel, Hillary, Bill (from his hospital bed, and I wish him a speedy recovery,) et al, blasting at the Republicans, particularly Bush.

O'Reilly would likely talk about it, only to say "who cares," then say it's time to move on. Hannity, Limbaugh, Medved et al would make political hay out of it, and then likely move on to issues. Savage would have a primal scream moment on-air, going off about it for 24 hours straight, even after his show is over. More importantly, though, Bush and Cheney would likely say that Kerry's personal past is not an issue, just like they have taken great efforts to make only positive mentions of Kerry's Vietnam service of 35 years ago.

Kerry saying it doesn't make it true.
That reminds me of Kerry's line about Christmas 1968 in Cambodia, while Nixon was President, or how he heard about MLK's assassination while he was in Vietnam, or all the atrocities he witnessed, or...

has no one bothered consider it could've been made by a computer...

Did you see the superscript on the CBS docs? Hmmm?

The IBM machine couldn't have possibly done it, AS IT STATES IN THE MACHINE'S OWN MANUAL.

But, if you think it's possible, there's a 10,500 dollar reward from DefeatJohnJohn.com if you can recreate an exact copy of the CBS docs using one.
Well, I won't be collecting it, since I'm no expert in typesetting of the 1960s, but there are plenty of people who are, and who have discussed just how easy it was to make the superscripts you describe, using the Selectric model typewriter, which came out in the early 60s, still within the time frame.

What's more, when you've got a Republican who was Killian's commanding officer--Hodges--saying that the memos accurately reflect what Killian was saying and thinking at the time, that just lends more credence to the story.

has no one bothered consider it could've been made by a computer...

...There were no computers back in the 1970s you bloody twit.

i take it you right your signature exactly the same every time you sign something?
Signature variation, depending on the moment, is one thing. Having two completely different sets of signatures for documents? Nope, sorry...CBS or whoever provided them those hoaxes needed to do their homework a little bit more extensively.

And no, I don't think LtCol Killian typed those memos on MS Word 1972.

...There were no computers back in the 1970s you bloody twit.
i dont know how stupid you have to be to tell me that, personal computer were being developed in the 70s, along with printers.
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=406729
now shut the fuck up you sad excuse for the intelligent

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

Read that, and then try to refute any of those points.

Actually, the niger uranium has been proven to be true.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2688222

Yet even as two recent reports sharply criticized prewar intelligence, they also suggested President Bush's claim may not have been totally off-base. [emphasis added]

Since when does suggesting that something may not have been false equal proven to be true? And the AIM story papers over a lot of maybes and presents the worst possible interpretations as certainty. For example it is possible, despite what "former Niger officials believed", that "an Iraqi delegation sought the expansion of trade links with Niger" had no "connection with the procurement of yellowcake". Since it appears that the Iraqis made no concrete offers to purchase such material, this belief is mere speculation, however likely one may find it.

Signature variation, depending on the moment, is one thing. Having two completely different sets of signatures for documents? Nope, sorry...CBS or whoever provided them those hoaxes needed to do their homework a little bit more extensively.

And no, I don't think LtCol Killian typed those memos on MS Word 1972.
are you as stupid as the other guy or what? not ms word but do you pretend there wernt word processing programs then?

i dont know how stupid you have to be to tell me that, personal computer were being developed in the 70s, along with printers.
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=406729
now shut the fuck up you sad excuse for the intelligent

Congratulations on being a total moron who doesn't know how to use grammar or punctuation.

Have you ever tried printing something from a computer back in the 1970's? The result isn't the pretty font that you see in the CBS docs.

Now stop posting your inane dribble, and learn some basic 5th grade English.

When did CBS report them as fake? Last I heard (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml), CBS was standing by the memos and the story as a whole, and thus far the "evidence" debunking them has been shaky at best.
Exactly, CBS hasn't reported the truth, that those "documents" are fake. Maybe, just maybe (though it is quite the leap of faith,) the professional typists of 1972 could achieve the quality of print a cheap word processor paired with a laser printer can achieve today. I have reasons to believe otherwise, including this from a fan of IBM Selectric typewriters (http://www.selectric.org/selectric/index.html), which in 1972 would have been the top of the line.

...There were no computers back in the 1970s you bloody twit.
To be fair, there weren't any word processing software packages, and certainly no laser printers back in 1972.

Congratulations on being a total moron who doesn't know how to use grammar or punctuation.

Have you ever tried printing something from a computer back in the 1970's? The result isn't the pretty font that you see in the CBS docs.

Now stop posting your inane dribble, and learn some basic 5th grade English.
i take it you are the expert in printing things in the 1970s, seeing as computer didnt exist then :rolleyes:

you cant cover your ass when you make blatantly opposite statements.

To be fair, there weren't any word processing software packages, and certainly no laser printers back in 1972.
yes, there were. made by Xerox. and there were other types of printers by other companies.
and there were programming language and printers, lets see what is the likely hood there were word processing programs, somewhere between 90 and 100 percent

Exactly, CBS hasn't reported the truth, that those "documents" are fake. Maybe, just maybe (though it is quite the leap of faith,) the professional typists of 1972 could achieve the quality of print a cheap word processor paired with a laser printer can achieve today. I have reasons to believe otherwise, including this from a fan of IBM Selectric typewriters (http://www.selectric.org/selectric/index.html), which in 1972 would have been the top of the line.
To the contrary--CBS hasn't been proven to have been lying. If they do--and I concede that they could have been had--then shame on them for being fooled, but so far the evidence isn't convincing.

http://www.zongoo.com/article3261.html
http://www.fact-index.com/w/wo/word_processor.html


(note: a word processor would be the simplest of programs to create, i could probably go write one right now even with my limited knowledge, a word processor involves knowing the commands for file input, out put, and user input and output, wow hard)

thanks for playing

http://www.zongoo.com/article3261.html
http://www.fact-index.com/w/wo/word_processor.html

thanks for playing

...Look at the resolution. Normal resolution is @ 9,000 dpi (which is about the same clarity as the CBS docs.) The resolution from the early printers was so poor, they called their best dot-matrix work NLQ, for near letter quality.

Only typewriters could have provided that resolution in those days.

YOU LOSE.

are you as stupid as the other guy or what? not ms word but do you pretend there wernt word processing programs then?
Hmmm, 1972. The year Nixon was re-elected in a landslide. Also, the year e-mail was developed and introduced...but you had to have access to a mainframe to use it, as the desktop computer as we know it today, had yet to be developed. In fact, the common computer at the time, took up a fairly big amount of space, and you needed massive air conditioning systems to keep them cool. Computer languages back then included BASIC, FORTRAN, and CoBOL among others, but other than for scientific and mass business applications, computers were not generally used, because you needed punch-cards to program them (huge stacks of punch cards.)

And no, there was no word processing software as we know it. If you wanted a document, you typed it on the old trusty typewriter. If you made a mistake, you either started over, or used correction tape. If you were using a top of the line typewriter, it might have had the correction tape incorporated. If you wanted to mass-produce a document, you had to use the lithograph, as photo-copiers were not exactly plentiful. In order to preserve documents, they were "copied" into microfilm (no PDF back then, and no wide use of the Internet, which back then was called DARPANet.) In fact, if you had told someone in 1972 that you would be using a computer to type a letter, you would have been scolded for wasting perfectly good computing time.

I know you guys will discount this because it's Media Matters, but what the hell--it's a breakdown of all the accusations and links showing why they're crap. Enjoy. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200409100010?=newsbox)

To the contrary--CBS hasn't been proven to have been lying. If they do--and I concede that they could have been had--then shame on them for being fooled, but so far the evidence isn't convincing.
The only evidence that is not convincing is those documents. Admit it, they are completely fabricated. Anyone can see that...provided they are willing to put down the cup of Kool-Aid.

...Look at the resolution. Normal resolution is @ 9,000 dpi (which is about the same clarity as the CBS docs.) The resolution from the early printers was so poor, they called their best dot-matrix work NLQ, for near letter quality.

Only typewriters could have provided that resolution in those days.

YOU LOSE.
i lose? YOU are telling me I lose?

i do believe you declared that computers didnt exist in the 1970s. anything you say will be taken as complete and utter bullshit in regard to this topic?

Hmmm, 1972. The year Nixon was re-elected in a landslide. Also, the year e-mail was developed and introduced...but you had to have access to a mainframe to use it, as the desktop computer as we know it today, had yet to be developed. In fact, the common computer at the time, took up a fairly big amount of space, and you needed massive air conditioning systems to keep them cool. Computer languages back then included BASIC, FORTRAN, and CoBOL among others, but other than for scientific and mass business applications, computers were not generally used, because you needed punch-cards to program them (huge stacks of punch cards.)

And no, there was no word processing software as we know it. If you wanted a document, you typed it on the old trusty typewriter. If you made a mistake, you either started over, or used correction tape. If you were using a top of the line typewriter, it might have had the correction tape incorporated. If you wanted to mass-produce a document, you had to use the lithograph, as photo-copiers were not exactly plentiful. In order to preserve documents, they were "copied" into microfilm (no PDF back then, and no wide use of the Internet, which back then was called DARPANet.) In fact, if you had told someone in 1972 that you would be using a computer to type a letter, you would have been scolded for wasting perfectly good computing time.
that is a LIE, please see the links i gave you

I know you guys will discount this because it's Media Matters, but what the hell--it's a breakdown of all the accusations and links showing why they're crap. Enjoy. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200409100010?=newsbox)
You make it too easy sometimes. Well, I take the challenge. I see your MediaMatters, and I raise you a Media Research Center (http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp#1). Have fun, and make sure you take your blood pressure drugs before you read this.

that is a LIE, please see the links i gave you
Really? Point out the "lie." Prove it wrong. I do recall being alive in 1972, can you?

Really? Point out the "lie." Prove it wrong. I do recall being alive in 1972, can you?
i have provided 3 links that stated there were personal computer being introduced in the 70s, there were printers that worked with them and word procesors that were in use on them

You make it too easy sometimes. Well, I take the challenge. I see your MediaMatters, and I raise you a Media Research Center (http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp#1). Have fun, and make sure you take your blood pressure drugs before you read this.
No need for the blood pressure medicine, but you do owe me for a new keyboard after I laughed my beer onto it. The Media Research Center, huh? The king of taking quotes out of context group is your source for information on this story?

I'll bill you for the keyboard. :)

i have provided 3 links that stated there were personal computer being introduced in the 70s, there were printers that worked with them and word procesors that were in use on them
Ok...fair enough. Of course, you do realize that personal computers didn't come about till much later in the 1970's, or that the word processing "software" in use back when the PC first came could not produce such documents, or that the printers in use at the time were the same as teletypes (that rat-tat-tat sound you can hear in the background on some older movies when they show a newscast.) And I am sure you are aware that the Department of Defense was barely using any PCs in the late 1980s, NONE in the 1970's (I should know, my Dad was in the Air Force in the 70's, and his workspace was rife with typewriters.)

So, while you may be correct in saying the PC was being introduced in the 1970's, you truly are grasping at straws here. Too many elements of your theory contradict you. But hey, the theory might allow you to feel good about yourself.

No need for the blood pressure medicine, but you do owe me for a new keyboard after I laughed my beer onto it. The Media Research Center, huh? The king of taking quotes out of context group is your source for information on this story?

I'll bill you for the keyboard. :)
Hey, you brought out David Brock's laughable website. Let's call it even on the keyboards, since mine was ruined by the merlot that landed on it from laughing while reading Media Matters' whining.

Hey, you brought out David Brock's laughable website. Let's call it even on the keyboards, since mine was ruined by the merlot that landed on it from laughing while reading Media Matters' whining.It's a deal. And now I am vacating this thread for the near future because, honestly, I don't care enough about the subject to keep this up. The election in November will not hinge on anything being discussed here, or at least it shouldn't. It ought to hinge on the quality of the job George W. Bush has done for the last 3+ years, and I'm sure I don't have to tell you where I stand on that subject.

Ok...fair enough. Of course, you do realize that personal computers didn't come about till much later in the 1970's, or that the word processing "software" in use back when the PC first came could not produce such documents, or that the printers in use at the time were the same as teletypes (that rat-tat-tat sound you can hear in the background on some older movies when they show a newscast.) And I am sure you are aware that the Department of Defense was barely using any PCs in the late 1980s, NONE in the 1970's (I should know, my Dad was in the Air Force in the 70's, and his workspace was rife with typewriters.)

So, while you may be correct in saying the PC was being introduced in the 1970's, you truly are grasping at straws here. Too many elements of your theory contradict you. But hey, the theory might allow you to feel good about yourself.
there were non "teletype" printers and there is the chance it was a computer printout. or a different typewriter

and its not that hard to create a word processor..

It's a deal. And now I am vacating this thread for the near future because, honestly, I don't care enough about the subject to keep this up. The election in November will not hinge on anything being discussed here, or at least it shouldn't. It ought to hinge on the quality of the job George W. Bush has done for the last 3+ years, and I'm sure I don't have to tell you where I stand on that subject.
Wow, for once we agree, and it's actually twice in one night.

The election won't hinge on documents that more than likely are fake. It more than likely won't hinge on whether or not someone was in Cambodia when he says he was, or whether his Purple Hearts are for shooting himself in the arse.

Nope, the election will likely hinge on the following question:
Who do you trust to keep America safe?
Any other question beyond that (welfare, economy, jobs, the price of gas in Sheboygan) is, and has to be subordinate to that one. Answer it according to what your heart tells you, and vote accordingly.

there were non "teletype" printers and there is the chance it was a computer printout. or a different typewriterYou must be referring to dot-matrix printers. Yeah, I remember those. Sometime in 1990, while I was in college, I got my hands on a little prog called "Printex", that gave your documents printed on the dot-matrix "near laser" resolution. Of course, you could still tell it came from a dot-matrix printer, but it certainly didn't look like it came from the typewriter.

and its not that hard to create a word processor.. Really? Then what are you doing here? You should be marketing your own home-created word processor, putting the fear of God in Bill Gates. And count me in as a buyer when you come up with your home-created word processing software. Really.

Really? Then what are you doing here? You should be marketing your own home-created word processor, putting the fear of God in Bill Gates. And count me in as a buyer when you come up with your home-created word processing software. Really.
stop being an ignorant ass, read the word processing link, go look up how many open source word processors there are

stop being an ignorant ass, read the word processing link, go look up how many open source word processors there are
Fine, develop your own, then we'll see how "easy" it is.

Ok all you experts. *LOL*

No network (maybe Fox news is I don't know) However no network is claiming they are faked. They are saying they don't know including leading hand writing experts are all saying they don't know. The only way real experts as opposed to all this speculation say they can tell if they are fake or not is to see the originals, which CBS doesn't even have. So the bottom line, as it stands now, there is nothing saying they are or aren't fake, just pure speculation.

Also interestingly enough on Lou Dobbs tonight a reporter brought up some thing that might of went under the radar, the Bush camp is not denying the contents of the documents, just saying they believe the documents are fakes. I find that note worthy.

Ok all you experts. *LOL*

No network (maybe Fox news is I don't know) However no network is claiming they are faked. They are saying they don't know including leading hand writing experts are all saying they don't know. The only way real experts as opposed to all this speculation say they can tell if they are fake or not is to see the originals, which CBS doesn't even have. So the bottom line, as it stands now, there is nothing saying they are or aren't fake, just pure speculation.

Also interestingly enough on Lou Dobbs tonight a reporter brought up some thing that might of went under the radar, the Bush camp is not denying the contents of the documents, just saying they believe the documents are fakes. I find that note worthy.
You have managed to miss the point there. The documents say what they purport to say. Therefore, why deny the contents? What is at issue is whether those documents are:
a. truly from 1972,
b. truly written and signed by LtCol Killian (who, by the way, is dead, therefore unable to prove or disprove them; by the way, his family is on the record saying those documents can not be real, and you have to admit, the signature on those documents has nothing in common with LtCol Killian's signature.)
Simple as that...everything else is peripheral to the issue, though if and when the documents are proven to be fake, Dan Rather's credibility will be worth less than the paper those documents are printed on, and he will drag CBS News' reputation down with him.

Fine, develop your own, then we'll see how "easy" it is.

dude, there are TONS of very good, free and open source word processors. Moreover, virtually everyone I know just pirates that kind of software anyways (including buisness) which is, IMO, a very good thing indeed.

That aside, there's a ton of open source software available, and much if it is rapidly becoming extremely popular (i.e. various linux builds). Microsoft is so ubequitous because they've completed saturated the market, packaging their (inferior) software with as many PCs as they can get away with.

You have managed to miss the point there. The documents say what they purport to say. Therefore, why deny the contents? What is at issue is whether those documents are:
a. truly from 1972,
b. truly written and signed by LtCol Killian (who, by the way, is dead, therefore unable to prove or disprove them; by the way, his family is on the record saying those documents can not be real, and you have to admit, the signature on those documents has nothing in common with LtCol Killian's signature.)
Simple as that...everything else is peripheral to the issue, though if and when the documents are proven to be fake, Dan Rather's credibility will be worth less than the paper those documents are printed on, and he will drag CBS News' reputation down with him.
it says 1973...

and you accuse me of assumption, you just assumed they will be proven fake, i take it you are more knowledgable about the situation than the army of type and handwriting and other experts they have on the job?

dude, there are TONS of very good, free and open source word processors. Moreover, virtually everyone I know just pirates that kind of software anyways (including buisness) which is, IMO, a very good thing indeed.

That aside, there's a ton of open source software available, and much if it is rapidly becoming extremely popular (i.e. various linux builds). Microsoft is so ubequitous because they've completed saturated the market, packaging their (inferior) software with as many PCs as they can get away with.
Like I said, go ahead and develop your own, if it is so easy.

Like I said, go ahead and develop your own, if it is so easy.
Why would I need to develop my own when I already have an excellent free one?

it says 1973...

and you accuse me of assumption, you just assumed they will be proven fake, i take it you are more knowledgable about the situation than the army of type and handwriting and other experts they have on the job?
Wrong. I don't ASSUME they will be proven fake...I KNOW they will be proven fake. Sorry, too many things in those documents simply don't jive with the technology available in the 1972-1973 (does it really make a difference??) timeframe. And that presumes that a squadron commander in a Air National Guard in 1973 (which have typically lagged far behind their active duty counterparts, technology-wise,) would have had the equipment AND the inclination to produce such high-quality documents, for what essentially are memos for record, and that he would save such memos for record for 31 years, including 20 after his death. Sorry, Charlie...not likely.

This page alone (http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html) should be sufficient to prove those documents are fake. This one (http://www.selectric.org/selectric/index.html) also proves them to be fake.

Why would I need to develop my own when I already have an excellent free one?
You see, your buddy Chess Squares says he/she can easily develop one. Fine, I am calling the bluff. You just happened to catch it. Doesn't matter, the challenge is there.

You see, your buddy Chess Squares says he/she can easily develop one. Fine, I am calling the bluff. You just happened to catch it. Doesn't matter, the challenge is there.
Actually, word processors would be extremely easy to program (I remember programming a very basic one in high school using pascal of all things...). It's not a complex program.

If anyone is interested in an excellent opensource word processor, I'd reccomend AbiWord (http://www.abisource.com/). It's similar to word, but much less system intensive and generally much better, imo.

Actually, word processors would be extremely easy to program (I remember programming a very basic one in high school using pascal of all things...). It's not a complex program.

If anyone is interested in an excellent opensource word processor, I'd reccomend AbiWord (http://www.abisource.com/). It's similar to word, but much less system intensive and generally much better, imo.
Well, let's see if Chess is up to the challenge.

This is what I hate about debate, especially political debate, on the net. It seems that no matter what crazy view you have there is always some dubious site backing it up (but of course, said site is the *only* one that tells the REAL truth).
Perhaps it's just me and maybe this isn't really a new thing but does it seem as though alot of the views people have lately are the kinds where the person decided long ago what they wanted to believe then set about finding all the evidence to back it up. You know.. kind of like the Iraq war.

CBS is not the one that reported them as fake....MSNBC did.
Isn't it strange how very few people here, if ever, bother to report that Rather himself shares a ranch in Laos N.M. with one of the top five cabinet members? Ever wonder who? Some other democrat? ....?

One person who originally thought the documents to be faked has changed his tune. From the Boston Globe: (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backed_on_bush_documents?mode=PF)
Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the documents in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.

Analysts who have examined the documents focus on several facets of their typography, among them the use of a curved apostrophe, a raised, or superscript, ''th," and the proportional spacing between the characters -- spacing which varies with the width of the letters. In older typewriters, each letter was alloted the same space.

Those who doubt the documents say those typographical elements would not have been commonly available at the time of Bush's service. But such characters were common features on electric typewriters of that era, the Globe determined through interviews with specialists and examination of documents from the period. In fact, one such raised ''th," used to describe a Guard unit, the 187th, appears in a document in Bush's official record that the White House made public earlier this year.

snip

Bouffard, the Ohio document specialist, said that he had dismissed the Bush documents in an interview with The New York Times because the letters and formatting of the Bush memos did not match any of the 4,000 samples in his database. But Bouffard yesterday said that he had not considered one of the machines whose type is not logged in his database: the IBM Selectric Composer. Once he compared the Bush memos to Selectric Composer samples obtained from Interpol, the international police agency, Bouffard said his view shifted.

In the Times interview, Bouffard had also questioned whether the military would have used the Composer, a large machine. But Bouffard yesterday provided a document indicating that as early as April 1969 -- three years before the dates of the CBS memos -- the Air Force had completed service testing for the Composer, possibly in preparation for purchasing the typewriters.

As for the raised ''th" that appears in the Bush memos -- to refer, for example, to units such as the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron -- Bouffard said that custom characters on the Composer's metal typehead ball were available in the 1970s, and that the military could have ordered such custom balls from IBM.

''You can't just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer," Bouffard said.

snip

White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended the president's service record, but offered no view on whether the CBS documents are authentic.
Guess this story still isn't done.

Until the media rave about how Bush "exceeded expectations" in the debates. This assumes, of course, that Bush has the courage to participate in all of them.
He'll probably do exactly what he did for the 9/11 commission and have Cheney field most of the questions, there holding his hand!
And, of course, the admin aides will be articulating that only certain people are able to ask questions to the president, only certain kinds of questions, just like his wonderful rallies as well as the 9/11 investigation!

Isn't it strange how very few people here, if ever, bother to report that Rather himself shares a ranch in Laos N.M. with one of the top five cabinet members? Ever wonder who? Some other democrat? ....?It's Taos, and it's Don Rumsfeld. My brother-in-law lives near there, and it's a one of contention with the very liberal arts community in the area.

Actually..... Bush has never lost a debate. Ever....
Name any real debate he's engaged in since such an "indimidating presence" as Gore was on the other end of the mic.
Come on, there's gotta be one somewhere ....

Not that it's super relivant, but it was SUVs catching fire, not flipping over. They still do that.

What's being ignored is that CBS itself is now re-investigating it in the hope that if they are faked they can be the first to make the correction in order to protect thier integrity.

The fact that the Swifts and Unfit...existed for days before the media investigated and the CBS report existed for minutes before someone investigated being used as an example of liberal bias???? Huh? HUH???

The guy who got Bush in did in 1999 say it wasn't the Bush family that asked him but a Bush family friend.(which I believe he's telling the truth that no family member asked him) The rest of that excuse needs a lot of rationalization.

Yes, Kerry brought up his service. I have a ton of friends who are Eagle Scouts (don't know how that happened, since they're supposed to be rare, but moving on...) and when they apply for jobs they never fail to put it on their aps, cause it gets them the job. However, despite how many times the Bush camp says so, its not the only thing Kerry has brought up, but it certainly is the only thing they think they can run against, apparently. Or surrogates and hangers on at least seem to think that. Even without these allegations (and they don't look like they'll stick, which I called WOO HOO!) if people where really being comparative about bush and kerry in the seventies bush wouldn't stand a chance. Seems only the bushies really care what Kerry was doing in the seventies. I say this again, give it a whirl--bushies, you don't bring up Vietnam. See how long it takes for the other side to.

If CBS was as liberal as this thread hopes to paint them they wouldn't have wussed out on The Reagans and they would have accepted the MoveOn.org ad for the Superbowl. Instead they are a corperation. Which party gives the best handjobs to corperations?
Yeowch! You rock!

However no network is claiming they are faked. They are saying they don't know including leading hand writing experts are all saying they don't know. The only way real experts as opposed to all this speculation say they can tell if they are fake or not is to see the originals, which CBS doesn't even have. So the bottom line, as it stands now, there is nothing saying they are or aren't fake, just pure speculation.

True, but CBS seems to be refusing to acknowledge the possibility of them being faked. A couple hours ago I went to CBSNews.com, MSNBC.com, ABCNews.com, CNN.com, and FOXNews.com. All of them, except CBS, say that there are questions about the documents and that they may be fake. Actually, the lead stories from NBC, ABC, CNN, and FOX were almost identical in what they said. CBS largely is glossing over the allegations, and seems to be hoping that everyone will forget about it. It strikes me as a dangerous tactic to use.

Also, with the perponderance of evidence on the side of forgery (the site that has a nice concise list is currently down, mrr) I'd be highly surprized if they're legit. The superscript isn't the only problem with these Memos, after all. The site with the list is here (http://qando.net/archives/004070.htm), maybe it'll work when you try it.

I found that site from Ace of Spades (ace.mu.nu) (biased, I know), in case anyone's curious. They also had a link to an amusing picture:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/clippy.png

CBS is really owned by communists.
NewMcCarthyland. Links, substance, something? Aimed flaccid spineless rhetoric?

Hack, you might be interested in the article from today's Boston Globe that I posted on the last page. Seems that one of the experts from earlier in the week is changing his tune now.

WRONG!! The US Supreme Court STATED that the Florida Supreme Court was Re-writing Florida Election Laws. Thus, this invalidated the recount since there is a guideline in Florida regarding recounts and how they are supposed to be counted. The Florida Supreme Court rewrote them and the US Supreme Court told them that the 1st time, and sent it back. The Florida Supreme Court didn't listen thus They declared that Florida Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and declared the recount over.

Also, every liberal media I can think of went down there and recounted all the ballots and even they said that Bush won the State.

Granted, Gore won the popular vote but if you paid attention in Government Class, you would've known that the election is NOT decided by the Popular Vote but by a thing called the Electoral College. With Florida going Bush, it gave Bush the Election. So Yes Bush did win the Presidency.

As for the US Losing, we haven't lost anything.
Correction. A great many things of value you may not understand were lost, but i'll summate. I was impressed that you bothered to qualify what seemed to you to be a non-factual assessment, and i thought maybe you had a head of critical interpretation on your shoulders. Then came your bottom line, and you lost. Wonder what it was, or if you noticed. Maybe you should try again.

Hack, you might be interested in the article from today's Boston Globe that I posted on the last page. Seems that one of the experts from earlier in the week is changing his tune now.
Yeah, I noticed that. However, being possible, and actually having happened are two different things. Aparently, the memos break several rules of protocal and procedure for USAF documents.

Sigh. I really wish that site worked.

Yeah, I noticed that. However, being possible, and actually having happened are two different things. Aparently, the memos break several rules of protocal and procedure for USAF documents.

Sigh. I really wish that site worked.True, but all of the arguments I've heard against them thus far have been centered around the idea that it was impossible to make those documents like that during that period of time, so if that's not the case, then I'd think the benefit of the doubt has to swing to CBS's side. The only other arguments I've heard opposing them have been of the "He wouldn't do something like that" type, and honestly, that doesn't hold much water with me, because it's impossible to be objective in that kind of analysis.

Wow, for once we agree, and it's actually twice in one night.

The election won't hinge on documents that more than likely are fake. It more than likely won't hinge on whether or not someone was in Cambodia when he says he was, or whether his Purple Hearts are for shooting himself in the arse.

Nope, the election will likely hinge on the following question:

Any other question beyond that (welfare, economy, jobs, the price of gas in Sheboygan) is, and has to be subordinate to that one. Answer it according to what your heart tells you, and vote accordingly.
Who do you trust to keep America safe ... from the outside, or the inside?
Think about that a while. That should be even more on everyone's mind than a whole string of fabrications and excuses ultimately resulting in profanities and corruption of the great experiment.

It's Taos, and it's Don Rumsfeld. My brother-in-law lives near there, and it's a one of contention with the very liberal arts community in the area.
Thank you! On top of the job as always! I apologize for getting the town's leading consonant wrong.
You rock!

Thank you! On top of the job as always! I apologize for getting the town's leading consonant wrong.
You rock!
No problem--your quote helped me realize that I missed a consonant of my own. I meant that it's a bone of contention for local residents.

To be fair, apparently it's a time-share sort of situation. They both deny having any kind of personal relationship and haven't ever spent time at the lodge together from what I've heard.

NewMcCarthyland. Links, substance, something? Aimed flaccid spineless rhetoric?

how about sarcasm?

Wrong. I don't ASSUME they will be proven fake...I KNOW they will be proven fake. Sorry, too many things in those documents simply don't jive with the technology available in the 1972-1973 (does it really make a difference??) timeframe. And that presumes that a squadron commander in a Air National Guard in 1973 (which have typically lagged far behind their active duty counterparts, technology-wise,) would have had the equipment AND the inclination to produce such high-quality documents, for what essentially are memos for record, and that he would save such memos for record for 31 years, including 20 after his death. Sorry, Charlie...not likely.

This page alone (http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html) should be sufficient to prove those documents are fake. This one (http://www.selectric.org/selectric/index.html) also proves them to be fake.
and again

i take it you know more about the situation than the army of type and handwriting experts the right has employed to discredit this memo.

actually dont those prove anything fake. you assume it had to be produced on that typewriter, you assumed it was made on a type writer, you assume you know everything fucking thing

all of these makes you automatically wrong, especially since the actual experts have no been able to declare them false yet

Actually, word processors would be extremely easy to program (I remember programming a very basic one in high school using pascal of all things...). It's not a complex program.

If anyone is interested in an excellent opensource word processor, I'd reccomend AbiWord (http://www.abisource.com/). It's similar to word, but much less system intensive and generally much better, imo.
i could make one in C++, it wouldnt be pretty, but it would write things to a document, i am known to heavily abuse read and write to file options instead of built in arrays and tables for storing information

Correction. A great many things of value you may not understand were lost, but i'll summate. I was impressed that you bothered to qualify what seemed to you to be a non-factual assessment, and i thought maybe you had a head of critical interpretation on your shoulders. Then came your bottom line, and you lost. Wonder what it was, or if you noticed. Maybe you should try again.

WRONG AGAIN!!!

We actually talked about this in my Goverment Class when I mentioned this. Be advised that in a poll conducted, they think that Kerry will win, but that is btp.

I Brought this up to my class and said exactly what I said here. My Government Teacher said that I was correct. I also doubt that he is republican but to be honest, I don't know if he is or not.

Edit: Link to Gore vs. Bush

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html