 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Forgery Update: One Simple Question | Main | Funding Terror 3: Tennessee Officials Refuse Data Request » September 13, 2004Forgery Update: The Lie SpreadsDespite three days of news exposing the CBS memo forgery, today's Cincinnatti Post has an editorial that mentions the memos but not the fact that they were forged. You can email a letter to the editor by clicking here. USA Today had a good roundup yesterday of the various reasons to suspect that the memos are forged. Today's William Safire column also is a must-read on the forgeries and on what CBS and Dan Rather should do now. The Washington Post reported Dan Rather's response to questions about the documents' authenticity: "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill" and questioned the critics' "motivation."Please let me know if you see news articles or editorials in your local that fail to acknowledge that the memos are forged. P.S. I was wearing Dockers shorts and a golf shirt while blogging this. Comments
That Cincinnatti Post editorial is unconscionable. Today's St. Pete Times editorial is slightly better, but the SPTimes is still happy to bury the questions of the memo's authenticity and to repeat the charges from the forged memos. Here's what the St. Pete Times says about the controversy in the editorial: ...[O]ther news outlets have found document experts who question the authenticity of the memos found by CBS News, which had its own experts verify the material before airing it. This exhaustive analysis of the forgeries and their implications for CBS comes after the editorial has already presented the "sugarcoat" charge in paragraph three without any hint that it is from a forged document. Still, the Cincinnatti Post editorial makes the SPTimes look like the epitome of fairness. That takes some doing. Posted by: Ed Jordan at September 13, 2004 9:23 AMCincinatti Post article is no longer available. We're sorry, but the page you requested could not be found. The Cincinnati Post editorial was taken down a couple of hours ago. I guess they got avalanched by the pajama brigade! Posted by: Ron O at September 13, 2004 1:30 PMWell, there's this one in the US News and World Report: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm The article says it's quite clear that Bush was AWOL, regardless of any allegedly forged documents. I wonder why anyone would bother to forge documents supporting facts which are already well-documented. And of course, I'm still waiting to hear from you about any documentation to support your claim that Bush didn't need to show up for his physical. My guess is that no such documentation exists. Posted by: Chris in SF at September 13, 2004 2:50 PMThere's the editorial from Saturday's Louisville Courier-Journal, which includes this gem: At a purely visceral level, it may be satisfying to see President Bush confronted with new charges that powerful family and friends intervened to help him avoid Vietnam combat, that he did not fulfill his obligations to the Air National Guard, that he failed to meet performance standards and that he disobeyed direct orders to appear for a physical examination.Posted by: Fred at September 13, 2004 3:36 PM I'm wearing my GW in a cowboy outfit complete with a Stetson holding a branding iron with which he'd just finished branding a hog tied braying jacka$$...er donkey. http://thoseshirts.com if any are interested in seeing the graphic of it.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15039 Post a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
