This is all going to come out now, surely. The story is just too big and every reporter wants a piece of it. The documents have experts on both sides ready to testify and you know that more investigations are going to be done. They could have been faked by someone trying to smear Bush. Of course, the White House never challenged them and even cited them as Bush service records. Somebody could have faked them to smear Dan Rather. Heaven knows, he has enemies. On the other hand, it is interesting that the secretary says she didn't type the documents, but that the content was essentially similar to documents that she did type. It is also interesting that the document critics maintain that the document couldn't have been made at that time with the equipment available. It seems obvious that an examination of the many thousands of other documents produced on the base at the time may answer both questions. This will surely happen. In the era before xerox copiers were common office equipment, documents were replicated on typewriters with carbon paper at the time of creation. Later copies required retyping. This could have been a retyped document. If so, there would be much evidence of such retyped documents among the records. Likewise, if the high-tech, upper-case "th" were to be found (or not found) in other authenticated documents from the unit, this question would also be answered. I think there will be more coming out about this story. Someone may be waiting to ambush somebody else with "smoking gun" documents. If there are counterfeits in the record, it's going to come out.
The content is what's important... The Killian memos are not the be-all and end-all of Bush's service records. The other records prove he was a deserter who didn't honor his service commitments, and that he made campaign statements in 2000 that were out-and-out lies.
from another thread: your confidence is not shared by by cbs news president andrew heyward: "enough questions have been raised that we are going to redouble our efforts to answer those questions" why would cbs concede they have questions to answer if they have already been "confirmed" as "genuine"? eh rex?
and more news today, the source of the documents: ""admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source." and dan rather says: "after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents.......We made a mistake in judgment" so rex, it sucks that you are so partisan that you are willing to believe lies, and further them. i guess that is what happens when truth is put aside in favor of liberalism. and all the liberal protesters will continue to call fox news the partisan liars.
exactly. rather is saying that the underlying questions remain, that the crux of the story was not these documents, but questions about bush's service. i dont think so, mr rather. without these documents, there is no story. these documents are fake, so your credibility is now the question. cbs should definitely fire dan rather. this guy isnt just some idiot correspondent who made a mistake. he IS cbs news. you cant have the figurehead for your whole network be a man who is willing to push a story that isnt true, and then defend it in the face of legit criticism, only to finally be forced to apologize. the fact is you just cant trust dan rather.
They probably won't overtly fire him, but you can expect Rather to announce an impending retirement soon. There are enough people at CBS that want him gone that I almost suspect them of planting easily-discovered forgeries on the old duffer. :hihi:
Check out Drudge. Dan and CBS head Andrew Heyward are doing some serious backpedaling right now. CBS owes President Bush an apology. It'll never happen though. Rather would never be able to get an apology out of his piehole w/ out choking on it.
I think he's due to retire some time next year anyway. I'll say this...as liberal as he may have been, Cronkite would have never run with this story (non-story?) if there was some doubt as to it's credibility. He was a professional journalist.
