Article

2004-09-11 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-11 8:33:48 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 But Rather cautioned that the memos become less clear as they are downloaded and photocopied.

I wonder if he thinks they get distorted each time someone downloads them.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-09-11 10:30:57 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-09-11 10:30:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 RC, of course because CBS has to 'rescan and replace' the original PDF file each time someone 'takes' it by downloading.

Just ask the RIAA...

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-09-11 11:24:08 AM|| 2004-09-11 11:24:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 MATLEY! If you talk, we are all in hot water!

Especially your friend Dan. . . .

Posted by CBS News 2004-09-11 4:03:25 PM|| 2004-09-11 4:03:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 It's out of Rather's hands now, the CBS corporate mouthpieces have it, and Dan is following their instructions. Vigorously defend your unwinnable position re the forgeries, so that we can say we were innocent dupes.

The lawyers aren't concerned with Dan, he's gone already. They're trying to disconnect CBS from the disaster.

Posted by mojo 2004-09-11 4:26:34 PM|| 2004-09-11 4:26:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Two Matley items from the National Review's Kerry Spot:

Now we also hear that in an interview with The Los Angeles Times, Marcel B. Matley, CBS' document examiner "said he had only judged a May 4, 1972, memo â in which Killian ordered Bush to take his physical â to be authentic. He said he did not form a judgment on the three other disputed memos because they only included Killian's initials and he did not have validated samples of the officer's initials to use for comparison."

The only expert cited by CBS in this case,Marcel Matley, wrote in the September 27, 2002 issue of the journal, "The Practical Litigator":
In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity is possible.
Emphasis added.

Posted by GK 2004-09-11 7:27:11 PM|| 2004-09-11 7:27:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 If Rather is "gone" when will CBS announce it?

They got to 86 that sleazy woman producer in Texas as well.

Posted by BigEd 2004-09-11 7:37:07 PM|| 2004-09-11 7:37:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 the same Abu Grahib propaganda expert

Posted by Frank G 2004-09-11 7:42:36 PM|| 2004-09-11 7:42:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Let me throw one other little nugget onto the pile...has anyone noticed that this happened after some top Clintonistas (I'm specifically thinking ~~E.T.~~ ~~Gollum~~ Carville and Begala) joined Lurch's campaign? Neal Boortz discussed the Hillary scenario on his site a while back, laying out why he thinks Slick and the Hildebeest want SKerry to lose: if Lurch wins and gets reelected in '08, ~~Breck Girl~~ Edwards becomes the far-and-away frontrunner for the Donk nomination in '12. Does ANYONE think that ol' Piano Legs wants to wait until 2016??

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2004-09-11 7:59:43 PM|| 2004-09-11 7:59:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 "Does ANYONE think that ol' Piano Legs wants to wait until 2016?"

Nope. And the outlook for Hillary isn't any better if Kerry turns out to be a one-termer, either: Kerry would very likely turn out to be such a disaster as President-- Jimmeh Carter redux-- that it would be a long, LONG time before another Donk makes it to the White House.

If the Clintons still have any pull in the party, I can't see them allowing Kerry to win.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-09-11 8:18:23 PM|| 2004-09-11 8:18:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 One point arguably supporting the Clinton scenario is that CBS/Kerry (what's the difference?) didn't really vet the documents, to put it mildly. As biased as CBS is, it's hard to believe they would not have vetted documents handed to them by some guy off the street. On the other hand, if the documents came from a trusted source...

Posted by Matt 2004-09-11 8:49:05 PM|| 2004-09-11 8:49:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 "On the other hand, if the documents came from a trusted source...

Just one more crouton to toss on the salad - let's don't forget that Terry "the documents are real, and if they aren't, it's a Karl Rove plot" McAuliffe was installed as DNC head by the Clintons. As the wise man said, "never mind the wizard...watch the man behind the curtain!"

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2004-09-11 10:18:05 PM|| 2004-09-11 10:18:05 PM|| Front Page Top

21:52 UFO
21:15 UFO
21:15 UFO
20:35 UFO
20:06 UFO
20:57 UFO
20:57 UFO
15:49 UFO
10:23 Boris the Wonder Troll
12:44 UFO
12:57 UFO
12:57 UFO
11:45 UFO
11:27 UFO
11:00 UFO
16:52 Steve85308
23:46 formerwaiter
12:37 badanov
12:36 Frank G
12:31 Mrs. Davis
08:39 Gentle
08:37 Mrs. Davis
08:33 Gentle
04:17 B