Do we have the original documents yet?

[ssimmons]

Without them the signatures and typewriter impact can not be verified. We need the originals to prove once and for all that the documents are real.

[enki23]

1. uh huh. sure "we" do

we have more than enough evidence that bush shirked his duties. these documents are only a small part of this issue. "we" don't "need" anything at all, except the truth from our shitbag commander in chief.

.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[enki23]

10. bullshit

"we" don't need any such thing. "we" did not forge any fucking documents, in any case. some, however, are desperately trying to make sure "we" are somehow causally tied to them if they turn out to be so, or--more likely--if those same parties can muddy the waters enough to provide credible deniability. you are one of those, it seems.

[Lefta Dissenter]

14. .

"A forgery charge is bad news period"

Yeah? Well so is a treason charge.

[Spazito]

2. Who, exactly, is we?

*

[Mr_Spock]

4. me, for one.

n/m

[goodhue]

3. the domcuments are real

they have them

[ssimmons]

Who are "they"?

The originals need to be verified by independent news sources to shut up this forgery charge once and for all.

[goodhue]

who are "we"?

[Scorpious_Maximus]

29. Does CBS Qualify as an "Independent News Source"?

I fail to understand why "we" need original documents.

[ssimmons]

34. Yes, if they have the originals they need to show them

Without them they can't be proven to be real.

[Scorpious_Maximus]

38. Huh?

You post;


Without them they can't be proven to be real.


Really? Is that a fact?


Um, 'scuse me, but the issue IS NOT whether or not CBS has the original documents, or if they are "real".

They are real, and the issue is the content.

Curious why you're so hung up on, "If they are real".

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scorpious_Maximus]

45. ROFLMFAO!

Yeah okay... whatever....

[shrub chipper]

49. Isn't it about this time every night

when they start to appear.

Must be an 11 o'clock shift on the East Coast.
:puke:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

51. Their porn site memberships must have expired

but it seems to be after 11 every nite, you're right.

[shrub chipper]

53. Unless it's another Bush outsource to India! LOL

What time is it there?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

6. The documents have been proven to be authentic

Welcome to DU, I think....

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shraby]

16. Original documents that are archived

cannot be removed from the archives.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

17. Please do your research before you post inanities

and Newsmax and Drudge are not acceptable sources.

Enjoy your brief stay.

[ssimmons]

21. Please don't make false accusations about me

Why do you not want to prove the documents are real? Only the originals can prove they are real. Copies are not valid documents. See your home deed and other legally binding documents for proof of that.

There must be a lawyer type here that will verify that a copy is not proof of validity.

[The Magistrate]

24. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Mr. Simmons

How do you think the various signatures were acquired for this colossal "cut and paste" you propose is at the bottom of this?

To do that would require access to many different documents signed by the officer in question, after all....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[ssimmons]

39. I didn't propose anything

I asked if the originals were available for proving they are real. A copy can be made to look like anything the copier wants it to look like.

[The Magistrate]

50. Not True, Sir

You stated that signatures could be pasted into the document.

My query is simply this: how do propose that might have been accomplished? If you think a thing was or could have been done, then you ought to have some idea concerning the mechanism by which it could be accomplished.

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[TruthIsAll]

43. You keep repeating the same crap over and over again.

Just like a Repuke media whore spewing Rove talking points.

Get lost.

And if your name is Sue, we know who you are.

[ssimmons]

42. "Brief stay" for asking an honest and important question?

What rule am I breaking?

[salvorhardin]

7. I'm curious about something...

Do y'all get paid for this? If so, how does that work? Is it per word? per post? per number of views? per number of replies? salaried or hourly? Do you have a union?

If not, doesn't it piss you off that people like Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter make all the big bucks while you do all the grunt work?

Just wondering... you know, in case I ever decide to change careers.

[Spazito]

9. ROFL!

perfect!

[Lefta Dissenter]

11. OK,

THAT was FUNNY!!! :D

[ssimmons]

18. What are you talking about?

I hope you understand that copies of documents can be made to contain any signatures and other data that the copier wants. Try cashing a copy of a paycheck sometime. We can't cash in copies of the damning documents. We NEED the originals. I'm on Kerry's side here and trying to end this charge of forgery.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

19. LMAO. Obviously, spelling is not a prerequisite

to work for the RNC.

[Lefta Dissenter]

8. puleeeeeze,

:eyes:

[shrub chipper]

12. Excuse me, but

how was he (w/21 posts) able to start a new thread?

[salib]

15. COOL!

Waste of our time. And we know it! Now, lets get down to real business. VOLUNTEER at your local Democratic headquarters. Let's kick these crap-asses back to whence they came!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

20. I'm assuming the 'need the originals' is the latest RNC meme

:shrug:

[ssimmons]

22. I have no idea what the RNC meme is but do you not understand

that without a originals they are assumed to be a forgery no matter what the content is?

[The Magistrate]

28. That, Sir, Is Far From True

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[ssimmons]

47. What is not true?

A copy is not proof of anything unless there is an original that was typed and signed to go with it. Why is that so hard to understand. Ask any lawyer.

[Individualist]

23. The (expletive deleted)

who started this thread has also been in LBN tonight defending the bombing of innocent Iraqis. :puke:

[ssimmons]

27. People supporting terrorists are not innocents

See: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040912_1418.html

At least 37 people were killed in Baghdad alone. Many of them died when a U.S. helicopter fired on a disabled U.S. Bradley fighting vehicle as Iraqis swarmed around it, cheering, throwing stones and waving the black and yellow sunburst banner of Iraq's most-feared terror organization.

[The Magistrate]

46. An Odd Report, Mr. Simmons

What is the name of the organization this ensign is the banner of?

You miss two large points, Sir, in the situation in Iraq today.

The first is that the word terrorist is an utterly useless coinage, that really means nothing but violence of which the user of that word does not approve, and against which the user hopes to rally support by use of that terminology. Those persons commonly called terrorists are simply private individuals who arrogate to themselves one of the traditional prerogatives of the state, namely the use of violence for political purposes. Some of such individuals certainly commit crimes of war, just as the forces of some states commit crimes of war.

The second is that people in Iraq have every right, as patriots and nationalists according to their own lights, to resist the occupation of their country by the United States, and the rule of their country by a puppet government erected by the United States. To say this is to say nothing indicating either support for or disfavor towards their efforts; it is simply to recognize a fact of the situation, as it appears to a different perspective. The great degree of support those Iraqis who fight U.S. and allied forces in Iraq clearly enjoy among the people of Iraq is rooted in those people's feeling that these fighters represent them in opposing a conqueror.

"Whether a weapon is described as defensive or offensive tends to depend on which end is pointed to the speaker."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Kathy in Cambridge]

31. The freepers are a bloodthirsty lot

it doesn't surprise me...

[Individualist]

36. Only bloodthirsty

assholes would support the little dictator in the White House.

[ruggerson]

25. we, as in freeper we?

[ssimmons]

30. Is every new member a "freeper" to you?

It's a valid question I posed and you know it. Lay off the false charges. I asked a valid question.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

33. Bush was still AWOL

and that really bothers you, doesn't it? There is PLENTY of corroborating evidence to support it.

Now, shoo! I'm sure your freeper pals miss you!

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

54. Only those

that mouth freeper talking points. Like you have been in this entire thread.

Read this slowly:

The BURDEN OF PROOF is on the people screaming "FORGERY!"

Where's the proof? Do you have it?

[kentuck]

26. "We" don't even have the copies...

we have to get them off the Internet or listen to CBS?? Where did you get the idea that we had any documents??

[ssimmons]

32. You know what I meant by "we"

We as in the people that want the truth.

[Scorpious_Maximus]

35. Careful, words have meaning

[shrub chipper]

37. If "we the people"

want the truth, then let's concentrate on getting a new President.

That would be a greater step in the direction of TRUTH.

[Dr Fate]

40. All we need is for Bush to have a press conference & denounce them...

"We" dont need shit- Bush was AWOL & everyone knows about it.

He can choose to explain himself, or continue to hide his sorry ass record.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

41. Any allegations of forgery

the burden of proof falls on those doing the accusing.

Got proof they are forgeries? Then cough it up, buddy. WE don't need anything.

You do.

[Cogito ergo doleo]

48. It doesn't matter - see US News & World Report

"A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

[John_H]

52. Yes. Your 1st.cousin has them crammed in the space where her eye tooth was

so the next time you force her to blow you, look in there.

[Longhorn]

55. Okay. It's over. He's history!

Plenty of good huntin' left, I'm sure!

[Moderator]

56. locking...

flame bait from a disruptor

[ItsMyParty]

57. I think the poster is merely trying to point out that if there were

originals available it would be nice to see the creeps stew when they were able to run the 'tests' and see they were valid---i.e., typewriter strike marks, age of paper, etc. I believe CBS has already said that they were only given copies of the documents. It would be up to whomever sent them to come forward. And, perhaps, as someone wrote above, it is because they legally couldn't remove the originals or it would be theft from the government---remember the flap with Sandy Berger!!? Perhaps--I'm specualating here--the originals of such documents could be demanded from the government under freedom of info act??? (Would any of the man's private files be part of such gov docs??).