Has anyone actually heard CBS say the memos were fake or forged?

[Bandit]

I heard Dan rather say he/they could not verify the authenticity of the memos but I never heard him say they are Fake or Forged. I have heard numerous people say since then that "Now the memos have been declared fake". Have they? I guess at this stage it doesn't matter. The word is out that they are fake and that is all anyone is ever going to believe but is it the truth?

[wolfgang]

1. CBS has NOT said they were forged. (My 1st Post, take it easy on me)

I have been listening carefully and I've never heard CBS say they were fake or forged. Why is this? I must admit that its obvious to me that they are. Is it for legal reasons?

[Stephanie]

3. On what basis do you say it is obvious?

Do you have any evidence?

CBS has not said they were fake or forged, only that they can't verify the chain of custody.

[wolfgang]

10. If Karl Rove is involved, which I suspect

then they HAVE TO BE fakes. Or don't they?
Technical Question: Will I get a little notice or something at the top of the whole forum page if I have replies?

[Bandit]

13. You know what they say when you ass u me something

:shrug:

[Catherine Vincent]

16. Will I get a little notice or something at the top of the whole forum page

"Will I get a little notice or something at the top of the whole forum page if I have replies?"

No. They only do that at freerepublic.




BUSTED!

[wolfgang]

17. I go to a music board where they do it too (m)

We need to stop eating our own or we'll never beat *. Thanks for the nice welcome.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[The Stranger]

23. I think she likes you.

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. If it's obvious then why not show the proof? Sorry I don't buy that line.

Welcome to DU though! :hi:

[Rick Myers]

2. CBS cannot VERIFY the authenticity

That is ALL. Story over. Dan Rather is NOT running for President.

[forgethell]

9. Don't you just wish

that it were so. The Republicans are not going to run their campaign based on how we think they should run it. Why should they? I discount the advice they give us, too.

Here, though, is why the story is not over for them. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes are still employed. There has been no apology for breaking the story. They won't admit the story is wrong. And CBS is still shilling for the Democratic Party.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with these statements. But they are the way Republicans feel, and that's why the story won't go away.

[peekaloo]

5. also overlooked is Killian's secretary who stated the CONTENT

of the memos is accurate.

[LisaLynne]

8. Right ...

Killian's secretary said, didn't she, that her opinion was that someone had tried to recreate them based on having seen the original memos. So, to me, that was huge. She was saying that there were indeed, at some point, memos like that with similar content.

[forgethell]

26. But it's not PROOF,

which is what is needed here. She could be right, but equally, her memory could be failing, or she could just be lying. Without proof, who can honestly say?

[On the Road]

6. I Don't Believe CBS Has Said They Were Fakes

and I'm glad. Personally, I'm not sure. I would like to have seen them make a stronger case against the forgery claims, but when there's egg on your face it looks bad to try to justify yourself.

The thing that really kills me about this is that the claims of forgery were aired with absolutely NO verification that I can see. CBS at least used the word of a presumtively reliable source and checked with the White House.

As far as I can tell, NONE of the forgery arguments are accurate at all -- proportional spacing, superscripts, the identification of teh typeface, the date Times New Roman originated, the claim that a computer was used, etc. And none of the refutations have been aired that I've heard. In the context of criticizing another story for poor fact checking, it seems the height of hypocrisy.

[forgethell]

7. Does it matter?

If he couldn't have authenticated them, they should not have been used in the first place. Even if, as he states, the 'underlying truth' is so, again, so what? There has been nothing startling or new about the story. In fact, in my opinion, and I am open to correction here, the documents were supposed to supply corroborating evidence to people's stories. It was previously a case of, "he said, she said".

This issue has been brought up before in *'s campaigns, and has failed to do him any harm. So why was it tried again? The definition of stupidity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I thought we Dems were the 'smart'party, but you couldn't prove it by this and some of the things our supporters have done.

The American people rejected this accusation against * in the last election. I'm betting that everything that is out there against * personally has already been brought up and rejected by the voters. Issues, not personality, is where we need to fight. If we can't defeat * on the issues, we have no hope, and might as well move to Canada.

[Bandit]

11. Democrats are smart enough to chew gum and walk at the same time

Why can't we do both. Kerry is keeping to the issues you find so compelling and other Democrats or Independents are looking into Bush*'s Character by checking and questioning his history. I don't believe it was done very much in 2000. How many people do you think know about Bush*'s role in Harkin Oil or Arbusto? It is all about his Character and history is important in determining that. You talk current issues and I'll talk Character and see if the Party crumbles from doing two things at the same time.

[forgethell]

14. Are they?

then why is this story eating up so much air time? Time that could be used on the issues? Democrats may be smart, but they are all going to vote for Kerry, anyway. They are not enough. We need the independents, some converted Republicans.

Or is Karl Rove really all that much smarter than everybody else? I just don't think so, myself. And I am applying Ockham's razor to this situation. when there are 2 or more explanations that cover the known facts, the simpler one is the one more likely to be correct.

[wolfgang]

18. And which is the simplest to you? (m)

because to me, it's Karl Rove or a karlrovewannabee

[forgethell]

19. That adds an extra layer

either way CBS screwed up. So CBS screwed up is the simplest. I'm not saying that you are not right; I'm just saying you haven't documented the case, and it isn't the simplest. Besides, I refuse to believe that Karl Rove is Master of the Universe against us Democrats.

But here's the thing. We can never, ever again use this against *. If some new, true evidence came up, nobody is going to believe it without extensive corroboration. We don't have that much time before the election. And, as long as the story is CBS, not the TANG, not the issues, then it is THE story.

Still, I hope that you are right, and I am wrong.

[Julien Sorel]

12. They will never say that unless it's proved beyond all doubt.

It's legally smart to leave things as ambiguous as possible, and so they are doing.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

15. In the end, does it really matter?

When it comes down to it, who gives a rat's behind if these documents were forged or not. What matters is their content and the fact that Killian's secretary remembers similar content.

I'm so tired of this crap. The issue should not be the veracity of the documents, but their content. And even then, this should not take away from the really important issues: the economy, foreign relations, domestic policies.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. Yes, it does. From both vantages.

If they're authentic, it's a great coup to show how vehemently the reactionaries like Scarborough and Buchanan call them "forgeries", when there's no proof of that. To date, there's no forensic evidence--to my knowledge--that they're fake. The typesetting issues do not prove they couldn't have been made at the time, and the information in them doesn't do it either.

If it can be shown that the administration KNEW they were authentic and let this obfuscation happen, they're guilty as sin in a way that even a fool can see. The media bias is palpable.

If the closest-to-the original can be shown through chain of possession to trace to a photocopier that was on site where they would have been, it's very close to proof. THAT can be analyzed.

If they're fake, how the involved parties react is very important.

No, this is not as important as those other issues, but IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that it's treated sincerely, and it's important that the bias of the right is shown. When Buchanan and Scarborough chant over and over that they're obvious forgeries, it becomes "truth", whether it is or not. That casts a pall on us all.

Yes, it's embarrassing, but it should be crystal clear that they may very well be authentic, and anyone who says otherwise is deliberately misleading.

[forgethell]

25. Unless the documents are authentic

their content is crap and should be ignored. without authentication, these memories can be successfully impeached. A question of, "he said, she said'. I mean Republicans have been known to lie, but that is not proof that Democrats don't, too, occassionally.

As I have said elsewhere, the forgeries, if that's not what they are, they are at least perceived that way, have spoiled the whole TANG thing. We can only lose by pursuing this issue when we have real issues. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq

[Nicholas_J]

21. NO...

CBS has not stated that they were faked. They stated that they have not way of verifying whether they are real.