The allegedly falsified documents pertaining to Bush.

Being a monday morning quarterback is easy and obvious. But when you are on the playing field, you dont see all the plays or playes. Likewise the perp here thought to create the illusion of authenticity by making the document look oldl, and was smart enough not to release the original as they correctly surmised that the paper would be dated. So they thought of it all. Except the type. But did you notice how fast they drug up the outrageously expensive typewriters of the time that COULD have typed it with proportional spacing and superscripts? That was just their attempt to cover their mistake, and it was transparent as well.

No, there are no black helicopters flying overhead. Just a common criminal caught by good forensics.

think that had these falsified documents actually been a conspiracy against Bush (rather than in support of him), they would have been done much better.

Sorry but you think wrong.  It is all over the news who is behind this and it is even linked to the DNC.  I think the lack of effort to make a better forgery was due to arrogance and reliance on the fact that so many people, including CBS apparently, want them to be legitimate.

linked to the DNC

According to whom?

Joe Lockhart, one of Kerry's advisors, talked to Mary Mapes at CBS about the documents before the TV piece aired.  Lockhart then spoke with Bill Burkett who supplied the documents.  Kerry's camp then somehow, supposedly without collusion, launched their "Priviledged son" campaign the next day.  In the mean time, Kerry supporters are trying to blame Karl Rove for planting the documents.  Dig, dig, dig as if the whole isn't deep enough already.

The whole thing is an obvious Hatchet job with an egotist named Rather as the preferred axe wielder.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that those are much more recent than 72 and danny boy must
have gotten the froth of his leftwing yap in his eyes to believe these fakes in the first place.
The moral for Dan is: Check, doublecheck and triple check. Then look at who wants these documents exposed.

Lockhart then spoke with Bill Burkett who supplied the documents.

Yeah, except this was a call arranged by Mapes at CBS. No clear evidence has yet been uncovered that the DNC or Kerry campaign were linked to Burkett. As for Mapes and CBS contacting the DNC, that actually makes sense as part of careful journalism. Go figure. And I could well see why Lokhart would want to talk to Burkett if he thought the memos were real. Mapes also contacted the White House.

The Karl Rove, black ops conspiracy seems a little too contrived for me. Too much risk of a backfire at a time when President Bush is doing more or less okay. I find that the most reasonable hypothesis (for now) is that this is all Burkett's doing as a frustrated zealot (who, yes, happens to be a Dem -- we got 'em too. But this guy is so not in any place of authority or power in the DNC). What seems to be lost in all the forensic arguments over authenticity is that nobody is denying most of the fact claims in the memo and a few folks (notably, the secretary) concede their accuracy. But so it goes. Baby with the bathwater, I guess.

Frankly, I am tired of the dueling war records on both sides. Kerry served admirably in Viet Nam. Bush did his time in the National Guard. Let's move on.

obfuscation

Hold on, let me get out my dictionary

And I could well see why Lokhart would want to talk to Burkett if he thought the memos were real. Mapes also contacted the White House.

The thing with this is, Lockhart originally denied any knowledge of the memos until seeing them on CBS but now admits talking to Mapes and Burkett prior to airing.

Also, the secretary in question has been miss represented.  According to the son of the supposed memo author, the secretary is not his father's personal secretary as being reported.  She was the general secretary and he said she simply wouldn't have the information she claims.

I agree that what both candidates did during Vietnam shouldn't be the issue.  It does matter to me though if someone who is willing to support false documents and run a smear campaign tries to replace the president.  I didn't care about Bush's National Guard duty in 2000 and care even less now.  I didn't care whether or not Kerry served in Vietnam heroically as claimed or not as claimed by others until he jumped on his box and proclaimed 'I am a war hero and the president is not'.  If Kerry would stand up and say, "we both served our country in the past, lets now talk about who will best serve our country for the future" I could give him some respect and he would have a much more open audience.

I can't necessarily see a connection to the Democratic National Committee.  This document guy may have had some Democrat leanings, and he may have known some committee members; but it is kind of a stretch to say that the DNC was involved in manufacturing documents.

When I asked above: "according to whom?" I was referring to how one would have heard that this general was associated with the DNC.  Where did you hear that?  (Novak, O'reilley, Rush, Matt Drudge, and the like don't count either.  They're not necessarily unbiased.)

In writing this article, I am merely presenting speculation.  I never presupposed that I was presenting any facts.  If people are going to present "facts" or even heresay in my "comments" section please use some sort of citation.  (Or at least imply a source.)

I don't think the DNC was involved in the manufacturing of these documents. There are plenty of lunatics on the left willing to do whatever it takes to unseat Bush.  The documents were crude forgeries but look at the typical denzien on say the Democratic Underground website, we're not talking the brightest bulbs there.  Left wing zealots tend to think they are smarter than everyone else while actually being amongst the most naive and ignorant. So I do think that some left wing nut made the documents NOT the DNC.

What does stink about this, however, is that CBS and the DNC effectively coordinated their attack.  CBS contacted the Kerry campaign and let them know about this guy and the result was the "Fortunate Son" campaign attack by Kerry's team. Lockhart initially denied knowing anythign about it until he could no longer deny it.

I read about it on CNN.com on Tues the 21st Jamie and after the whole CBS controversy, how do you determine what a good source is anyway?  I don't think that the DNC had anything to do with manufacturing the documents either but I do think it is significant if it is found out that they knew about them and coordinated operation "Fortunate Son" with the CBS piece.

I think that the person who created the fake documents was just too ignorant about how much typesetting has advanced in the last 30 years and just considered MS Word to be "typewriting on a computer." He clearly tried to obfuscate the age of the documents by dirtying them up, copying and then faxing them, and refusing to show the "originals." He was just completely unaware of the sheer obviousness of the vast difference between Word and a real typewriter. And he was further stupid in that not only did he not know it, he "didn't know that he didn't know it", so he never thought to ask someone who might help him create a more realistic document.

In short, this is a clear case of stupidity; no need for the tinfoil conspiracy theory.

In short, this is a clear case of stupidity; no need for the tinfoil conspiracy theory

I'll agree there!

If people are going to present "facts" or even heresay in my "comments" section please use some sort of citation. (Or at least imply a source.) (Novak, O'reilley, Rush, Matt Drudge, and the like don't count either. They're not necessarily unbiased.)

I missed these lines before.
Please provide me with ANY source that is actually unbiased. And by unbiased I do not mean "one that I agree with", even though that's what most people apparently take it to mean.

I also have to say that it seems rather unfair to present a wacky conspiracy theory based solely on your own idle speculation and then require anybody who disagrees with it to provide citations and quotes (from "unbiased sources", no less).

Bottomeline: President Bush does have roughly, a 6 month period of being, unaccounted for, as far as Military Record.
Can we agree on that?

It does matter what happened 30 years ago, because it defines a person's character. It's a lot easier to send someone else's kids to war, then it is your own.
It also makes a difference in the will to go to war.

As far as I know, Colin Powell is one of the, very few, Cabinet Members to have served in the Military. He made it all the way to the Top of the Heap,
Head of the Joints Chief of Staff.
Powell knows what war is. There are no heroes in war.
Colin Powell was the last one convinced, that war was necessary with Iraq, and that was because he received the same bogus information that everyone else did.

I believe the point that Jamie Burnside is trying to make is, this whole CBS ordeal takes President Bush off "the hotseat" and deflects the topic of discussion to CBS.
The best defense is a great offense.

My main question still is, "where are these darn Military Records?"

I will follow you into war, but I will not go to war instead of you.

believe the point that Jamie Burnside is trying to make is, this whole CBS ordeal takes President Bush off "the hotseat" and deflects the topic of discussion to CBS.

I think you're only seeing the first half of the point he's making; the second half is that, since being "off the hotseat" is so clearly beneficial to Bush's campaign, it must have been Bush campaigners that arranged the whole thing. And that is a conclusion that I believe is completely unsupportable.

My main question still is, "where are these darn Military Records?"

Bush released all his military records. Apparently either the file is incomplete, or people didn't file information for the time period in question because there was nothing of note going on during it.
Kerry has not released all of his military records. Many remain under seal that apparently have something to do with his time on active duty. Why not wonder what's in those documents, that are known to exist but are purposely being withheld from public scrutiny?

Another point to consider is that even if everything these accusation relate are true, Bush still wouldn't be in the "hot seat"...

I could post links to literally dozens of discussions where lefties around here related how none of this mud-slinging really matters, but do I really have to?

Everyone:

One of the things people don't understand is that all news organizations are in contact with both campaigns 24/7 and shared information is a commodity everyone deals with. The question is what you can and cannot prove. In the CBS case, they probably asked the RNC for their response to the charges, got none, and made the validity of the documents content something they could believe in.

CBS's mistake was that it didn't independently verify and thought they had a major "Scoop". CBS knows that 60% of the voters think Viet Nam era service is important and the Bush campaign has not helped to lessen it's impact. That is why some think CBS was "set up." But the real set up was that CBS wanted the story so bad that it didn't verify. This constitutes being incompetent but ultimately, Mr. Bush could answer the charges and settle the matter. He won't so the controversy will continue.

citahellion

Of course I don't believe that there was any collusion with the Rublican party in his article. That part is fiction. It might make a great novel someday, but not today.

Re: Military Records. I'm referring to the official Pentagon Records. I read a report on MSNBC, that they, (Pentagon) could not find any official record of where the President was during this period. The Alabama Guard is not actually sure either. IF he was not where he was assigned, they have no record of that either or why he was excused.
I'm sorry, I wish that I would have kept the article. It was published way before I joined the JoeUser community.
I do apologize for that.

Please, do not read into my reply that I am in favor of Mr. Kerry. I still believe the Dems chose the wrong guy.
Regarding parts of Kerry's military records being sealed? I'm not sure how much you know about the Vietman War.
We were in places that we were not supposed to be, depending on the dates on a calendar. Also, we were involved in some things, that we were not supposed to be doing.........according to public record.

So, a part of me can comprehend why parts of Mr. Kerry's military record might have been sealed.

Now I don't care if President Bush was sitting in front of his barracks, cleaning his toenails. There has to be a record of what his assignment was.

We are not idiots here. It was a blogger that first brought the attention to the media, that the 60 Minutes piece was, less then honest.
We do not need to be told how to think.

Insightful:

There are no heroes in war.

Bullshit.