Jump to content

The Washington Post and the FAKE CBS DOCUMENTS


Fin Fang Foom
This topic is 6648 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

The Washington Post (the paper so known for it's conservative leanings) has the following graphic today.

 

Is there anybody here (paging Rick Munroe) who still thinks the documents are real?

 

Or will you let your irrational, blind, obsessive hatred for George Bush make you continue to look like a fool by saying the documents are real?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.gif

 

The kerning is the nail in the coffin.

 

Stick a fork in Dan Rather, he's done.

 

Repeatedly yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is obvious that the document released by the Pentagon is fake.

 

For one thing, the signature of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian is a forgery. He signed his full name. Killian's son was interviewed by the Houston Chronicle last week:

 

>>Killian said the memos appear to be faked. In one of them, he said, his father's first name is used in the signature. "I don't recall him ever signing with his first name," the son said.<<

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2787324

 

 

The Pentagon document also fails a test pointed out by a website that told us what was wrong with the CBS documents:

 

>>The signature block also includes the word "Commander" when "Commanding" was the preferred reference.<<

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200409%5CPOL20040910b.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the kerning is the killer, how do you explain the apparent kerning between the P and r of "President of the Board" in the expanded section of the Pentagon document date stamed 10 November 1970 asnd on the same line as the alleged demonstration of kerning?

 

It is also quite clear that more than one person was involved in the production of the Pentagon documents an d that the styles are inconsistent. For one thing, in some the date is typed but in others it has been applied with a date stamp. We know the commander has a civilian secretary, what other staff were available to him?

 

The fact remains that a formal letter or notification would have been sent to Bush calling him to an annual medical, in just the same way as any other flight officer. Any officer's personal file would contain two medical documents annually. The first would be a copy of the letter notifying him of the date and time and the other would be the outcome of the medical. It is possible that the call-up would be destroyed after the officer attended but not if he failed to turn up. If the CBS memo is a fake, where is the real one from Bush's personal file with TANG? What date were abortive medicals arranged for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn! This would still be a story if it turned out that not only the CBS documents were false, but that their CONTENT was also false. However, whatever the origin of the CBS documents, the truth of their content has been affirmed by the contemporary players, including Killian's secretary. The truth has also been confirmed by other documents and testimonial evidence. That makes the provenance of the CBS documents a tempest in a teapot, deliberately heated to boiling by the Repigliscum to divert attention from Bush's sorry record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Presidents National Guard record was hashed and rehashed 4 years ago and is now of interest only to the yellow dog democrats. BUT that someone forged documents to bring down a President during a war and received the help of a major news channel is news. Even more importantly the best explaination for CBSs reluctance to admit their fraudulence and disclose their source, is that the forgeries came from the Kerry campaing. So, yes, it is news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Trying to bring down a President in the middle of a war? The Republicans, of course, went on hiatus during World War II, agreed with everything Roosevelt did, and patriotically declined to run candidates opposing him. Ooops! That was an alternate reality, wasn't it? The actual reality is that the Republicans tried every trick in the book to get rid of Roosevelt. Selective memory is such a fascinating phenomenon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Swift Boat Vets and their FAUX CLAIMS

 

John Kerry's Vietnam war record was hashed and rehashed 4 years ago and is now of interest only to the Reborglican Collective

. BUT that John O'Neill and the rest of the Swifties have done nothing but lie to bring down a Presidential Candidate during an ill conceived unneccesary war and received the help of a major news

channel is news. Even more importantly the best explanation

for Fox's reluctance to admit their fraudulence and disclose

their ultimate leadership, is that the marching orders came from Karl Rove. So, yes, it is news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember that the United States entered the Second World War late (again) after a de facto declaration of war by Japan in its attack on Pearl Harbor. Once that had taken place, Germany declared war as part of its treaty obligations with Japan. What Roosevelt did not do is plot to declare war on a country, get sidetracked to another by a criminal action and then lie to the Congress and people to justify moving on to the original target. Memoranda uncovered by the London Daily Telegraph show Blair was being warned that Bush had no post-war plan and of the likely chaos at least a year before it started. It was also clear that whatever Saddam had done to comply with the UN, the war would go ahead to avenge the humilliation that Bush senior had when forced to stop at the Iraqi border by the Saudis.

 

I also seem to not recall the Republicans standing down against Kennedy and Johnson during the Vietnam War. Neither did hostilities cease during that other self-declared "war" on a noun "drugs". All Bush does is demonstrate again the truth of the saying "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The kerning is the nail in the coffin.

 

The example in the article above (fi) shows a ligature, not

kerning. If whoever prepared the article doesn't know the

difference, they have no business talking about typography.

FFF, also not knowing much about typography, is evidently

unaware that the article used the wrong term and tells us

the "kerning" is "the nail in the coffin".

 

FFF had used the phrase "nail in the coffin" last week as

well (about proportional spacing; he didn't know what he

was talking about then, either).

 

Mr. Foom: try sticking to writing about stuff you know something about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...