Author Topic: '60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake  (Read 4509 times)

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #45 on: September 09, 2004, 11:35:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rpm371
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html
IBM announces the Electromatic Model 04 electric typewriter, featuring the revolutionary concept of proportional spacing. By assigning varied rather than uniform spacing to different sized characters, the Type 4 recreated the appearance of a printed page, an effect that was further enhanced by a typewriter ribbon innovation that produced clearer, sharper words on the page. The proportional spacing feature became a staple of the IBM Executive series typewriters.



rpm371,
You know you might just get better results by sticking to the original message about debunking the story rather than a sensitive image not pertaining to the type story. Those you wish to change their minds will see nothing in your posts if you resort to such images and statements.
If those statements and images are important enought to you, start a new thread with them.
Otherwise, you're just wasting bandwidth (IMHO).
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline Otto

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1566
      • http://www.cris.com/~ziggy2/
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #46 on: September 09, 2004, 11:40:58 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Rather might correct the record but he'll never undo the damage done to his and CBS' reputation. Wonder how many times the NYT will carry this on their front page?


It will be on the frontpage for three days (including the weekend) and the retraction will be on page nine of the Tuesday edition.

Offline Montezuma

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #47 on: September 10, 2004, 12:08:07 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Rather might correct the record but he'll never undo the damage done to his and CBS' reputation. Wonder how many times the NYT will carry this on their front page?


*If* it is fake, at least once to announce it.  And then two or three more times at least after heads roll at CBS and either candidate speaks to it directly.

I trust the NY or LA Times about a thousand times more than CNS news, whatever the hell that is.

Offline Montezuma

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #48 on: September 10, 2004, 12:16:04 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Rather might correct the record but he'll never undo the damage done to his and CBS' reputation. Wonder how many times the NYT will carry this on their front page?


Just checked.  They ran it today on the front, below the fold.

Also saw this..

NEW YORK TIMES
The Times Refuses Reprint in Moore Book
By EDWARD WYATT

Published: September 10, 2004


he publisher of a coming book by the filmmaker Michael Moore said yesterday that The New York Times had denied permission for Mr. Moore to include in his book a May article in which The Times reviewed shortcomings in its own reporting about the events leading up to the war in Iraq.

 Advertisement
 
 
Publishing industry executives say that such denials are rare, and executives at Simon & Schuster, the publisher, said The Times was the only one of several publications it had approached to deny permission to reprint articles, photographs, cartoons or editorials in the book.

In a statement, Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The Times, said: "We strongly value The Times's neutrality in its election coverage and we are determined not to associate ourselves with any work in film or print that attacks either candidate. Our note, 'The Times and Iraq,' was not intended to become part of a political battle."

Ms. Mathis said the decision to deny permission to reprint the article was made by Bill Keller, the executive editor of the newspaper, in conjunction with Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher.

The book, "The Official 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Reader," is scheduled to be published next month, timed to the release of the DVD version of "Fahrenheit 9/11." The film has generated widespread controversy for its antiwar tenor, and critics of Mr. Moore have raised questions about some of the film's assertions.

The book is to contain a transcript of the screenplay, source materials for assertions made in the film and critical response to the documentary, including reprints of articles, reviews and editorials.

David Rosenthal, the publisher of the Simon & Schuster imprint and an executive vice president at Simon & Schuster Inc., said that The Times refused to allow Mr. Moore to reprint the 1,220-word article, published May 26. The article, which carried the headline, "From the Editors: The Times and Iraq," said that in the prelude to the war some of the paper's coverage, especially about the issue of Iraq's weapons, "was not as rigorous as it should have been."

"In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged," the article stated.

The article stirred considerable discussion among journalists and politicians over whether news organizations had been skeptical enough about the Bush administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Mr. Moore, in an interview, said the book did not attack either presidential candidate. The purpose of reprinting the Times article, he said, "was essentially to applaud The Times for having the courage to admit their mistakes; it had nothing to do with Bush or Kerry.''

The Times "never asked to see the rest of the book or asked what is in the book,'' Mr. Moore said. "They made the determination of what is in the book without having read it. I think that's pretty lame.''

Mr. Rosenthal said Simon & Schuster received permission to publish about two dozen items from several publications, including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. He said the book would include two largely blank pages where the article from The Times was to appear.

Special Offer: Home Delivery of The Times

Offline rpm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15661
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #49 on: September 10, 2004, 01:10:19 AM »
Quote
CBS News released a statement yesterday standing by its reporting, saying that each of the documents "was thoroughly vetted by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity." The statement added that CBS reporters had verified the documents by talking to unidentified individuals who saw them "at the time they were written."

CBS spokeswoman Kelli Edwards declined to respond to questions raised by experts who examined copies of the papers at the request of The Washington Post, or to provide the names of the experts CBS consulted. Experts interviewed by The Post pointed to a series of telltale signs suggesting that the documents were generated by a computer or word processor rather than the typewriters in widespread use by Bush's National Guard unit.

A senior CBS official, who asked not to be named because CBS managers did not want to go beyond their official statement, named one of the network's sources as retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, the immediate superior of the documents' alleged author, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. He said that a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone, and that Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."

'Trump card'
"These documents represent what Killian not only was putting in memoranda, but was telling other people," the CBS News official said. "Journalistically, we've gone several extra miles."

The official said the network regarded Hodges's comments as "the trump card" on the question of authenticity, as he is a Republican who acknowledged that he did not want to hurt Bush.

MSNBC
Ted Koppel said on tonight's Nightline that if the story had been dropped in his lap instead of Rather's he would have run it. He also raised the question: If the memos are fake, were they planted by Republicans as sabotage? It was an interesting show on the art of dirty politics.
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Stay thirsty my friends.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #50 on: September 10, 2004, 01:37:32 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by rpm371
He (Kopple) also raised the question: If the memos are fake, were they planted by Republicans as sabotage? It was an interesting show on the art of dirty politics.


Perhaps they were planted by the Kerry campaign to look like the Republicans planted them to use against the Kerry campaign, so that Kerry could claim that the Republicans are up to their old dirty tricks, but in they were in fact planted by the Republicans to look like they were planted by the Kerry campaign to look like the Republicans planted them to use against the Kerry campaign, so that the Republicans could claim that the Demos are up to their old dirty tricks.

I think that this is the most plausible explanation.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Silat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #51 on: September 10, 2004, 03:10:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
when Bush allready gave his papers .


Apparently not Grun. As the papers this week are new and found because of Lawsuits and the freedom of information act. So I guess they werent previously all released.
Kerry has released all "pertinant" papers. The only things not released are personal med records. What do you hope to find?


One canidate served in combat and one didnt. End of story. Who cares?

             
I just want to know what they are going to do for me and my country now. And I will remind you that 9/11 happened on GWB's watch.
+Silat
"The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them." — Maya Angelou
"Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future." B. Disraeli
"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason."

Offline jetb123

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1807
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #52 on: September 10, 2004, 03:26:38 AM »
Silat whats your e-mail?

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #53 on: September 10, 2004, 03:38:07 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Silat
And I will remind you that 9/11 happened on GWB's watch.


Silat,
I didn't want this to be deleted as we're going off topic. I'm opening up a new thread to respond.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline anonymous

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #54 on: September 10, 2004, 07:15:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Silat
Apparently not Grun. As the papers this week are new and found because of Lawsuits and the freedom of information act. So I guess they werent previously all released.
Kerry has released all "pertinant" papers. The only things not released are personal med records. What do you hope to find?


One canidate served in combat and one didnt. End of story. Who cares?

             
I just want to know what they are going to do for me and my country now. And I will remind you that 9/11 happened on GWB's watch.


thanks for reminding us of something that has no bearing on the problems and issues at hand. youve been a great service to your own ego.

Offline 1K0N

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #55 on: September 10, 2004, 07:22:45 AM »
The document was created from technology that was only available to typesetters in 1972..  If you had ever used a IBM selectric 1 and 2 you would understand... Changing balls in mid memo would be stupid for 2 letters, once you had the balls and ribbon in place you left it alone until you were done. Maybe on a selectric 2 you would get fancy and switch balls cause they made it easier, but it had to be a very special document.

2 cents

IKON

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17754
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #56 on: September 10, 2004, 07:45:54 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Silat
I just want to know what they are going to do for me and my country now. And I will remind you that 9/11 happened on GWB's watch.


what an intelligent statement ... when was the plan masterminded, what years, under which admin?

anyone care to list the terror attacks btwn 92 and 00 ??? before 92??

yep, all GW's fault - LOL

please give us another tid bit of your genius...
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti FTW3 | Vive Pro | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder Pedals

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #57 on: September 10, 2004, 07:54:32 AM »
so the document is most likely a fake?  figures.   The whole campaign is nothing but 1972 at this point.

Is there any document that shows Bush helping jane fonda to kill troops?

lazs

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #58 on: September 10, 2004, 07:55:58 AM »
Silat,

Yes Kerry served in combat for 4 months. Good for him. And we now know that you feel those 4 months are important in his qualifications to be president...

But what do you make of his 20 years in the Senate? 20 years where he never showed leadership on any particlar issue. Hardly ever wrote or co-sponsored any bills - and certainly no significant ones.  20 yaers where he missed viatl intelligence hearings. 20 years of no achievents whatsover..

What do you make of that service?

Please remember that we allready know what you think of Bush and I assume it will be tempting for you to say "but what has Bush done in only 4 years a governor of Texas before the 2000 race."  However that doesnt answer the question and that has nothing to do with Kerry's 20 years on uninspired service.

Also drawing such a contrast would essientially make your pitch for Kerry be the following:  "Bush had 4 years of poor govt service before becoming president, but Kerry had 20 years of poor servuce - so Kerry is better!!!"

Finally just saying "I dont like President Bush and the job he has done" says nothing about how you view Kerry's poor 20 service in the seante..

So please tell us what you think of Kerry's 20 year senate record?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2004, 07:59:54 AM by GRUNHERZ »

Offline TheDudeDVant

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2429
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #59 on: September 10, 2004, 08:11:46 AM »
lol Faked? lmao!! You Bush supporters clearly have forgotten your foil hats! Let me help yall with that:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

I hear they have a new liner inside.

lol damn nutjob conspiracy junkies! Dont yall EVER go away?