Killian Office Memo Not Similar to CBS
Find a Conversation
Killian Office Memo Not Similar to CBS
| Sat, 09-11-2004 - 11:16am |
CBS memo: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf
An analysis done on CBS memo: http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf
Memo from military (click 'enlarge' icon): http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc25.gif
And some funny comments: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212833/posts
I want to see how the Sunday morning lib shows will spin this. What I want to know is how the DNC planned to get away with these forgeries knowing that ALL sources are easily verifiable on the internet?

Pages
Matley said that he only saw ONE of the memo's, and was only concerned with the signature, which is his area of specialty.
Absolutely amazing. All you've got to do is be a Kerry-lover and seem credible on TV. As long as others support it too, then so much the better.
And they refuse to read anything that disagrees with what they know to be "true" without question.
Incidentally, what did he do to YOU that made him ashamed?
Sice it disagrees with what leftists know to be "true" without question, it won't be believed by leftists.
QED.
Leftists who refuse to believe Swift Boat Vets because many are Republican immediately believe slander based upon forged documents by a Kerry EMPLOYEE.
Oh, the total hypocrisy of leftists!
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Can you please post a link to a source for that information?
I did a google news search on “Ben Barnes employed by Kerry Campaign” and got two hits. Neither one suggested Barnes was on the Kerry Campaign’s payroll.
As well, do you have a link to the story you posted today?
>>you give credence to THAT while refusing to read "partisan" posts that disagree with what you know to be "true" without question.”<<
You are not being truthful in this statement about me janeigh.
I’m not sure if that is something purposeful on your part.
Perhaps you simply have me confused with someone else.
I've read, and continue to read, all posts put up here on this topic.
As I've said before I'm not convinced one way or the other at this point.
I've heard conflicting information from legitimate sources on both sides of the issue.
Sice it disagrees with what leftists know to be "true" without question, it won't be believed by leftists. <<
What makes me say “ The Prowler "’s article is without substance
1) It’s unsigned.
2) It names no sources, but attributes direct quotes to these unnamed sources
This makes it hard for me to believe the anonymous claims.
The fact that this anonymous and unsourced article appears on a blatently partisan site (notice all the Bush/Cheney ads?) makes me question the impartiality of this "Prowler"
Even though Frontpage magazine makes the claim that Barnes is a "co-chairman" of the Kerry campaign (which sure sounds like an employee) , the page they link you to prove it reveals that "vice-chair" and "co-chair" are the terms the Kerry campaign uses instead of "Pioneer" and "Ranger" (a la the Bush campaign.) By saying Ben Barnes is a co-chairman of the Kerry campaign it means that he's raised a bundle of money for the campaign (about $300,000 to be more exact). It doesn't mean that he's been paid money by the Kerry campaign for his services.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0319b.html
I guess you're still welcome to question if being a major Kerry fundraiser somehow makes Barnes unbelievable, but it's waaay different from saying he's Kerry's employee. If you have a link that shows he is, then please post it.
So John O'Neill of the Swift Boat Vets is believable now BECAUSE he's a Republican?
See how the double standard works: The leftists say the Swift Boat Vets are part of the Bush campaign and not to believed, but somehow BECAUSE Barnes is "co-chair" (or whatever you want to call him and by the way "Prove he's not paid") he's to be BELIEVED?!
Sort of like Dan Rather presenting the news and daring us to prove him wrong, and then refusing to admit he's wrong.
Leftists know no logic or reason, and "truth" is whatever the Associated Press reports it -- TODAY. It can change dramatically tomorrow.
The fact that this anonymous and unsourced article appears on a blatently partisan site (notice all the Bush/Cheney ads?) makes me question the impartiality of this "Prowler">>
Not to mention the ads for Republican party t-shirts, ad for Ben Stein's book and also the ad for "Real Men Listen to Rush!" Now come on, who can call that an "impartial" site???? I wouldn't post anything from my favorite left-wing sites because I KNOW they are partisan. And frankly I'm just disregarding the whole story now, as I don't believe either side, and choose to move on to more important issues.
Pages