Hi,

I want to call attention to a fast one that CBS slipped past even you bloggers,

CBS statement: "CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by TALKING TO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD SEEN THE DOCUMENTS AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN. These individuals were close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written."

Caps lock emphasis mine - this deductive reasoning would lead one to believe Hodges, who by linear deduction is an associate of Killian's, SAW the documents when said documents during the time Killian hit the Print butto--I mean, manually scrolled the paper out of his outrageously expensive magical typewriter.

IF someone actually saw the document being made by Killian, that would be undisputable. Said person would also have to have been a close associate of Killian.

During this whole thing, I kept waiting for the network to name said person as some sort of silencer of these smoking guns, only to discover CBS has instead quietly dropped that claim.

Am I the only one who noticed this?

Well, who should I believe: Col. Staudt, or some secretary? hmm. Tough one.

Staudt it is.

Another point, where are the four experts who had put CBS's authenticity concerns to rest? Excluding Emily Wills and Linda James, since they by no means put any "concerns to rest" but in fact raised some, isn't this actually just another fastball CBS hopes no one noticed?

A senior CBS official claimed the network talked to four document experts "who put our concerns to rest."

Well, looking at Emily and Linda, they did in fact put concerns to rest. The only problem is that they put the bloggers' "concerns to rest," not CBS's. But if the four experts includes Emily and Linda, the network had to be banking on the fact that no one would find out 2 out of 4 experts raised, not put to rest, concerns.

HALF of your experts expressing doubts is in no way an acceptable standard to put any "concerns to rest."

Perhaps CBS meant the network talked to four document experts that render the documents' authenticity at an undisputable 50/50 chance, depending on if the penny landed on heads or tails. But even then, we'd have to prove it landed on heads, while Rather claimed the penny landed on tails but is keeping the penny a secret in order to protect the privacy of the penny.

ANd yes, that is a really incredible breakthrough, wow. Danny boy must be really hating ABC News by now.

I can tell you how CBS was put to rest ...

Whichever one sent the e-mail wrote this:

"I wouldn't trust those documents", or something to that effect.

CBS simply edited the e-mail (wish I could do strike through):

"I . . . trust those documents."

Voila!

In case you missed it, The Union Leader had a great editorial today

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44088

my fav:

"Responding to a hurricane of stories challenging the documents’ authenticity, Rather said, “If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I’d like to break that story.”

Hello, Dan. That story was broken last week. That is why every national news organization in America is investigating you right now. "

- Well that was the last ace in tne CBS house of cards. Unless they think they can field Matley, and further tormenting of Knox to effectively counter the truth that, by now, is clear to even mildly interested 5th graders.

Add to that the gaggle of TANG high ranking officers that were all over the TV yesterday proclaiming that the whole precipt of CBS's case is laughable and patent nonsense, its getting close to the time when CBS should gather the quartet of Rather, Heyward, Mapes, and McAuliffe and break into a few bars of "nearer my god to thee"....

I just got a terrific laugh, my sixth grade daughter needed help with a list of vocabulary words, and the last one on the list was: "If you can do this to check a fact so it is not a guess, And someone asks, "Can you support that?" you can then say, "Yes.", the word of course was "validate", and I think it's nice that it is taught in sixth grade, since that means that even Dan Rather must of learned it. Of course, I did get to demonstrate a practical application of the word, by discussing a certain situation that has anyway been dominating dining room conversation for the last little while. It's an important word to know, that "validate" word.

I fully believe the documents are a hoax, but...

just because Staudt says "I didn't do that" doesn't make it so.

ASSUMING that he did give Bush preferential treatment, OF COURSE he wouldn't admit to it.

Which is why the memos were important--that would've been documented evidence that he WAS putting pressure on someone.

But, since the documents are a fraud, we fall back to the he-said/she-said scenario, which shouldn't even make the local news.

Hi. Sorry to double-post, but I may have not made my point clear.

Staudt refuting the content of the memos doesn't mean that the story moves from "fake but accurate" to "fake but false."

It moves it from "fake but accurate" to "fake but indeterminate."

And "indeterminate" shouldn't make the news. Hell, I could say Clinton was a killer android and that would be "indeterminate" without proof.

And CBS knew indeterminate stories shouldn't make the news, since they were waiting and waiting for years for some documented proof, begging anyone to come forward with memos.

The predictable response from CBS and Rather will be that Staudt is a "Bush supporter" and of course in Rather's world such individuals cannot be trusted.

But Kerry fundraisers, now you can go to the bank on their every word.

'When he interviewed for the job, Bush was eager to join the pilot program, which Staudt said often was a hard sell. "I asked him, 'Why do you want to be a fighter pilot?' " Staudt recalled. "He said, 'Because my daddy was one.' He was a well-educated, bright-eyed young man, just the kind of guy we were looking for."'

Good enuff for me.

ASSUMING that he did give Bush preferential treatment, OF COURSE he wouldn't admit to it.

Not true. Ben Barnes (falsely) copped to using his influence to get Bush into the Guard, even though he wasn't in office at that time.

Are we all so blind? To have someone claim that Bush did not receive special treatment to get into the National Guard is like claiming Saddam had WMDs.

Trade pounds for lies, and the Bush team weighs more than the Twin Towers.

It's one of only two sources with direct involvement in the allegation (Barnes and Staudt). It's not what you believe, it's about sourcing for the story.