"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri 10 Sep 2004 10:40:21p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:
"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Fri 10 Sep 2004 09:33:32p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:
"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Thu 09 Sep 2004 11:28:21p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:
"Kameron Spesial" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 02:12:45 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:
On Thu 09 Sep 2004 08:56:46p, "llortamai"
wrote in message
:
"Retarded Death Row Inmates 4 Bush"
wrote in message
om...
dream on.
You wish you could dream it was false, but the articles keep
coming. Here's another one.
http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/...r_preview.asp?
idArticle=
459
6 &R=9FCD2F192
Is It a Hoax?
Experts weigh in on the 60 Minutes documents. Says one: "I'm a
Kerry supporter myself, but . . . I'm 99% sure that these
documents were not produced in the early 1970s."
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/09/2004 7:20:00 PM
{snippage}
I wouldn't be surprised to find that 60 Minutes cast some lines
about, offering to pay for similar information and by doing so,
set themselves
up
for getting "werked"!
If they turn out to be forged, it would be a further indication
that 60 minutes was willing to take the info and run without
validating it.
Here's a suggested topic for a 60 Minutes expose on their own
stafers: Blinded by Bias!
-=jd=-
And you're certainly not biased JD.
It's pretty unlikely that 60 Minutes "ran" with the story without
a fairly strenuous attempt to validate the documents. They might
have been wrong and it might turn out that the docs are plants,
but 60 Minutes is regularly challenged by all quarters and I've
got a feeling that they go out of their way to vet anything they
present as "evidence."
From what I heard on the Radio (NPR), they asked the usual line of
questions, but didn't run the document past any typographers
then they lied.
/sarcasm on
My bad - Who are we to question the integrity of (ahem) "unbiased" NPR
or 60-Minutes reporters?
/sarcasm off
I don't care if they're CBS or CNN or FOX or NPR. If they lied they
lied. CBS Stated that the documents had been reviewed by independent
document authorities. Go to cbsnews.com.
Now I'm used to lies and near lies from FOX but I've got to hold CBS to
a higher standard because it is supposed to be actual News. 60 Minutes
is even advertised as a New program. So if they didn't get those
documents reviewed by bona fide experts, then they LIED.
Then I agree with you as I also don't find it hard to believe that the
staff of 60-Minutes distorted, exaggerated, manipulated, slanted or
otherwise lied about the information they present.
I didn't say that. What I said was that if they lied there's a very
specific sense in which they lied. When you say you've had documents
examined by experts, and you didn't....you LIED. Britt Hume on FOX ran a
little experiment with someone else in the studio which he said made the
docs look fishy. That's fine. If FOX then turned around and said they had
"experts" examine the docs, referring to Hume's experiment, it would be a
knowing, direct LIE.
That's what I'm saying. Now CBS is on record as stating that the docs were
examined by experts. That's a falsifiable claim. They either did or they
didn't.
-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:
(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)