Explain this to me...if the CBS expert didn't authenticate the documents..

[truebrit71]

..but he DID authenticate the signatures, what's the damned difference?

If it is his legitimate signature on the documents, don't the docs have to be legitimate also? Unless this person was in the habit of just arbitrarily signing blank pieces of paper and leaving them lying about the place waiting for someone to try and forge a document impeaching *'s assertion that he served 'honorably'....

The whole point about this real/fake issue is to cover over what the documents actually say....

Bush was AWOL....

THAT'S what matters....

[wurzel]

1. These docs were copies of copies.

A signature can easily have be superimposed on a doc if you don't have the original. To me the docs are irrelevant. Bush got in and out of the guard the same way. Privilege.

[bob reynolds]

2. it was a photocopy..

making the doc pretty difficult to authenticate...and the signature could be added to a photocopy electronically...without originals doc there's no reason to think anything about it either way

[Raster]

7. doesn't matter. the content is the important part.

gee-dubya DID NOT fulfill his Guard obligations. gee-dubya gained a coveted slot in the Guard because of family influence. I had a cousin that died in Viet Nam. He didn't get a chance to join the Guard. And he certainly didn't get the chance to walk away from his duties. And he certainly didn't get the chance to work on some redneck, bigot's Senate campaign, where he partied, drank and whored around. Fuck the documents. gee-dubya is a liar, a cheat and an insult to every man and woman who has served or is currently serving their country.

[Raster]

3. Right on my friend! Everything else is just a smokescreen!!!

[TryingToWarnYou]

4. Easy...

Signatures vs. typewritten

Determining whether a signature is forged or not is not the same thing as determining whether or not a typewritten document is forged. While yes, the words are what is important, if the document is forged, the words dont mean squat.

I would like to suggest that the documents are indeed real. If people were going to forge something, I would really expect it to be something far more damaging than some ambigous, clandestine commentary.

[papau]

8. As PCMAG noted - with the IBM SElectric Composer out in 64, they do not

have a case that proves squat as to forgery.

Blue smoke and lies posted by "experts about matches with photocopies

LOL - My God - our Media is stupid. In addition to being lazy and GOP controlled, they appear not to have the number to MIT or any of old farts that used the Selectric Composer!

:-)

[forgethell]

5. Still,

it is just an opinion, even if by an expert. One fact in evidence of something does not necessarily prove it. There may be other facts against it. Facts can be interpreted in various ways (I'm speaking generally, now). In our justice system, two 'adversaries' put forth the facts and evidence that support their diametriclly opposed viewpoints. A jury decides. It's a good system, and in this case the jury in the American electorate.

I trust them to come to the right decision in November. In the meantime, relax and enjoy the show.

[mdredmond]

6. Re authenticating signatures only

There is a difference. Authenticating the signature only determines whether the signature itself matches other signature samples from the same person. It (a) does not determine whether the signature was 'copied and pasted' onto the document, and (b) does not authenticate the contents of the document.

Without authenticating both the signature and the document, what the document says is irrelevant. I think that is the argument most are using against the documents - and for the most part I agree with it. I don't think CBS did their homework on this one. Just my $.02

[ElementaryPenguin]

9. Bullshit! The type font was the same one the White House gave the press!

Bush was AWOL!! PERIOD!

[mdredmond]

12. Re authenticating signatures only

Look, all I said was when faced with a document, you have to authenticate both the document and the signature. One or the other isn't enough. Experts in one are very often not experts in the other.

As far as the docs go, the fonts may well be identical, superscripts could have been available, yada yada yada. But there appear to be factual 'challenges' facing the docs. That Col. Staudt who wasn't in the ANG when the memo was written, the use of the incorrect acronym for Officer Effectiveness Report, and perhaps others.

Whoever forged these docs and gave them to CBS did Kerry a great diservice. He needs to get the hell away from CBS and Rather and distance himself from this issue.

CBS messed this one up and your ranting isn't going to fix it.

[Bridget Burke]

10. Why wouldn't CBS do their homework?

And why has the White House agreed that no investigation is needed?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. Oh, brother....when will the idiocy stop.