"The content matters, not the forgery."

[LoZoccolo]

Help me out. This statement on it's face doesn't make any sense, but I've seen it a couple of times today. If the document's forged, the content doesn't matter because, well, it's a forgery, it could not be relied on.

I think what people might be trying to say - and this is part of what I want you to help me out on - is that Bush*'s record of his service is what matters in this story. And that's fine, but it seems like that's established through other means, not the "content" of this document. But the way people are putting it, you'd think that the content of this one memo stands up despite it being forged, and that's just a fucked-up thing to try to pass off.

[Trajan]

1. There is NO EVIDENCE of forgery ....

Misrepresentation? yes ...

Forgery ? .... Not there yet ....

[LoZoccolo]

4. Did I ask anyone if it was a forgery? n/t

[Trajan]

15. You said this: ...

"But the way people are putting it, you'd think that the content of this one memo stands up despite it being forged, and that's just a fucked-up thing to try to pass off."

Your statement implies it is forged, not that it may be forged ...

[LoZoccolo]

17. Right, I didn't answer in the form of a question.

:boring:

[loathesomeshrub]

2. When Killians secretary said that the content was true, but the documents

were not real; that made the content real!
End of story

[LoZoccolo]

8. I don't think she meant that the particular contents of that one memo...

...was from a genuine memo, but rather that the memo purported to establish something general that was true - that there was special treatment going on. But if the contents were lifted from another source, well, why didn't whoever submitted it just submit a copy of the original?

[Mr_Spock]

3. The secretary vouched for the contents of the memos.

That's why.

[ClassWarrior]

5. I've said the only way to prove a forgery is to prove the content false.

What doesn't add up is true content in a forged document.

Make them prove it's a forgery by proving the content false. Anything else lets Bush* off the hook.

[eek]

11. What you said, CW. Further, it recalls

the Lyndon B Johnson campaign tactic " I don't wanna say they *are* pigf#ckers - but I do wanna make 'em *deny* they're pig f#ckers!"

(possibly apocryphal but the content is good)

[punpirate]

6. No one's been able to say with authority...

... that the documents are forged. None of the principals have admitted they are.

What is the issue is the provenance of those documents. Who gave them Burkett? Burkett has now changed his story about the source, claiming he was protecting the actual source, and now his credibility is in question, unfortunately.

[hlthe2b]

7. The content is documented elsewhere from records not in question...

the only new tidbit, was the issue of Bush* being specifically ordered (and ignoring a specific order) to take the physical and the discussion of pressure from "above" on Killian to look the other way. The basic facts of Bush's failure to take the physical, the fact he was suspended from flying, his transfer without pre-approval of new base, and the lack of evaluation by Killian on his last OER is not in question. That's the point that is being ignored by the fixation on these documents. Also not countered is the testimony that Bush got in on "favors."

[LoZoccolo]

9. That's what I'm saying, basically.

There's stuff in there that shadows what's established in other documents, but those are contents of other documents. So if the one memo was forged, who cares about it's contents - there's plenty of other content in other documents.

[ClassWarrior]

10. Because the focus is on THESE documents.

Hell, we need to learn to ride the bull that's in the ring.

(Suddenly feeling like Dan Rather on election night...)

[LoZoccolo]

12. That's like putting all your eggs in one basket.

And if this is a Rovian dirty trick, it's exactly what they want you to do - make the assertion of special treatment hinge on one document, ignoring all the other evidence that's out there.

I'm pretty sure that people are just being inarticulate, but it looks like people are saying the wood-literal contents of this particular document is real even if the document is forged, which doesn't make any sense.

[HFishbine]

14. It's the same content

in other undisputed documents:

[LoZoccolo]

16. "It's not this memo, it's that memo."

That's what we should be saying. Fuck the entire disputed memo, go on to the other ones.

[HFishbine]

20. I agree, so does Juan Williams

On that silly little Fox Roundtable show hosted by Britt Hume. Juan has been trying to drive the point home, but the reichwing shills keep diverting.

(I've been wanting to drop him an e-mail thanking him, but can't find contact info. Anybody?)

[SidDithers]

13. Also, the White House released the same documents...

without disputing the content.

Now, why would they do that, I wonder.

Sid

[0rganism]

18. Multiple sources confirm the content of the memos, no one denies it

Barnes confirmed the content.

Knox confirmed the content.

Burkett confirmed the content.

Strong confirmed the content.

The Flagg General who verified the memos over the phone (forgot his name) confirmed the content.

So far, the content is solid and the presentation is the only matter in question. Unfortunately, all the networks have covered is the presentation.

[Sandpiper]

19. Before these memos ever surfaced

It was known that Bush had his flight status revoked because he failed to show up for his physical.

With or without these documents, the fact remains that Bush has never adequately explained why he failed to show up for his physical.

But now, with all the furor about these documents, most people will erroneously assume that all of the questions about Bush's military service have now been resolved.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but this has all the markings of a Rovian trick to poison any discussion about Shrub's military service.