Bluesplayer
(660 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 01:47 PM
Original message |
Dan Rather or BushCo - who's better at spotting forgeries? |
|
Al's talking about the forged uranium documents, and something just occurred to me.
Didn't Dan Rather get forced out of his job because he wasn't able to spot forged documents about some asshole's National Guard service? And at the same time, BushCo wasn't able to determine that the uranium documents were forged?
I wonder who has better resources to spot forgeries - the intelligence community or CBS.
Just one more reason for impeachment.
|
blm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message |
Igel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 02:07 PM
Response to Original message |
2. How long did the CIA (or State Department) |
|
have the document in-hand before it was declared a forgery? That's the question to be answered, IMHO.
And the answer, if I remember right, is it took no more than a day or two from receipt to debunking. There apparently was quite a time between when the reports of the document's existence surfaced and the documents were in-hand. I'd hate to provide a link to a reputable source for that; the Repubblica article Marshall refers to seems to say as much, but my Italian's horrible at best. The "Niger" document was easy to expose as a fraud, but it rested in details that the rumors apparently did not include.
Rather's documents were difficult to declare as forgeries, but apparently he got them without much ado; "not authenticated" seems like a better way of describing them, in most respects (I'll leave aside possible font issues).
I don't think the two situations are sufficiently parallel.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:41 PM
Response to Original message |