So it was Karl on the grassy knoll! Karl who was behind 9/11! Karl who hid my keys behind the sofa!
Of course! Now it all makes sense!
Regards,
Shodan
Well, now I have asked, so we can test your theory. Will the OP and other participants, reminded by my question, acknowledge the point and withdraw the claim?
There’s your mistake.
Though I suppose it could be a Zen thing, like contemplating nothingness.
They were forgeries planted by someone to discredit either Bush or CBS News and Dan Rather. If they were intended to discredit CBS News and Dan Rather, then it was done by a Bush ally. Rove is a Bush ally. But that doesn’t mean it is logically proven than Rove and Company were behind it. To me it looks like classic Rove. My speculation is that Rove and his crew were behind it. But I don’t know that for a fact. I do know that anyone who seriously doubts it comes off looking like a naive tool.
They were given to CBS by Bill Burkett, a well known anti-Bush kook with a history of mental illness.
“Reality has a liberal bias” my asshole, you gullible buffoon.
Regards,
Shodan
It looks like classic Rove to you, despite the fact that you can’t point to a similar tactic being used by him, ever.
Right, then.
I certainly admit it’s possible Rove did it. But that’s where it ends. Since there is zero evidence that he did it, I can’t say anything more than “It’s possible.”
I think a far more likely candidate for the forgeries is Burkett himself, an almost pathological Bush hater. The scenario is much simpler: he knows in his heart Bush was guilty of dereliction, but lacks pesky proof. He shops around for a willing ear and keeps hearing that he needs some kind of evidence. Finally he decides to craft the evidence himself, since, after all, it’s not “really” a lie. If they had the memos, that’s what they would say, right? David Van Os, Burkett’s lawyer, essentially admitted this; when asked about Burkett’s involvement, he responded with the careful hypothetical that “someone” may have reconstructed documents that the “someone” believed existed in 1972 or 1973
Another candidate is Mary Mapes. In addition to pushing for the use of the unauthenicated faxes, accepting Burkett’s claim that he had burned the originals, she called Joe Lockhart, a senior Kerry campaign official, and discussed how Lockhart could use the information from Burkett and even offered to arrange a meeting between Burkett and Lockhart. This kind of action from a supposedly neutral news producer says a lot – indeed, if I were using Second Stone logic, I might say that forging a few memos to help the cause looks like “classic Mapes” to me.
But despite the fact that Burkett’s story changed several times about where he got the documents, despite his lawyer’s non-admission admission, you still say it was Rove, huh?
Another one of those examples of the left using rigor and intellect in reaching conclusions, is it?
Karl Rove is a disgusting slimeball. It doesn’t need to be tied to one specific piece of “evidence” or one particular instance of assholery. Karl Rove is a disgusting slimeball. He alwyas has been and always will be.
And the sun wil rise tomorrow morning too.
The general proposition is a matter of opinion.
My gripe is the jump from the generic “He’s a disgusting slimeball,” to the specific factual accusation, “Therefore he probably did this.”
At the same time as righteous indignation rises against Rove for this supposed action of his, there’s not one shred of reproach against CBS, Rather, Maynard, or Mapes for going forward with a story despite the obvious forgery.
You know, I once played a trick on a friend at work. He was off to Hawaii you see, and was bragging about it daily.
I created a fake printout of a “news website” that talked all about how Hawaii’s beaches were closed due to a jellyfish infestation. Included a picture and everything!
Did I hand this sneaky forgery to my friend directly? No sir, I did not, for that would have been a dead givaway (he knows all about my sneakyness). I gave it to someone, who gave it to a contractor, who knew nothing of my cunning plans. HE then gave it to my friend. Mission Accomplished! My friend was up all night searching the internet for news of the deadly jellyfish.
Moral of the story: I am not much of a devious mastermind. The stakes were low. Yet even I knew how to plant a false story in the proper manner to make it believable.
I don’t know what Rove did or did not do… But I will admit it is certainly within the realm of possibility for a Bush confederate to have planted the memo with the intent to diffuse a bad situation by smearing Dan Rather and the CBS news… Really, it would not have been that hard to do.
Psychohistorians, if you please. 
(bolding mine)
Shodan (and whoever else might be inclined to give him a little credibility, for whatever reason), the facts about Bush ducking his responsibilities, to put it mildly, was already well-established before the forged documents emerged from wherever. You’ve had that explained to you, carefully, on numerous occasions. Even *Cecil *wrote a fuckin’ column about it.
Got it now? The facts about the guy you were proud to support as Commander in Chief are *unaffected *by those particular documents. The other evidence is sufficient to convince any *reasonable *person.
Not that this is going to sink in, either. But maybe you could write a Staff Report debunking Cecil on the matter, hmm?
Actually the chain of reasoning is that he is a brilliant slimeball, and so is likely to be responsible for brilliant slime. Which this was. During that time Republicans were not noted for rushing off and doing stuff the White House didn’t like, so if it were a Republican dirty trick, the White House - and Rove in particular - was likely to be involved. I’ll bring up a certain break in associated with another well controlled Republican White House.
If people are spending a lot of money searching for the smoking gun, what better defense to produce a smoking gun with its firing mechanism disabled?
I recall plenty.
If this story originated from the forged memos, I’d say it likely that a Democrat was responsible. However the story long predated them. If the press were closing in, what better defense than to change the subject.
As you well know, since it is one of your primary tactics.
Bricker’s assertion that the forgery was “obvious” is also contrary to fact.
You will notice - actually, you won’t, you’re too stupid - that Cecil’s answer to the question “Did Bush go AWOL?” is no.
No, actually it was a fairly clumsy forgery, from a fairly well-known kook.
Since there is no evidence whatever that it was a Republican trick, the White House and Rove were not involved. Your logic is sound, but your premises are not, so your syllogism is worthless.
If you assume something without proof, these kind of conspiracy theories can be spun without measure.
My gripe is more “lying for political reasons makes you a slimeball, liberals lie about Rove for political reasons, that makes Rove a slimeball”.
Proverbs 26:11 proves true again. Ah well.
Regards,
Shodan
Note that I only mentioned “ducking his responsibilities” - this would be your cognitive deficit acting up again, wouldn’t it? Note also that Cecil explained that Bush was not AWOL only because the formal charge wasn’t actually filed. Maybe you could have somebody read it to you slowly if you’re really not yet clear on that.
Which nobody seemed to realize until looking at the typeface under a microscope and such, right? Puzzling that somebody even thought to look for that stuff, and do it so quickly, huh?
Since there is no evidence whatever that it was NOT a Republican trick, the White House and Rove WERE involved. See, that premise is just as sound, right? 
No, the only conclusion you can draw from the shortage of evidence (not lack, there’s a behavior pattern Rove has established that counts as evidence) is that the allegation is insufficiently supported to stick in a court of law, not that it is false. Yet you don’t understand that obscure little point of logic, do you?
Like I said, ElvisL1ves, I didn’t mean “you” specifically would understand. I was talking more to the higher primates.
Not exactly. The allegation is insufficiently supported to stick in the mind of anyone who is not predisposed to believe it, by reason of mental defect or disease.
Liberals such as yourself are paranoid nutbags, who will believe any stupid thing provided it confirms some other stupid thing they already fell for. “Bush knew about 9/11”, “there was widespread election fraud in Ohio in 2004”, “Rove planted the forgeries”, “the CIA is sending mind control rays thru my TV set”, “Jews control the media” - the usual delusions dressed up as political opinions.
Unfortunate in many ways, but amusing to observe and make fun of.
Regards,
Shodan
Dear, dear, you do know a few big words like “syllogism” but you don’t know what they mean, don’t you?
You really need that evaluation, friend.
There seems to be some evidence that Rove was involved with that too (where that includes all of the acts included under the umbrella of Watergate),
If “ratfucking” is making shit up to force your opponent to deal with the shitstorm the accusation creates, to (sorta) quote LBJ “I know we can’t prove it, I just want to hear him deny it.” It doesn’t take much thought to realize that the substance of a truthful accusation can be made to appear questionable simply by discrediting its source. Whether that be a document or a person (See: Daniel Ellsburg, The Pentagon Papers, and Mr. Ellsburg psychiatrist, AKA Hunt/Liddy Special Project No. 1 (Though I’m still trying to figure exactly how E. Howard Hunt thought that would actually discredit The Pentagon Papers. 
).
An inverted ratfuck or, more simply, a subtype of the modified limited hangout.
CMC fnord!
I did not know that. Fascinating.
Most forgeries from kooks are pretty obvious. There were a few non-political forgeries about Roswell. An excellent forgery is good enough to pass muster, but not good enough to face extended scrutiny.
It’s really creepy to go to, say, the Wiki page about the Nixon’s years as President, then Watergate, then Reagan’s years and Iran/Contra, then both Bushs and all of their [del]shit[/del] stuff and notice how the same names just keep popping up. :eek:
Speaking of “popping”, a little pop quiz;
Which First Lady played a direct role in Watergate?
… In 1974 Hillary Rodham (Clinton) was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment. …[RIGHT]CITE[/RIGHT]See what I mean?
CMC fnord!