# If the CBS documents are shown to be fraudulent, should CBS produce their source? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459 "2004-09-14T19:50:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/161 "2004-09-21T18:18:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Dan Rather has had a long-standing antipathy towards the GOP. And a personal grudge held over from Bush Sr. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/162 "2004-09-21T23:06:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Always interesting to speculate what the board’s reaction would have been had it been Fox News and Bush instead of CBS and Kerry. Speculate? No need. _Of course_ the board would’ve reacted differently if this had involved an organization that has shown itself time and time again to be biased, instead of one that hasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/163 "2004-09-21T23:11:39Z")
> [@](#): > > The hot rumor in New York political circles has Roger Stone, the longtime GOP activist, as the source for Dan Rather’s dubious Texas Air National Guard “memos.” > The irony would be delicious, since Rather became famous confronting President Nixon, in whose service a very young Stone became associated with political “dirty tricks.” [New York Post commentary](http://www.nypost.com/commentary/30555.htm) ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/164 "2004-09-22T01:29:19Z")
Ah yes. Suddenly, the _simplest explanation_ is no longer applicable. :rolleyes: Did anyone read my [cite](http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20040921/1a_cover21x.art0.htm)? Care to rationalise Burkett’s “story”? -He originally (falsely?) claimed his _old friend_/former TANG officer George Conn was his source, in order to _protect the identity of a total stranger_ who called him “out of the blue”. -He _burned the originals and the envelope they were in_, because he didn’t want traces of _forensic evidence_ that might lead back to his source. -He “frankly never thought about” the possibility that he might have been duped. -Claims he had phone conversations with this “Lucy Ramirez”, but has yet to produce phone records. Hellooo??? I never discounted that Burkett is a troubled individual, which is why I couldn’t believe he was the primary source for this. But now it’s official. “Crazy”? Maybe. But, _not stupid_. He got what he wanted. He played the media, and _through them_, got access to the Kerry campaign (he’s on the record complaining that he couldn’t get through to them before CBS intervened).\* **Tigers2B1** and **Shodan** : Your pants are on fire. I appreciate speculation as much as the next guy, and in the _absence of evidence_, speculating is all we can do to fill in the blanks. But _ignoring or distorting_ existing evidence is just plain dishonesty. **furt** : That Bush/Rather grudge goes both ways, no? > [@](#): > > Testaments to Burkett’s intense feelings about politics are all over his house. On a side table is a copy of the book Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential. **In the front entry is a photograph of Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona** , whom his wife supported against Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries. \ It’s McCain!!! He really _is_ The Manchurian Candidate! \ \*Yes, CBS contacting the Kerry campaign is troubling. But so was Fox News outing Richard Clarke as a background source in order to give the Bush admin a heads up prior to his 911 commission testimony. Conspiracy? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/165 "2004-09-22T01:42:53Z")
Here’s my latest theory (as you say, completely wild speculation, but hey, it’s a fun game) 1. Burkett is the sole source. He made the documents himself, and now he’s blaming shadowy figures to keep himself out of legal trouble. 2. The Kerry campaign didn’t have anything to do with creating the documents, but they DID get a heads-up about them that was unethical, and they used the time to coordinate an attack ad campaign with CBS’s ‘revelation’. 3. CBS is the real guilty party here. Not only were they reckless in not nailing down their source and the documents, but it looks like they intentionally ignored conflicting evidence, which moves their action across the line from incompetence to reckless behaviour. 4. CBS is also culpable for agreeing to a quid pro quo with Burkett, putting him in touch with a presidential campaign in exchange for documents. Way, way over the line. 5. The Kerry campaign should _never_ have agreed to contact Burkett. They should have kept a long, long distance from this entire story. It was just _stupid_ to put themselves in the middle of this story. Most of the blame falls on Burkett and CBS, though. At least, that’s the way it looks today. Dan Rather should have been fired ten years ago, simply for being nuttier than a tree full of squirrels. Now it’s time for him to go. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/166 "2004-09-22T01:55:58Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > **furt** : That Bush/Rather grudge goes both ways, no? No doubt; but absent any suggestion that the Bushes initiated this contretemps, I don’t see how it’s relevent. I think Rather’s own assertion that they had spent _five years_ investigating this is the most revealing fact of this whole mess. I mean, CBS looks at the enormity of the events of the past five years, and the administration’s many controversial policies … and in light of that they continue to devote resources into finding out whether or not the Bush disobeyed orders in 1972? That smacks of monomania to me, akin to someone in 1998 investigating whether or not Clinton inhaled. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/167 "2004-09-22T02:05:58Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [New York Post commentary](http://www.nypost.com/commentary/30555.htm) Dan Rather would get down on his knees and hum your name if you could prove a GOP connection. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/168 "2004-09-22T02:25:14Z")
Here’s an [interview with Joe Lockhart](http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/21/ltm.03.html). > [@](#): > > HEMMER: It’s my understanding you talked to Bill Burkett just days before the CBS story aired. What was the content of your discussion, Joe? > > LOCKHART: Well, the content of the discussion was he had some strong feelings about the way the Kerry campaign had responded to the Swift Boat attack, the – Senator Kerry’s record in Vietnam and, you know, the smear campaign that was going on against him. He believed that we should have responded more forcefully. You know, I listened respectfully, I told him I thought it was good advice, and that was the end of the conversation. > > HEMMER: How long did that last, Joe? > > LOCKHART: Probably three or four minutes. > > HEMMER: And what details of the National Guard story came out during that three to four-minute discussion? > > LOCKHART: Not a single detail. There was never any discussion. He didn’t tell me anything. I didn’t ask him anything. > > […] > > LOCKHART: No. Listen, CBS did their story. I think they’ve been very open about answering the questions. > > They called me and said this guy wants to talk to you. I was happy to talk to him. It’s sort of the beginning and end of the story. > > HEMMER: Hey, Joe, how common is that? > > LOCKHART: Listen, Bill, you’re a journalist. I think you probably know the answer to that. I’ll let journalists talk about how common it is. > > HEMMER: But when the suggestion for a source comes your way, I mean, here we are 42 days away from a presidential campaign, many would think that’s probably not that usual after all. How would you phrase it? > > LOCKHART: I wouldn’t. I think that’s a question for journalists. > > You’re one. You can answer it. You know more – more about how common that is than I do. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/169 "2004-09-22T15:04:22Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Here’s my latest theory (as you say, completely wild speculation, but hey, it’s a fun game) > > 1. Burkett is the sole source. He made the documents himself, and now he’s blaming shadowy figures to keep himself out of legal trouble. I agree it’s the simplest explanation. But some things do bother me about it: -Burkett was career military. Wouldn’t he have been able to do a better job of forging them? I’m talking about the typography issues. -Apart from the typography, how did he know about Killian’s private files? Unless you think Knox and Hodges are lying (and I don’t), those docs could only have been made by someone who had seen the files - or knew/heard about them. -Can you rationalise how these docs are anything but _deliberately_ bad? -Mentally unstable people can be duped too - or are possibly more _likely_ to be duped. Maybe the “mystery contact” hand-picked Burkett after casing his behaviour in those numerous interviews. Were you familiar with him before this? I think he’d have been an easy mark. Still, unless he gives over the phone records there’s no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. > [@](#): > > 1. The Kerry campaign should never have agreed to contact Burkett. They should have kept a long, long distance from this entire story. It was just stupid to put themselves in the middle of this story. I don’t think Cleland had a choice. How could he not have answered his phone? It’s been reported that he’d been getting a lot of calls similar to this re the Swifties attacks. And how could he have known what would happen with Burkett after the fact? Lockhart may have had a heads up on the memos, but how could he know they’d turn out to be discredited, and therefore potentially scandalous? In a way, this makes a case for the Dem’s innocence in this whole thing. BTW, _everyone_ in DC knew that story was breaking in advance. > [@furt](#): > > I think Rather’s own assertion that they had spent five years investigating this is the most revealing fact of this whole mess. I didn’t think that implied it was a full-time front burner project. They initially investigated 5 years ago when Bush was running the first time, and may have re-opened it periodically whenever new leads or docs turned up. Of course it became front burner again this year - as with all the MSM. That’s not obsessive, is it? > [@Squink](#): > > The hot rumor in New York political circles has Roger Stone, the longtime GOP activist, as the source for Dan Rather’s dubious Texas Air National Guard “memos.” Here’s what’s funny - he refused to comment. Why not the standard “This is typical liberal partisan smear and I have nothing to do with it blah blah Dan Rather blah Kerry campaign”…? Isn’t “no comment” politico-speak for pleading the fifth? Put your caps on for this: Stone’s wife is Cuban. Miami-Cuban-Mafia Cuban. “Lucy Ramirez”? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/170 "2004-09-22T15:14:01Z")
Burkett was in the Texas Army National Guard. It’s not surprising that he’d get Air Force terminology wrong. The branches are all quite different from each other. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/171 "2004-09-22T16:20:41Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > I agree it’s the simplest explanation. But some things do bother me about it: > > -Burkett was career military. Wouldn’t he have been able to do a better job of forging them? I’m talking about the typography issues. I don’t see why. He is a nutcase, not a forgery expert. He did his best - typing it up, photocopying it several times, and then faxing it. It only had to be good enough to get CBS to fall for it. As we have seen, they were willing to disregard the testimony of the experts they consulted. Their standards are pretty damn low when it comes to something they can use to smear Bush. The forgery only had to be good enough that it could not be widely discredited until after the election. Burkett did the best he could, which wasn’t perfect but good enough for CBS, who were spring-loaded to believe anything they could use against Bush. And the Kerry campaign assumed that it was real, because they took CBS’ word for it. And they were spring-loaded as well. > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > -Can you rationalise how these docs are anything but _deliberately_ bad? Nicely phrased - an unfalsifiable assertion. You are assuming that they were deliberately botched by some _agent provacateur_. There is, however, no evidence of any such person. You might as well blame it on Schrodinger’s cat. > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > -Mentally unstable people can be duped too - or are possibly more _likely_ to be duped. They are also more likely to make up stories. > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Lockhart may have had a heads up on the memos, but how could he know they’d turn out to be discredited, and therefore potentially scandalous? He didn’t know. He was willing to take CBS’ word for their authenticity. Unless they were as deliberately bad as you claim. In which case, you mean the memos needed to be good enough to fool a Democrat, but not anybody else. So you must think Democrats tend to be dumber and more gullible than the rest of us. Certainly possible, but only on certain topics, like Bush-bashing. > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > In a way, this makes a case for the Dem’s innocence in this whole thing. In the forgery part of it, sure. They had no hand in actually forging or misrepresenting the documents - that was Burkett and CBS. The unethical part for the Democrats was accepting help from a supposedly independent news organization in coordinating their “Fortunate Son” smear campaign . > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Here’s what’s funny - he refused to comment. Why not the standard “This is typical liberal partisan smear and I have nothing to do with it blah blah Dan Rather blah Kerry campaign”…? Isn’t “no comment” politico-speak for pleading the fifth? Sometimes. Sometimes it is politico-speak for “we went thru all this a hundred times in 2000. I’m not giving you a quote to twist up.” Sometimes it is politico-speak for “I don’t remember these memos before. I think I will refrain from comment until I see what 60 Minutes is going to use them for, and if maybe they have some others they will use to contradict anything I say.” Sometimes it might even be politico-speak for “If you are dumb enough to publish memos dated a year and a half after the supposed author retired from the Texas ANG, have some more rope for your hanging.” Oh, and by the way - > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Tigers2B1 and Shodan: Your pants are on fire. If this is what passes for rational discourse in your head, next time save it. The grown-ups are talking. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/172 "2004-09-22T16:51:05Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Here’s what’s funny - he refused to comment. Why not the standard “This is typical liberal partisan smear and I have nothing to do with it blah blah Dan Rather blah Kerry campaign”…? Isn’t “no comment” politico-speak for pleading the fifth? USA Today got a little more out of [Mr. Stone](http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-cbs-parties_x.htm): > [@](#): > > “I have nothing whatsoever to do with this,” Stone told USA TODAY. “I’m a firm believer in political hardball, but I draw the line at forged documents.” Sure he does. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/173 "2004-09-22T17:04:46Z")
In all likelihood this story will be allowed to die without CBS addressing a few obvious, but unanswered MAJOR questions. Here’s a start. \*\*Who or what caused CBS to contact Burkett? Did Burkett originally indicate to CBS that he would not identify the source of the documents? (No questions asked by CBS?) If Burkett indicated George Conn as the source, did CBS verify with Conn? Does anyone know how CBS came to the conclusion that Burkett was an “unimpeachable source?” Was Lockhart the only Kerry aide contacted by CBS? If not, who else did CBS contact?\*\* Answers here MIGHT fill some of the gaping hole left by CBS’ “apology” / explaination. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/174 "2004-09-22T19:52:27Z")
CBS has appointed two investigators to the Memogate story. According to Reuters, it’s former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former Associated Press chief executive Louis Boccardi. Considering how close this investigation is to the election – I have to wonder how long this will take? And whether the results come out as they’re discovered or all at once? Considering all of the questions left unanswered by CBS - this may take some time. > **[Entertainment Industry & Celebrity News | Reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/news/entertainment)** > > Complete coverage of the entertainment industry, TV, Music, Movies, celebrities, awards shows and more at Reuters.com ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/175 "2004-09-22T19:57:34Z")
Kerry better hope it doesn’t come out before the election. That’ll shift the news back onto this item, which will likely be a plus for Bush. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/176 "2004-09-23T03:22:47Z")
Burkett is apparently suing CBS. His claim is that he gave the documents to CBS and _warned them that they might be fake_. He says that he told CBS that a stranger gave them to him, and he couldn’t vouch for them, and that he told CBS to give them a thorough vetting to try and see if they were legitimate. Burkett also says that he got an iron-clad promise from CBS to honor his anonymity. Then CBS takes these memos, does a perfunctory check, ignoring experts who voice concern. Then when the shit hit the fan, CBS flips Burkett and says he’s the guy who’s responsible. That’s Burkett’s story. If it’s true, then CBS behaved despicably. On the other hand, if you’re a forger who doesn’t really know what he’s doing, you might cover yourself by giving the documents to a news organization, claiming that you got them from someone else, and telling them to check them thoroughly. That way, if the news agency finds something wrong with them, it goes no further, no one knows about it, and Burkett can slink away. But if they pass muster at a major news organization, then when they go public you can be pretty sure that no one else will spot the forgery. In this scenario, the primary problem is that Burkett didn’t consider the “Rather factor” - the fact that he was giving the documents to someone even nuttier than he is, with just as big an axe to grind against Bush. So instead of CBS becoming his unwitting forgery-checker, CBS hangs itself stupidly and drags him down with it. I like that scenario, by the way. It explains a lot. As for ‘anyone being able to spot the forgery’ - bah. There are a lot of people Burkett’s age who are totally computer illiterate. He may not have had a clue that fonts and typesetting were even an issue. He worked hard to try to get the dates, places, and terminology right, but he never had a clue about the other tracks he was leaving. By the way, the key information that fingers Burkett is the fact that he was Army National Guard, and the terminology that was wrong in the memos was _Army Guard_ terminology, and not Air Guard. For instance, use of the term ‘Billet’. That’s an Army Guard term not used in the Air Guard. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/177 "2004-09-23T03:30:46Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > There are a lot of people Burkett’s age who are totally computer illiterate. He may not have had a clue that fonts and typesetting were even an issue. He worked hard to try to get the dates, places, and terminology right, but he never had a clue about the other tracks he was leaving. You’d think that someone Burkett’s age would’ve used a typewriter at some point in his life, though, or at least _seen_ a typewritten document long enough to know that the memo couldn’t have come from the average typewriter. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/178 "2004-09-23T03:37:16Z")
I don’t know… Wouldn’t the same apply to _anyone_ who forged these? What makes Burkett special? Obviously someone missed it. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/179 "2004-09-23T03:47:41Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I don’t know… Wouldn’t the same apply to _anyone_ who forged these? What makes Burkett special? Obviously someone missed it. Indeed. IMO, that lends credibility to the idea that they were intended to be exposed as forgeries. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/180 "2004-09-23T05:36:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > > > Your pants are on fire. > > If this is what passes for rational discourse in your head, next time save it. The grown-ups are talking. Now your bow-tie’s crooked and your hair’s all mussed. Howz it feel to play defense for a change, **Shodan** \*? Guess you never tangled with a little girl before. \***The missing “Regards, Shodan” sig line is terribly revealing. That sig line has been in common use by poster Shodan since July 2000. I am saying that reply is a forgery, run through a GOP talking points machine for 15 generations to make it look old. This should be pursued aggressively.** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459.md?page=10)