Why Does FoxNews' Bush-Doc PDF Show a Creation Date of February 6th?

Allah and I were just musing over that odd date.

Fresh Air originally tipped me that FoxNews' PDF of the docs had a creation date of February 6th. I told him to stop speaking lunatic gibberish of that sort to me.

But maybe it means something after all.

I'm speculating madly at this point, but could it be simply that most major news organizations HAD these documents since February 6th or a bit before, but could not authenticate them (for obvious reasons)?

Is that the reason why our very-objective media decided to go full-force on the subject at the time? They had these documents which they could not authenticate -- no one would say "Yeah, I got them out of the garbage at the base" -- but they all believed the contents of the memos, and so went hog-wild hounding Bush over the allegations contained in the forgeries?

This NRO article answers the charges floating about in February.

Why is it the media just suddenly went into overdrive on this issue in January - February?

Has this all been a coordinated media-DNC attack for six fucking months?

Update: Fresh Air now says he doesn't think the date-stamp on the PDF means much, and is more likely to just be due to a glitch than a sign that Fox has actually had these documents for seven months.

I don't know, though. It does seem to me that the liberal media and the Kerry campaign have this strange habit of revisiting this dead issue at the exact same time every half-year or so. I guess it was all just a coincidence that Kerry announced his "Fortunate Son" TANG attacks on Bush the same week that CBS decided to go forward with its DNC-provided forgeries.

Question the timing? Certainly not I.

I guess that might be the sort of "shadowy link" that the New York Times cares about when it's Republicans who are somehow linked together, rather than they to the DNC.

posted by Ace at 12:34 AM

| Access Comments