QandO
Questions and Observations| « Well here's a surprise | Main | Coelho: Kerry Campaign in Chaos » |
|
September 15, 2004 What would Rather do? UPDATE (JON): I'm bumping this post of Dale's to the top, because Dale got it exactly right. To the letter. CBS had a chance to offer a mea culpa--or, at least, transparency--and all they came up with was "we believe every word of those forgeries, because they're exactly what we wanted to hear". Unbefreakinglievable. Just damn. And the worst is this line from CBS News President Andrew Heyward: Some at this network believe the backlash against the 60 Minutes report is pure politics. But that's the critics' point as well -- that fake, or real, the fact that 60 Minutes got these documents during an election year was no accident.That's it, guys. You commit journalistic fraud....but, your critics are Republicans. So, you're even. Equivalency! Read on. Dale nailed it. _____________________________________________________________ Bases on the coverage of the memo's story at the CBS Website, I suspect they'll be following a line of, "The documents aren't important. It's the deeper truths behind them that are important. Forget the documents. It's the story you need to understand. CBS News says the original report used several different techniques to make sure the memos were genuine, including talking to handwriting and document analysts and other experts who strongly insist that the documents could have been created on a typewriter in the 1970s – as opposed to a modern-day word-processing software program. And aliens could have produced them at their sector administrative outpost at Alpha Centauri, then beamed them to earth. Lt Col Killian could have run them off at PIP (the Kinko's of that era), because they were 'specially important. A lot of things could have happened. But, how likely is it that they happened? That's the question that CBS still doesn't seem keen to address. CBS has also said its story about Mr. Bush's guard service relied on much more than documents. Featured in the segment was former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, a Democrat who claims he pulled strings to get Mr. Bush into the Guard in 1968. «So, please, ignore the document forgeries. Not important. It's the story that's the important part. Trust us on this. » Uh huh. CBS News spokeswoman Sandra Genelius said CBS did not believe Knox was a documents expert and that the network believes the documents are genuine. So, essentially, their saying that, even though Killian's secretary, Ms. Knox, thinks the documents are forgeries, the whole forgery deal is unimportant because the content of the memos So, the CBS argument is that the documents were fake, but their content was authentic. And that's supposed to make it all better? Huh. Well, don't expect any big mea culpa from CBS in half an hour. I think their position is pretty clear. If the documents were forgeries, then we should just forget about that and concentrate on the rest of the story CBS is trying to tell us. But, if CBS' journalistic standards were so shoddy that they were perfectly willing to pass these memos off as reliably authenticated, why should we give any credence to the rest of CBS's story? How do we know that it wasn't also infected by similarly sloppy standards? CBS is silent on that point.
He goes on, and he is brutal. Captain Ed just asks a few questions...
|
When the NYT has to crawl on the ground (I was going to say stoop, but they are always stooping) to use an 86 year old woman who ADMITS she hates Bush and ADMITS the documents are fake but "thinks" the substance is correct as some sort of cover for their bias there is nothing to say. One can only wonder how these people find their way to work or even feed themselves. Darwin assures us these people will be gone at some point but it sure is a long and agonizing process.
Posted by: jim at September 15, 2004 10:45 AM
Ack, now I have the PIP jingle stuck in my head.
"For quality printing, here's a tip: always rely on your nearby PIP"
The horror! The horror!
Posted by: Steverino at September 15, 2004 11:03 AM
Now, I admit that I'm relatively young but I find it difficult to believe that a person would remember her boss' feelings about a relatively obscure 1st lt in the Air National Guard well enough to be able to say with a good level of certainty that her boss didn't like the special treatment that he was given. Especially when, according to her, there were numerous people getting this level of treatment. I may be wrong but that's a pretty big leap.
Posted by: Curt Mitchell at September 15, 2004 11:19 AM
now they are kicking this around as proof of failure to fulfill commitment
http://www.glcq.com/new_document.htm
Posted by: Mr. K at September 15, 2004 12:08 PM
It's so mind-bogglingly dumb. CBS claims that it is the story behind the memos that is so important, but that story has been out there for four years. It doesn't even seem to register with them that most sane people will base their vote on what Bush did during those past four years as president, and not this 30 year old non-story. CBS thought that they could give the story new legs by releasing these memos, and they ended up dropping a 25 ton anvil on their heads like Wile E. Coyote.
Posted by: pdq332 at September 15, 2004 12:31 PM
Apparently Dan Rather went off the deep end shortly after this statement.
;)
Posted by: capt joe at September 15, 2004 01:47 PM
My only thought.... You had us wait all day for that?!?!?!
Why do I waste my time.
Posted by: Curt Mitchell at September 15, 2004 07:53 PM
This may be a lethal blow to the Bush presidency. Watch the Dan Rather interview with Killian's secretary. She's 86, and sharp as a tack. Very credible. This could be the beginning of the end for Bush if his refusal to obey a direct order mushrooms in the media in the coming weeks.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml
Posted by: John McCain at September 15, 2004 09:37 PM
WAIT A MINUTE
CBS "believes" the secretary when she confirms
the content of the documents.
BUT...
CBS "does not believe" the secretary when she
confirms the documents are forged.
EITHER THEY BELIEVE HER OR THEY DONT, THEY
CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE
toni
Posted by: toni at September 15, 2004 09:42 PM
Mr. McCain,
Killian's secretary is in a position to know whether or not she typed certain memos for him but she's hardly in any position to read his mind and reasonably know his personal feelings about lieutenants who served under him. Your post is deluded wishful thinking - you're not a CBS employee are you?
Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at September 15, 2004 09:55 PM
So CBS ADMITS the memos are fake, but still accurate?
What a steaming load of shit.
In the old days, when someone got caught out doing crap like this, they would have the decency to drop all pretense and keep their yaps shut. CBS is TRYING TO PRESS THEIR CASE REGARDLESS! Total lack of shame. Total lack of integrity. Total lack of ethics.
But I have to thank CBS and Dan Rather. Their hamfisted ineptitude has innoculated Bush from anything they can throw at him short of child molestation. The MSM has taken a deadly blow. Bush will gain some sympathy while Kerry will take some heat from people thinking his camp leaked the memos. And another or 2 or 3 weeks will go by w/o Kerry being able to be heard above the din. Precious time he needs to make up points.
Thanks Dan Rather! You helped Bush 41 get elected when he humiliated you on TV and now you help the son get reelected.
Bush Family 2, Dan Rather 0.
If you live long enough, maybe Jeb can slap you down to make it 3-0...
Posted by: shark at September 15, 2004 10:05 PM
Why is Bush's Gaurd service relevant today?
Bush used the Guard to avoid combat, refused a direct order from a superviser, and didn't fulfill his military obligations.
As a young man, Bush used the Guard to "game the system," and now he uses the Guard as a "back door draft" to conscript Guard members to military service in Iraq--based on bogus WMD evidence espoused by his administration to justify invastion and occupation.
Bush has denegrated the Guard, both as a young man, and as a middle-aged president.
He is unfit for command and should be impeached.
Watch the interview with Killian's secretary that aired on tonights 60 Minutes II.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml
Posted by: John McCain at September 15, 2004 10:16 PM
CBS tries to tell us that the story still has legs because Bush hasn't answered the poionts bought out by the documents.
Well, sorry, gang and excuse the hell outta ME...
If the documents are proven to be forged...(I doubt anyone but Rather himself is going to argue they have not been) Where's the case?
Rather's position on this can be neatly summed up with a question i asked at my own blog tonight, and in another comment here tonight, as well... "Hey, Dan, when'd you stop beating your wife?"
Rather justifies this nonsense by suggesting the story is valid even if the documents are not. No sale, Dan...Think; What story would there be on the matter WITHOUT these documents? None.
Their entire story is based on these documents. Thereby when the documnents are forged, they have no story... and the story then becomes their stonewalling on the issue of their source, and the reasons for that stonewalling... which are increasingly to me looking like Rather was trying to throw the election.
What other possible reason could there be for them not to admit Rather screwed up, can his butt and get back to making the workd safe for socialism?
Posted by: Bithead at September 15, 2004 10:20 PM
McCain-
I'll look past your wishful fantasies and trolling and reply to you:
It doesn;t matter what this secy says, because the whole thing is now in the whirlwind.
And nobody will even hear what she has to say, relevant or not (and it is not)
You can thank Dan Rather for immunizing Bush from further National Guard attacks.
But thanks for playing
Posted by: Shark at September 15, 2004 11:04 PM
based on bogus WMD evidence espoused by his administration to justify invastion and occupation.
You're kidding, right? You do know that WMD was just one reason out of many for invading Iraq, right? Iraq was a terrorist sponsoring state, and it was attacking US and British fighters in the no-fly zone, and it was a brutal, murderous regime. Are those not good enough reasons for invading?
Posted by: Steverino at September 15, 2004 11:27 PM
Steverino - fear not. I have just, within the last 5 minutes on my computer, unearthed memos written by Saddam Hussein directly to George Bush, possibly from Hussein's own documents, but possibly done by his 97 year old secretary 30 years ago, that directly PROVE Hussein had all the WMD's, and MORE, that the CIA said he had.
And if the memo's I have are fake, well, it doesn't matter, because the substance of the story is true.
This means George Bush did not "lie" during his speech, he did not deceive the U.S. Congress into invading Iraq, and the Iraq war is totally justified. Try tossing that into the lefties shopping cart the next time they mention it.
On the reality front, welcome to the new mantra "Bush stole the election of 2004" because CBS said so. Another 4 fun filled years of self loathing for America and vile spew from the left.
And WHO is going to stop them? I eagerly await the millions, if not billions of tax payer dollars we end up having to piss away to try and ensure THIS kind of media promulgated LIE does not repeat itself in the election of 2008.
Posted by: looker at September 16, 2004 12:52 AM
And to the point of the whole bias issue:
Ann Coulter asks this morning; would Rather have run documents from the Swiftees without fact checking them first, as he apparently did here?
Posted by: Bithead at September 16, 2004 09:13 AM