FromTexas
This Space for Rent
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040918/ap_on_el_pr/bush_guard_questions
Time to check the DU working the spin...
Time to check the DU working the spin...
Possible source of documents says had contact with Kerry campaign...
- Thread starter FromTexas
- Start date
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
"The retired Guard official, Bill Burkett, said in an Aug. 21 e-mail to a list of Texas Democrats that after getting through "seven layers of bureaucratic kids" in the Democrat's campaign, he talked with former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland about information that would counter criticism of Kerry's Vietnam War service. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the e-mail Saturday.
"I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. (Cleland) said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with," Burkett wrote."
_________________________________________________________________
I suppose these are the damaging statements that can be taken from the article, and attributed to the retired Guard officer Burkett as the source of the memos CBS, and Dan Rather aired.
However, I would want to see this validated a bit more before taking it on face value.
"I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. (Cleland) said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with," Burkett wrote."
_________________________________________________________________
I suppose these are the damaging statements that can be taken from the article, and attributed to the retired Guard officer Burkett as the source of the memos CBS, and Dan Rather aired.
However, I would want to see this validated a bit more before taking it on face value.
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
And now the Washington Post story...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30043-2004Sep17?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30043-2004Sep17?language=printer
Otter
Nothing to see here
STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism. Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism. Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
Toxick
Splat
otter said:
Translation:
I'm a partisan twerp pretending to be objective, and I'm ashamed that I was caught. I tried like hell to save face, but in the end, it apparently didn't work. I will endeaver in the future to ensure that I do not get caught spreading my overt propaganda, and will make sure that the paper trail behind my fraudulent sources are not quite so obvious.
My main objective at this time is to rebuild my shattered credibility, and convince every idiot in America that I really am an objective journalist. Once again. Please don't "Chung" me, no matter how badly I deserve it.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Once they showed any kind of connection with Burkett, it sure seemed to me that he concocted the whole thing, faxed the papers to CBS with some lame story of how he retrieved them from the trash years ago, and Rather, being all too willing to trash the President without really GOOD evidence, fell for it.
What's really sad about this is - EVEN IF IT WAS *TRUE* - it probably would not have had much of an effect. Does anyone *really* give a crap what some twenty-something kid did 32 years ago about whether or not he went in for a physical? I mean, we're talking an electorate that doesn't care about guys who drown their passengers in their car or get "serviced" in the Oval Office. By NOT CHECKING their sources, CBS *and* the Kerry campaign - or at least, McAuliffe - ultimately may have *sunk* John Kerry.
What's really sad about this is - EVEN IF IT WAS *TRUE* - it probably would not have had much of an effect. Does anyone *really* give a crap what some twenty-something kid did 32 years ago about whether or not he went in for a physical? I mean, we're talking an electorate that doesn't care about guys who drown their passengers in their car or get "serviced" in the Oval Office. By NOT CHECKING their sources, CBS *and* the Kerry campaign - or at least, McAuliffe - ultimately may have *sunk* John Kerry.
Toxick said:
My personal favorite episode in this whole thing was Dan Rather saying on (whatever show that was) that, if the documents ARE fake, he'd like to break that story.
Earth to Dan! Someone already did!
Larry swears they did that on purpose. Hil in '08!SamSpade said:
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
I think the reality is that the firestorm is just begining to erupt now, because Dan Rather has himself admitted, in so many words, that the documents were fradulent.
Fox News just had some people on that are intimating that Max Cleland may have had a lot to do with the forwarding of these papers. We know too, that he's no friend of GW, he's the one that went down to Crawford Tx, with some kind of message that he wanted the president to admit to.
So, failing that political maneuver, is it possible that he had a hand in getting the information to CBS, and Dan Rather for broadcast?
And since Max Cleland would be an "unimpeachable source", as a Democrat, that Rather would take as face value as valid information in these documents?
If this can be tied to the Demoncrats' partisan bashing, using the news media and one of their chief mouthpieces, it could well blow up in their faces.
Fox News just had some people on that are intimating that Max Cleland may have had a lot to do with the forwarding of these papers. We know too, that he's no friend of GW, he's the one that went down to Crawford Tx, with some kind of message that he wanted the president to admit to.
So, failing that political maneuver, is it possible that he had a hand in getting the information to CBS, and Dan Rather for broadcast?
And since Max Cleland would be an "unimpeachable source", as a Democrat, that Rather would take as face value as valid information in these documents?
If this can be tied to the Demoncrats' partisan bashing, using the news media and one of their chief mouthpieces, it could well blow up in their faces.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I really, really, hate to say this, but it's looking more and more like Rather isn't the villian here. The real POS is the show's producer, Mary Mapes. She's apparently spent a lot of time over the past five years investigating this story and she's the one who put it all together. Rather was just her mouthpiece.
I was reading about her in the paper yesterday, and if you think Rather is biased against Republicans you should see Mapes's record. She never misses an opportunity to prodcue a story that's detrimental to Republicans, but I didn't see any negative stories about Democrats.
I was reading about her in the paper yesterday, and if you think Rather is biased against Republicans you should see Mapes's record. She never misses an opportunity to prodcue a story that's detrimental to Republicans, but I didn't see any negative stories about Democrats.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
I saw the fake memos in Sunday's paper, and I knew at a glance that they couldn't be real. The forgery was incredibly amateurish. Not even the basic precaution of using the Courier font to mimic a '70s typewriter. So either CBS News is rabidly partisan or just incredibly dumb. Either way, the network looks like a bunch of idiots.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Tonio said:
But ! You could see they were forgeries, because you'd already been alerted to that fact. The natural reaction to something negative is to doubt its *content*, not its origin. CBS did a poor job of investigating, because all they were checking was *handwriting* - they showed very little doubt that the documents weren't frauds. And that was where Rather was up to last Friday - BELIEVING the content, EVEN if the document was fake.
Somehow, reality must have hit the poor guy with "DAN! You can't believe the CONTENT if there's no evidence whatsoever that it's TRUE!". It's like believing in Bigfoot because you're holding a pile of fake evidence - it's not intelligent thinking.
Toxick
Splat
Bruzilla said:
Perhaps.
The problem here, and the reason I would hold Rather accountable, is that he's a prominent 'journalist' and he put his name on this story.
He's (ostensibly) not a mouth-piece reading a cue-card, but a journalist who researches his own stories and announces them as his own, and his credibility and dedication to the truth (haha) is what pushed him to the forefront as the face of CBS News
In other words: His position does not afford him plausible deniability.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Oh, let me assure you,Tonio said:
they have been burning many gallons of midnight oil, during many executive board meetings, discussing the very issues you raise.They most likely feel their credibility as journalists hang in the balance in how they handle this.......
Remember, we are talking BIG BUCKS here; their ratings are tanking, viewers are going elsewhere for their news, and sponsors will dry up for them if they don't explain this mess away, so John Q. Public can understand what happened.
I have a feeling that very soon, there's going to be some firings, maybe even a retirement ceremony for someone. A definite shakeup in their staff is what I expect to at least take place.
Somebody has to go; but who will it be?
I recall Dan Rather on election night of 1992 stumping for votes for Clinton. With a number of polls reporting on the east coast that Clinton was winning, Rather addressed the west coast saying there is still time to vote for change.
I have not watched any CBS news coverage since that day. I am enjoying seeing Dan Rather in this mess.
I have not watched any CBS news coverage since that day. I am enjoying seeing Dan Rather in this mess.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Dan Rather: Fairly Unbalanced
http://http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040923.shtml
Some interesting hypocracy is going on at CBS, otherwise known as Controlled Bull Sh@!T.
It's interesting to see what they'll offer up as news for us to view, and how they discard various other news items that they don't think is necessarily newsworthy for broadcasting.
http://http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040923.shtml
Some interesting hypocracy is going on at CBS, otherwise known as Controlled Bull Sh@!T.
It's interesting to see what they'll offer up as news for us to view, and how they discard various other news items that they don't think is necessarily newsworthy for broadcasting.