1
   

CBS admitt the Bush Guard Documents are a fake....

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:01 pm
Actually Fox has dragged their feet considerably on the Swift Boat story. O'Reilly for instance wouldn't touch it and it received only passing comment on Hannity and Combes.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:10 pm
Fox,

That's untrue, and I know because I watched them talk about it on The Big Story and Brit Hume every day for two weeks in a row....

Just because the big boys aren't getting their hands dirty doesn't mean it's not being spread about by the others.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:25 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Certainly a difference between the title of the thread - and what it's about.


CBS never admitted the documents are fake.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:29 pm
Cyclop I'm a news junkie. And trust me, Fox did not even mention the Swift Boat stuff for some time after it broke in the newspapers and was slowly making its way onto other news programs. The conservative radio talk show hosts were railing against Fox for dragging their feet on the issue. Sooner or later of course they had to give it some air time because it was front page news everywhere else.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:35 pm
Harper wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
Certainly a difference between the title of the thread - and what it's about.


CBS never admitted the documents are fake.


What do you call it when CBS says they apologize for the documents not being authentic?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:38 pm
You just said it yourself. Apologizing for presenting false evidence and admitting that you knew documents were fake are two completely different things. One implies you knew the evidence was faked; the other implies that you didn't check your facts well enough and got burned.

Fox: I misread your quote, though what you call 'foot-dragging' could easily be called 'strategic timing.' For example, right around the DNC, Fox was all over it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:40 pm
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409200011

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409200008

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170011

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170002

I find it fascinating that it takes a liberal to inform a neoconservative that the rightwing media haven't let up on the Swift Boat controversy.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:43 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You just said it yourself. Apologizing for presenting false evidence and admitting that you knew documents were fake are two completely different things. One implies you knew the evidence was faked; the other implies that you didn't check your facts well enough and got burned.

Cycloptichorn


Sounds like the war in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:45 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You just said it yourself. Apologizing for presenting false evidence and admitting that you knew documents were fake are two completely different things. One implies you knew the evidence was faked; the other implies that you didn't check your facts well enough and got burned.

Fox: I misread your quote, though what you call 'foot-dragging' could easily be called 'strategic timing.' For example, right around the DNC, Fox was all over it.

Cycloptichorn


Concerning the title of the thread...which never implies they knew they were fake before they aired them. But I get your drift....I was off base with that last post now that I think about it. Carry on. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 05:52 pm
From the Media Matters home page in the 'about' section:
Quote:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Conservative misinformation is defined as news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.


In other words, this is an organization dedicated to correcting what they claim is misinformation put out by the conservatives, but also dedicated to thwarting the conservative agenda. How shall we determine which is which in the material they post?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 06:00 pm
Lash wrote:
It doesn't matter. The old lady has an opinion about another guy's opinion from 35 years ago.

The story is Rather is a Dem hack, who manipulated a news org (and the American public) to try to get his guy in office.

I bet there are Federal charges. And there should be. You can't libel/slander people with no consequences.


sure you can...ask John McCain or Max Cleland....yu just have to be part of the bush team to get by with it....
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 06:17 pm
Because Medimatters.org tends to follow up the GOP lies with links to the contrary. There are no claims to be made. All the "claims" seem to come from such stellar news organizations as FOX. And it's run by David Brock, who used to be on YOUR side of conservative politics. But if you think that Bill O'Reilly is the bastion of journalist integrity, well...
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 06:17 pm
The last post was intended for Fox...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 06:32 pm
Until Kerry signs the form releasing all his Navy records, the form he refuses to sign, I think the Swift Boat accusations will continue to dog him. I find nothing, even on the Media Matters site, that acquits Kerry until that final step is taken.

Again the whole thing would be blatantly partisan and inappropriate if Kerry himself hadn't made his Navy record the centerpiece of his convention and put it out there as his primary credentials to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Those vietnam vets he publicly accused and dissed could not be expected to just stand silently by in the face of that. If it had not been for that, I would be fully on Kerry's side in this matter.

In comparison, whatever George Bush's military record is, it is a line on his resume and he has never attempted to use it as his credentials to be president.

Can anybody say without reservation that the Swift Boat vets 'made up' all the facts with which they are accusing Kerry? All 200+ of them? And can anybody say that it was not somebody associated with the Kerry campaign who knowingly duped CBS with the false documents until this matter is investigated?

I don't see how CBS can get out of this one with an apology after they were exposed and forced into the apology. They have to make it right. And that means completing the investigation even if it hurts the Kerry campaign.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 06:53 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20bama.html


So the only question is, as I asked last April, is where was George?


This article was reported by Sara Rimer, Ralph Blumenthal and Raymond Bonner and written by Ms. Rimer.

MONTGOMERY, Ala., Sept. 17 - Nineteen seventy-two was the year George W. Bush dropped off the radar screen.

He abandoned his once-prized status as a National Guard pilot by failing to appear for a required physical. He sought temporary reassignment from the Texas Air National Guard to an Alabama unit but for six months did not show up for training. He signed on as an official in the losing campaign of a Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, and even there he left few impressions other than as an amiable bachelor with a good tennis game and a famous father.

"To say he brought in a bunch of initiatives and bright ideas," said a fellow campaign worker, Devere McLennan, "no he didn't."

This year of inconsequence has grown increasingly consequential for President Bush because of persistent, unanswered questions about his National Guard service - why he failed to take his pilot's physical and whether he fulfilled his commitment to the Guard. If anything, those issues became still murkier this past week, with the controversy over the authenticity of four documents disclosed by CBS News and its program "60 Minutes" purporting to shed light on that Guard record.

Still, a wider examination of his life in 1972, based on dozens of interviews and other documents released by the White House over the years, yields a portrait of a young man like many other young men of privilege in that turbulent time - entitled, unanchored and safe from combat, bouncing from a National Guard slot made possible by his family's prominence to a political job arranged through his father.

In a speech on Tuesday at a National Guard convention, Mr. Bush said he was "proud to be one of them," and in his autobiography he writes that his service taught him respect for the chain of command. But a review of records shows that not only did he miss months of duty in 1972, but that he also may have been improperly awarded credit for service, making possible an early honorable discharge so he could turn his attention to a new interest: Harvard Business School.

Mr. Bush, nearly 26, went to Alabama in mid-May 1972 to work on the campaign of Winton M. Blount, a construction magnate known as Red who was a friend of Mr. Bush's father. The Democratic opponent was Senator John J. Sparkman, chairman of the Senate banking committee, a legendary power in what was still a solidly Democratic South.

Mr. Bush, while missing months of the Guard duty that allowed him to avoid Vietnam, was the political director of the Blount campaign, which accused Mr. Sparkman - a hawk on the war - and the national Democrats of supporting "amnesty for all draft dodgers" and of showing "more concern for coddling deserters than for patriotic American young men who have lost their lives in Vietnam." In the last week of the race, the Blount campaign ran a radio advertisement using an edited recording of Mr. Sparkman that made him appear to support forced busing of schoolchildren, which he opposed.

Although campaign records list Mr. Bush as third in command, people who worked in the race said he was not involved in those tactics or with the overall agenda. Mr. Bush's connection was Jimmy Allison, a political operative from Midland, Tex., who was running the campaign and was a close friend of George H. W. Bush, having managed the elder Mr. Bush's 1966 Congressional victory in Houston.

Mr. Allison's widow, Linda, who volunteered in the Blount campaign, said she became curious about the young Mr. Bush's job after noticing his coming into the office late and leaving early.

"I asked Jimmy, 'What does Georgie do?' '' Mrs. Allison, 73, said in an interview, repeating the account she had given to Salon, the online publication. "He just said George had called him and told him that Georgie was having some difficulties in Houston. Big George thought it would be beneficial to the family and George Jr. for him to come to Alabama to work on the campaign with Jimmy."

(Three more pages to article..........)

====


He didn't fullfill his committment to the US Armed Forces.
He was, and is, a fancy pants sissy playing at war.

Only now he is killing our children

Joe
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 07:00 pm
Ridiculous.

National Guard service is service. You insult alot of decent people with that slur.

Bush hasn't killed anyone. Did Clinton kill those boys at Mogadishu?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 07:13 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409200011

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409200008

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170011

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170002

I find it fascinating that it takes a liberal to inform a neoconservative that the rightwing media haven't let up on the Swift Boat controversy.


This is just as bad as using Rush or Hannity for a news source. I am going to start using them as sources in my posts. Since you can use this crap that means anything goes. Woo hoo!!!!!!!!!! :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 07:22 pm
Nothing makes the military types in my family or among my friends angrier than a comment like "he is killing our children'. They'll tell you they willingly submitted to the draft or joined up by their own volition as fully grown men and highly resent the implication that they are somehow little boys being exploited by a tyrant.

I suppose some think the military is a social organization and it is unconsionable to sign em up and let them be shot at. Maybe we can get Al Qaida or the Iraqi insurgents to settle all differences with say a two out of three pick up game?

Meanwhile, some just don't care if somebody on their side forged documents in an effort to take down the president.

And they say Bush is dangerous.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 08:58 pm
Holy crap...this is getting crazy...almost as if CBS is advising the Kerry campaign.


Kerry Aide Talked to Retired Guard Officer

Associated Press


NEW YORK - At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said Monday he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released. The White House accused Kerry's campaign of fanning the controversy over Bush's military service.

Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.

"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat" allegations, Lockhart said, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."

The White House called the exchange evidence of coordination between the Kerry campaign and Burkett.

"The fact that CBS News and a high-level adviser to the Kerry campaign coordinated a personal attack on President Bush is a stunning and deeply troubling development," said White House communications director Dan Bartlett. He urged Kerry to hold accountable anybody involved in helping CBS obtain the documents.

Lockhart denied any involvement. "Bartlett is wrong," he said later Monday.

Earlier, Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his advice after a three- to four-minute call, and that he does not recall talking to Burkett about Bush's Guard records. "It's baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this," he said.

Later, Lockhart said he was sure he had not talked to Burkett about the Guard documents.

CBS News apologized Monday for a "mistake in judgment" in its story questioning Bush's Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that several experts have dismissed as fakes. The network said an independent panel would look at its reporting about the memos.

CBS News spokeswoman Kelli Edwards said Mapes had declined to comment.

"This is an example of the kind of thing that the independent panel that will be named in a few days will look into. When that review is complete, we will comment," Edwards said.

Burkett admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member, the network said. CBS hasn't been able to conclusively tell how he got them, or even whether they're fakes.

Kerry ally Max Cleland, a former Georgia senator, also said he had a brief conversation last month with Burkett, who told him he had information about Bush to counter charges against Kerry's Vietnam War service. Cleland said he gave Burkett's name and phone number to the campaign's research department.

Kerry spokesman David Ginsberg said nobody in the campaign's research department followed up on Burkett's offer of information.

Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."

Source
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 09:23 pm
Lash wrote:
Ridiculous.

National Guard service is service. You insult alot of decent people with that slur.

Bush hasn't killed anyone. Did Clinton kill those boys at Mogadishu?


No actually he killed Vince Foster. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 11:43:35