It is now all but certain that the CBS show 60 Minutes broadcast false and forged National Guard documents impugning GW’s National Gaurd service. It’s also clear that Dan Rather and his comrades chose to do a p*ss poor job at trying to verify the authenticty before airing the story.
** Emily Will, a documents examiner from North Carolina hired by CBS, said she told the network before the report aired that she questioned handwriting in the documents she was shown and whether it could have been produced by a typewriter.
Will said she e-mailed a CBS producer and urged her the night before the broadcast not to play up that a professional document examiner had authenticated the papers.
“I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply,” Will told ABC News.
Another expert hired by CBS, Linda James of Plano, Texas, told ABC that “I did not authenticate anything and I don’t want it understood that I did.”
James told AP late Tuesday she raised similar concerns about signature samples.
Newsmen typically do not reveal sources of truthful information. However, they have no duty to keep secret the identity of someone who set them up to publish forged documents. Will CBS come clean and identify their source? Probably not if it came from the DNC or the Kerry campaign as top management of CBS is probably more concerned about not damaging Kerry than they are about rehabilitating their own reputation.
Robert Novak should tell who leaked that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent as that is a crime of treason and someone in the Bush administration is responsible.
Dan Rather should work for National Inquirer. This is not the first time he has pulled a stunt like that. Remember his Afghani story? He is an annoying sob, I hate the way he talks – he chews on each word before saying it. He comes across as a pretty dumb person. Peter Jennings is way way smarter than Rather. He is an embarrassment to the 60 minutes team of grade-A investigative journalists. They should kick his arse out.
^^
Actually UTD, I agree with you. But he won't because newsmen have a duty to protect the sources of truthful information. They have no duty to protect sources who set them up to publish false information and forged documents.
This sounds suspiciously like the work and brainchild of James Carville or Paul Begalia. The timing of the 60 Minutes piece also coincides pretty well with Carville and Begalia joining the Kerry Campaign team.
if the documents are forged - that p!sses me off. The NEWS is supposed to be the NEWS - I could care less if it is in favor of who I want to win the election or not -- I just want objective, factual reporting
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Robert Novak should tell who leaked that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent as that is a crime of treason and someone in the Bush administration is responsible.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps he should. The larger point is the bias that has been so clear for so long on the big three networks.
In your example of Plame, what was the context of the story? It was certainly not favorable to Bush. So anti-administration types pretty much get the story they want most of the time. Your Plame example doesn't shed any light on CBS and Dan Rather's motivation for the Guard story.
Look back at CBS archives and the gist is that Bush and the Whitehouse leaked it as payback to Wilson. So on CBS anyway, generally the story is not rushing to the defense of a republican Whitehouse. They didn't attack Wilson or Plame. They were the victims (which perhaps they are, though later discoveries discredit those two to an extent).
In the documents case, I doubt Rather was trying to pull one over on anyone, but it is the eagerness with which he ran and gave credibility to a story he didn't check out particularly well. I think we can assume he and others were not as eager to give Swiftboat vets a similar credibility. Turns out each story may have about the same credibility and political motive. Whether he'd admit it or not, he made an assumption about the Guard documents that was informed by his personal opinion on Bush.
Not a great moment for him.
When people say, "But the Swiftboat Vets got their story through on Fox...so both sides get a similar pass.."
I don't buy it, 'cause if you asked Dan Rather if his view was that FOX and CBS are each upstanding, unbiased members of the TV journalist community, I think it's pretty clear he would view CBS as a much more balanced and credible organization.
This sounds suspiciously like the work and brainchild of James Carville or Paul Begalia. The timing of the 60 Minutes piece also coincides pretty well with Carville and Begalia joining the Kerry Campaign team.
[/QUOTE]
More likely Rove put them out knowing that the memos could be discredited and use that to distract voters from real issues like the war and the economy.
The Rove campaign of fear and distraction has been a success thus far, as it has shown to have worked on intelligent businessmen/attorneys like yourself.
I think the whole thing is a big waste of time. Not just the Dan Rather thing, but also the Swift Boat thing. I mean, why would someone expect to elect the President of the United States of America based on their conduct 35 years ago. Its just BS, and the blame rightfully goes to John Kerry. He and his advisors came up with the brilliant idea to pump up his Vietnam record to suggest he is the guy to lead US in 2004. I know I did, and I am sure a lot of other people also noted that Kerry's acceptance speech had a lot about his Vietnam past, but nothing at all about his terms as Senator. Its as if those 19 years have just vanished. Or may be he has nothing positive to say about his time spent in US Senate.
Either way, that unnecessary and excessive emphasis on his war records has truly muddled the campaign waters and now both sides are defending or tarnishing the war record, or lack thereof, of their candidate and the opponent, respectively.
This has deviated focus from the real issues on hand, i.e. war in Iraq, economy, healthcare, education, budget deficit and other such important issues. These are the issue of 2004. I wish both campaigns and their respective media accomplices, fast forward from 1971 and start living in the present, for a change.
The way Rather charged ahead with dodgy info and all, i suggest the if re-elected W should include Rather in his govt. They seem to have the same approach for going with half assed half baked info.
More likely Rove put them out knowing that the memos could be discredited and use that to distract voters from real issues like the war and the economy.
[/QUOTE]
Time for you to take an extended rest from World Affairs. I'll bet dollars to donuts that your mind would never have conceived of such a thing until you spent 3 years here being inundated with conspiracy theories propounded by the keyboard jihadis.
Are you sure it wasn't Mossad? I heard that 100 Jews didn't show up for work at CBS the day the documents were delivered.
Time for you to take an extended rest from World Affairs. I'll bet dollars to donuts that your mind would never have conceived of such a thing until you spent 3 years here being inundated with conspiracy theories propounded by the keyboard jihadis.
Are you sure it wasn't Mossad? I heard that 100 Jews didn't show up for work at CBS the day the documents were delivered.
[/QUOTE]
You don't know much about Karl Rove do you myvoice?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Where are you flying off to?
:-D
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, the word healthcare in your post was highlighted and was a link to a site trying to sell me healthcare, some type of Spam must have somehow got onto this computer to do that, you can delete these last few posts.
You don't know much about Karl Rove do you myvoice?
[/QUOTE]
If Rove was sharp enough to orchestrate this, then GW has NO WORRIES and will win re-election in a landslide. Here's how Rove could plausibly have done it.
Rove creates forged documents regarding Bush's National Guard service which make Bush look bad. Rove plants them in an old file cabinet of the dead guy who supposedly wrote them that is maintained at his widow's house. Rove leaks the existence and location of the documents in a way that he knows Carville will learn of the documents. Rove anticipates that Carville will hire some first class burglars to go steal the papers from the dead guy's widow. Carville, as anticipated by Rove, steals them and then supplies the documents to Dan Rather and 60 Minutes all the while correctly guessing that they would air the false charges without adequately authenticating the forged documents. Expertly projecting just how long the false allegations can be allowed to sit with the American public so as not to hurt GW's standing with them, Rove manipulates some Internet bloggers into uncovering the scandal in the nick of time. The only part of the plan that is still forthcoming is that Dan Rather and 60 Minutes apologize to their viewership and sadly announce that the Kerry campaign was their source.
Aboslutely brilliant. :D
Now back to reality. James Carville makes G. Gordon Liddy look almost sane. Can't you think of a much simpler and more plausible explanation UTD?
i wanna know who forged the WMD evidence on Iraq that made Powell give that elaborate presentation to UN.. 1000 US soldiers and several thousand Iraqis have lost their lives so far.. do i give a flip if W was or wasn't doing his heroic duty of keeping the vietcong out of Texas?
Presstitutes of the corporate media.. discuss everything but the real issues.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
who effin' cares!
i wanna know who forged the WMD evidence on Iraq that made Powell give that elaborate presentation to UN.. 1000 US soldiers and several thousand Iraqis have lost their lives so far.. do i give a flip if W was or wasn't doing his heroic duty of keeping the vietcong out of Texas?
Presstitutes of the corporate media.. discuss everything but the real issues.
[/QUOTE]
You might have a good question if, in fact, Powell presented forged WMD evidence on Iraq. What evidence do you claim was forged? My recollection was that the evidence was authentic enough but that the conclusions drawn therefrom were flawed.
In the topical case we are discussing, the evidence itself is forged. Someone went to great pains to create false and forged documents to be broadcast to the American people to try to influence the outcome of a Presidential election. That's pretty hot stuff.
You should be happy that no one has yet claimed it is the work of Islamo-fascist terrorists. Just keep quiet and let us Americans beat up on each other for awhile.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
In the topical case we are discussing, the evidence itself is forged. Someone went to great pains to create false and forged documents to be broadcast to the American people to try to influence the outcome of a Presidential election. That's pretty hot stuff.
[/QUOTE]
You gotta say one thing, thing. Whoever forged these, should not be paid the last installment. Man, that was one crappy forgery. To use superscript in a document purported to be from 1971.. the forgerer was obviously either not very bright, or just wanted the whole thing to be blown apart. Take your pick.
^^
I guess the forger was bright enough to easily fool Dan Rather and the CBS news crew. They devoted prime time hours to this sterling piece of unbiased investigative journalism.