Slashdot Mirror
CBS and Rather Admit Mistakes in Bush Documents
Vexler writes "The word this afternoon from CBS regarding the authenticity of the national guard memos of President Bush is that they cannot be trusted, confirming what several document experts had already suggested. In Dan Rather apologized for a 'mistake in judgment.' I have to wonder though: What would be the price CBS (or CNN, during the 2000 presidential election in which the final tally from Florida was changed several times before they realized that a recount may be needed) would pay for 'mistakes' of this type? What are some of your thoughts regarding 'moderating' (think /.) a news agency when it admits that more than just an honest mistake has been committed in its reporting?" There is still one big question remaining unanswered, too: who forged the memos? Where did they come from? Burkett, the man who provided them to CBS, won't say where he got them.
So, who did this damage more? CBS aired their very-hyped 60 minutes episode that now seems to have totally and unfairly libeled Bush. The damage was done in peoples' minds immediately... and after the fact, 60 minutes and CBS and Dan Rather can come and say, "Whoops." Regardless of what you think about Bush, this isn't totally fair and I think he'd have a good case for libel, if he wasn't president. Shouldn't there be some other ramification other than loss of public trust?
But, since the documents were so quickly shown to be BS (only the documents, the story might actually be true)... it seems to have really, really hurt the democrats and apparently back fired on the apparently-not-so-impartial Dan Rather. It makes the Democrats look like conspirators and more than a little slimy. That they're so worried that they'd need to plant false evidence smearing Bush. I'm not saying this is true, but it definitely could have that appearance to people.
So, given the short attention spans of the public--who did this help or hurt the most? I think the argument could definitely be made both ways. And, I can definitely see motivation for both parties to manufacture these documents and hand them over to CBS... I mean, weren't they exposed a little TOO fast?
-- "A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg."
Remember, the question to ask here is not, "Are the documents authentic?" but rather, "Was CBS justified in believing the documents to be authentic?" Of course, if they did not believe the documents to be authentic, but ran the story anyway, that would be even worse.
The point is that there are always going to be mistakes made. Demanding 100% accuracy is unrealistic and does more harm than good. Mistakes are only blameworthy if they are caused by carelessness. Not to say that CBS is not blameworthy, but we should be sure to ask the right questions here.
Is it illegal to falsify government documents?
If so, would Bill Burkett have to tell investigators where he obtained the documents?
In libel and slander suits, law recognizes a difference between a daily newspaper and a magazine, which should have much more time to check facts. A newspaper, which has to be printed quickly and is literally keeping up with today's news does not always have time for in depth checking as a magazine.
CNN, and other networks, on Election Night in 2000 were reporting live, real time events. It is very understandable why all the networks had trouble calling Florida's vote count.
Dan Rather, on the other hand, had time to check, and didn't do his job. In one case, a source had been read the documents over the phone, but never told they were typewritten. There were also problems with the dates -- the memos involved people who were no longer in the Texas ANG. While there is a rush to get that kind of info out, Rather (who, I admit, I have never trusted or liked as a newscaster) seemed to live up to the image I developed of him in Journalism class when I read his autobiography (The Camera Never Blinks) -- he was more concerned with being the first, the most noticable, and the one with the biggest ego, instead of making sure he was reporting news.
I don't think there's reason to penalize CNN and other networks for the gaffs in 2000, but Rather -- I hope this helps people finally see he operates on the same level Geraldo operated on when he did stunts like opening Al Capone's vault.
I also think Rather owes a public apology to BOTH Bush and Kerry, since the memos slandered Bush, but also would have looked to many like Kerry was trying to slander Bush.
BTW, even though I can forgive CNN for the mistakes in 2000, I still can't bring myself to call any station a news channel when they spend 8 hours a day for a year on the O.J. Simpson trial.
1) These documents didn't appear in a vacuum. They came out in what was clearly a coordinated attack on Bush by CBS, the Boston Globe (who, with their NYT owners are getting off the hook way too easily on this) and the DNC. Now, I don't believe for a second that the Kerry campaign created these documents. But given how closely the campaign was tied to these documents, everyone involved really needs to explain where the forgeries came from. (And, no, there is no issue of protecting an anonymous source in a case like this.)
2) The CBS "apology" might have been adequate a week and a half ago. But at this point, CBS has been stonewalling and hiding behind a constantly changing cast of "experts" way, way past the point where it was obvious that the documents were egregious fakes. (And ridiculing everyone who bothered to actually do some real fact-checking.) Are there going to be any further explanations or consequences? This is nowhere near enough.
(By the way, given that this is going to turn out to be a watershed moment in Internet journalism, Slashdot has been curiously oblivious to its News For Nerds aspect.)
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
This is the we're sorry ploy. Notice they didn't retract the story -- just retracted the authenticity of the memos. They're trying to mitigate possibility of a lawsuit with more fictional reporting ...
...
... more bogus reporting by CBS and company ...
If GW was a citizen rather than The President, he'd have a slam-dunk slander case. CBS did not follow due diligence in determining the authenticity of the memos. It really looks like CBS was shopping for the verification they wanted, in order to be able to air the memos even though they knew they were fakes. They even went so far as to call a preliminary opinion of the documents (collectively, not just the 4 memos) their authentication.
If it can be proven that CBS intentionally ran the story with fake documents, its just a short step further to the jackpot slander verdict
Watch how they CYA with their 'follow-up' 'report' on how the documents were authenticated
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
Bias : A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/00605208
ref=pd_csp_1/103-7489900-
The Bush administration created these documents!
They heard that CBS was investigating the story and they immediately went in to damage control. The documents were clandestinely delivered to Kerry supporters so that they would then be given to CBS. They were made to be so juicy that CBS wouldn't be able to see through all of the drool that they were obvious forgeries.
The Bush family has a history in the intelligence business. I wouldn't put this past them.
Sure, the documents are forgeries, but is the story true or false? As it stands now, the story is in a quantum state, awaiting the collapse of a wave function.
I agree with another poster, "Kodos 2004"
It said, "No more nails please."
So, because these documents were forged, it means George W. Bush honorably and fully completed his commitment to the National Guard, right?
...But it's not as if I really trust that anymore, either.
Of course not. But, as is the custom with our current administration, the most effective way to suppress the message is to conduct a smear campaign against the messenger.
Such is the cult of personality surrounding George W. Bush: Because Bush cannot be flawed in any way, those that suspect he is must be destroyed. (I'm thinking of Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Dan Rather, and any other number of smaller government employees, economists, journalists, etc.)
But you can't entirely blame Bush's people. Why not do what works, if you can get away with it?
This whole forged documents story is endemic of a systemic failure in our print and television media-- a failure that allows any number of major scandals to go unreported, that allows lies to pass under the guise of "viewpoints," that focuses on real or imagined personality traits rather than issues.
I will register my disgust in the proper way: through my vote.
Ok, so CBS is a fraud. But even though GWB was HONORABLY discharged, the faudulent info is still true!
And the dems still don't understand why they're losing the race.
... CBS News took a page from Michael-Moore-Money and his 'Michael-Moore-Documentary' style ...
...).
Using obviously faked 'historical records' to back up an outrageous theory; a TANG pilot skipping a physical is tantamount to treason! Come on DAN, do some real reporting for crying out loud!
Then, using Michael-Moore-Money's own tactics, when caught at their lie, they deflect (provide authentication), obfuscate (well, the memos might be fake, but the content is correct), and confuse the issue (we got them from a 'reliable source' who we can't name
LIES! LIES! LIES!
Pilots attempting to skip their annual physical is nothing new in any service. My dad served as a trainer in WW2, and he would've skipped any annual physical he thought he could get away with. He also voluntarily quit flying immediately upon leaving the service.
What works for the Michael-Moore-Money fringe doesn't fly with mainstream America. CBS ends up with egg on their face, and Dan Rather ends up ruining his career.
Good Riddens you BLOCK HEAD!
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
See http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush /national_guard/
The Globe (and CBS) showed pretty darn conclusively that Bush reneged, was AWOL, that it was covered up/excused, and that he's lying and/or stonewalling when he says different and at the same time, he and his proxies are attacking Kerry's war record.
But these documents... They get shown to be forgeries and we forget (POOF!) the whole, real, well-rounded story. If these documents weren't plants, then Karl Rove couldn't have hoped for a better lucky break.
You dangle a shiny toy in front of the American public and it immediately forgets that its sippy-cup exists.
http://www.mindsetcentral.com/frequencykenneth.htm l/
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
The story was well researched
Um. No. Even CBS News says now that the story never should have gone on the air.
includes a lot of interviews
Mostly interviews that torpedoed the story. But you didn't hear anything about those on 60 Minutes.
including, now, to the secretary who says "I didn't type those. But I typed ones that said about the same thing"
That's not at all what she said --go read the transcripts --and she's also the same person who was quoted in the Dallas Morning News as saying that the thought Bush was "selected, not elected." No possible agenda there, no sir.
The Globe (and CBS) showed pretty darn conclusively that Bush reneged, was AWOL, that it was covered up/excused, and that he's lying and/or stonewalling when he says different and at the same time, he and his proxies are attacking Kerry's war record.
Wow. That's the precise opposite of what the record actually shows. Amazing.
Did George W. Bush sign up for a six-year commitment? Yes. Did he fulfill every obligation during his service? Yes. When he transferred to Alabama, did he give up his flight status because there was no place on the flightline for him? Yes. Did he request an early discharge? Yes. Was he granted that early discharge? Yes.
Is there any evidence at all that George W. Bush did anything improperly or incompletely? No. Ben Barnes insists that he pulled strings for Bush, but he simply can't produce any evidence to that effect, and everybody else involved maintains that it simply isn't true.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your personal hatred, now.
I write in my journal
The charges themselves have been all but corroborated by the White House
That's not correct.
and certainly nobody is denying the content is true.
Also not correct.
The only (campaign) issue is whether these actual embodiments are from the time period they claim to be.
Actually, the campaign issue is whether a major news organization used memos which it either (1) knew or (2) reasonably should have known were falsified as the basis for a story which was released with the intent of influencing the outcome of the election.
Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document?
How can you not?
The point is that Bush dropped the ball when he was supposed to be defending the country in the 1970's, a job he got by virtue of being his father's son in the first place.
See, those are the two allegations that these memos were alleged to support, but that in the absence of these memos turn out to be completely unfounded. Ben Barnes has been alleging that somebody pulled strings to get Bush into the Guard since the 1994 Texas gubernatorial race. There's absolutely no evidence to support that allegation. In fact, in 1999, Barnes himself recanted his own story through his attorney. And the "he disobeyed an order" thing was concocted out of whole cloth, apparently either by Bill Burkett or by somebody who then passed the story on to Burkett.
These are two allegations which simply are not true. And yet you're repeating them like they're revealed gospel. Could it be that you're suffering from Dan Rather Syndrome?
I write in my journal
What are some of your thoughts regarding 'moderating' (think /.) a news agency when it admits that more than just an honest mistake has been committed in its reporting?
The fact that a station actually admits that they made a mistake is to its credit.
I'm sure that there are news stations that misreport without ever clearing up any mistakes they may have made.
Anyway, firstly, if you wanted to censure news stations for obvious bias, there would probably not be any US-based channels on the air. I personally prefer news from Reuters and the BBC, but I'm sure someone will believe them to be pinko-commie-sympathizing liberals (or neo-Nazi facists, depending on your view of the news being reported).
Secondly, I think that allowing people to moderate news will result in continuous 24 hour coverage of sports and models, since that's probably what most people would like to see instead of depressing world news and politics.
We need to keep in mind:
The document was, in fact a forgery.
The non-experts who looked at it suspected it was a forgery.
There's ample evidence that the people it was provided to knew it was a forgery.
The experts who were paid to know these things confirmed it was a forgery.
Having a formerly well-respected individual get onto television and state emphatically to the entire world that they were genuine does not alter the fact that the document was a forgery.
and yet, we're still trudging around Iraq, looking for the Nukes that don't exist.
It's almost like nobody really cares that someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document?
Oh, I'm sorry, were we talking about something trivial here?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
It's also very very interesting to note that Bush is not letting guys in the National Guard today, get away with what HE did 30 years ago. No way, no sirree... they are not only having to show up, they're being kept under lock and key until they are shipped off to Iraq. Not only that, but this is all due to his own choice not to expand our armed forces. And not only THAT, but if someone were to refuse a phsyical now... what do you think would happen? Oh George, this is just getting so ugly! http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31689-20 04Sep18?language=printer
http://www.loveliberty2004.com
Well, but, but, but... "That's not at all what she said --go read the transcripts --and she's also the same person who was quoted in the Dallas Morning News as saying that the thought Bush was "selected, not elected." No possible agenda there, no sir." But, he wasn't elected. That's a statement of fact, not an agenda. (Frankly I have not gone off and done all the research into every little detail of this or that or the other as I could care less. But truth be told, Bush never would've signed up for a National Guard en route to Iraq... which is just what he's doing now!) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31689-20 04Sep18?language=printer
http://www.loveliberty2004.com
From ABCNEWS.com,
emphasis mine
And keep reading the link for more who called 'shenanigans' before the piece went to air.
You know what?
An appeallte court already decided that it's ok for the media to lie. A case against Fox News was brought up by a reporter that was forced to present as fact information that she knew was wrong. Fox News defended itself by saying that they should be able to lie if they want to. The court agreed with them.
c h/02/AppelateCourtRules2.htm
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/2003/Mar
"On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast. "
So it doesn't matter if CBS/Rather knew the docs were fake, they still apparently are allowed to present any information they want as "fact".
Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document?
Oh boy. I'm no fan of Bush (I voted for him in 2000, and I'm not voting for him this time around), but just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you can conveniently ignore the fact that these documents were forged. Even if they are talking about something that really did happen in the early seventies, they are forgeries, and therefore nothing more than mean spirited fiction. They are not evidence, and no amount of good intentions on anyone's part can change that, no more than some of the more fanciful stories about Clinton that have been proven false are somehow correct because they were "morally justified".
You can't apply one standard to the group you agree with, and then apply another standard to those you don't. That's just hypocrisy.
So this is what it's come to? I'm stuck voting for the people who lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top, or people who lie, cheat, and steal to make the others look bad. Meh...
**waves flag, promptly burns it**
I hear Canada is nice this time of year...
But, he wasn't elected. That's a statement of fact, not an agenda.
Actually, it's an out-and-out lie. But whatever.
Frankly I have not gone off and done all the research into every little detail of this
No. Really?
I write in my journal
Are you serious? Are you really suggesting that it's OK to forge documents to prove a point that you think is true? Would you also advocate planting falsified evidence on somebody you're certain is guilty of another crime?
Heavens to Betsy, there is something seriously defective in the ethical centre of your brain.
"It's a widely believed fact!"
I write in my journal
These documents didn't appear in a vacuum. They came out in what was clearly a coordinated attack on Bush by CBS, the Boston Globe (who, with their NYT owners are getting off the hook way too easily on this) and the DNC.
How is it a "clearly coordinated attack"? Just because they all said negative things about Bush at the same time? Of course the DNC is attacking Bush! It's a Presidential election year!
The CBS "apology" might have been adequate a week and a half ago. But at this point, CBS has been stonewalling and hiding behind a constantly changing cast of "experts" way, way past the point where it was obvious that the documents were egregious fakes.
CBS did their due diligence in seeking multiple exper opinions once the authenticity was challenged and Dan Rather personally apologized for the error. I think that's plenty adequate.
What I found telling was that the Whitehouse didn't deny the accuracy of what the documents said. They just claimed that the documents were forged. That's sort of like Michael Jackson saying that there couldn't be any videotapes of him molesting children because he keeps the lights off.
and yet, we're still trudging around Iraq, looking for the Nukes that don't exist.
Oh?
Suggestion: extract head from ass, open eyes, look around.
I write in my journal
From CNN's site ("the broadcast" is the one in question): After the broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his physical exam and the other suspending him from flight status. Here are the documents: http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004 /docs.html#ltbush
note that only the last two documents are "forged" or faked or retyped or whatever the current line is now.... and that the first two were released from the whitehouse right after the story, and, perhaps im not reading this correctly, had not been released before. Which would suggest that the white house had been holding them, as its been holding so many of these records.
So are all the documents fake, or just the two, did the administration release those two after the story, and if so, doesnt that mean they are legit?
I think I am also eyeing some canadian realestate...
I keep hearing that forging gov't documents is a felony. If true, then will it be likely Burkett will be forced to disclose, under oath, whom The Source(R) is?
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
Do you have a point?
there is something seriously defective in the ethical centre of your brain.
When politics is concerned, we no longer base "right & wrong" on WHAT you do, but WHO you are.
What is right for one race to do is wrong for another race to do.
What is right for the Dems is wrong for the Reps (and vice versa).
Bias in the media is wrong for them (Fox news), but right for us (WSJ, BBC, and now CBS).
Wonder how long until that ethical logic (my side is always morally superior, the other side is always morally wrong) will take to bleed into our personal lives.
CBS, like the rest of the corporate media, gets too much credit for telling the truth, when they make "mistakes" all the time. Too systematic and consistent for mere "mistakes", unless you're some kind of coincidence theorist. These untested forgeries should innoculate Americans against some of the propaganda. However, the fact is that the information is accurate, according to the secretary who denied the authenticity of the actual documents. So President Bush Jr is lying about his free pass out of Vietnam from Congressman Bush Sr. The truth, especially about Vietnam, presidents, and corporate media, is rarely simple. The truth here is that they're all liars.
--
make install -not war
Apparently your hatred of Michael Moore is so overwhelming that you feel the need to rant about him in a story that has nothing to do with him.
Rather was looking to bring down a President. He was warned by more than one person that the documents were trouble. Instead of following the well known mantra of the newsman he let his personal hate of all things Bush get in his way. Combined with MM who shares his views these documents were the best gift an old warhorse like Rather could want.
Rather needs to be forcibly retired and M Mapes (?) needs to be reassigned. Both destroyed the credibility of 60 Minutes (as if had any - they are distortion central) and CBS.
Not only did Rather slader Bush he also damaged Kerry because it will be played out by many as being a DNC based conspiracy.
Just a few days before this story broke Rather was proclaiming what happened 30 years ago didn't matter
(Quote) "I would like us to concentrate more on issues and less on campaign process. But there is always a tendency to go with what's sensational. Also, we're human, and humans keep making the same mistakes. In the end, what difference does it make what one candidate or the other did or didn't do during the Vietnam War? In some ways, that war is as distant as the Napoleonic campaigns. What's far more import is this: Do they have an exit strategy for Iraq? If so, what is it? How will they address the national deficit? And what are the chances their plans will work?"
Dan Rather was a great newsman who traded his integrity in an attempt to play kingmaker. He has probably damaged CBS for some time to come all because his selfish political ideas were more important than the truth.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
OK. I hate the partisan game that gets played. I usually try to stay out of it. I'm not always successful.
Here's a case where I'm not.
Yellowcake uranium from pre-Gulf War I does not qualify as a WMD, as used in the justification for Gulf War II.
It's pretty clear from the current evidence that the only countries possessing stocks of WMDs are:
Britain, China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, United States. It would be plausible to add Iran and North Korea to that list, although in all likelihood neither country is quite there yet. North Korea is reputed to be further along in their development. South Africa evidently had the bomb, but claims to have dismantled their stockpile of six devices. Several foremer-Soviet republics (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine) gave their nukes back to Russia, or destroyed them, or sold them to AlQaida, depending on which reports you believe.
(Sources for above assertions available upon suitably impressive challenge. Otherwise, I'll just play the "Hell, this is Slashdot; I don't need no stinkin' facts!" card.)
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
So if I were to create some documents which I claim were the personal journal of Christoper Colombus during his voyage to America, would that imply that he didn't actually sail to America?
KARL: George, now that we finally pulled ahead of Kerry in the polls, and your re-election is all but guaranteed, I have a plan that will guarantee your win.
GEORGE: Interesting. Normally, the front-runner tries to keep a low profile and a tame campaign. But since I am a stupid idiot and you are the great master mind of my entire political career, I'll hear you out.
KARL: See these documents I wrote in Word? They make the claims that the crazy crackpot democrats, including John Kerry, have been making for the past five years. Even though it is blatantly obvious to even untrained eyes that they are forgeries, I am going to contact Dan Rather and his team and get them to run it on 60 minutes.
GEORGE: Okay....
KARL: And after they run the story, I am going to have your surrogates on all the internet blogs post about how fake the document is and how Dan Rather should quit. That's how we'll win this election.
GEORGE: But we are already winning...
KARL: But that's not the point!
GEORGE: I'm not sure I'm following you, Karl. But since I am a stupid idiot and you are the smart guy, I'm going to give you the go-ahead on this.
MEANWHILE, AT 60 MINUTES HEADQUARTERS
DAN: Hello?
KARL: Ummm... Hello? This is... err (covers telephone with rag) (gruffy voice) This is a key informant who is unimpeachable. I have the documents you have been looking for. It shows how George Bush missed his physical and how he really didn't deserve to be in the Texas Air National Guard.
DAN: Wow! That's great. Fax them over.
DAN: Hey, these don't look right. It looks like it is written in Microsoft Word and the signature looks forged.
KARL: Ummm, yeah, he used one of those fancy IBM typewriters that were used to typeset important documents and cost $20,000.
DAN: I don't believe that the ANG would have such a device, and if I recall, they aren't easy to use at all.
KARL: Nevermind that. Just run this and you'll be famous for breaking this story.
DAN: Oh, alright. Now who are you?
KARL: That's not important. Good bye.
--------------------
Man, I would love to put together a film with all the stupid conspiracy theories that people claim the Bush administration has come up with. It could be good for several hours of constant laughter.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Quotes from your link:
it would take tons of the substance refined with sophisticated technology to harvest enough uranium for a single bomb.
and
It was a small amount and it wasn't being peddled as a sample.
and
the Rotterdam specimen was scarcely refined at all from natural uranium ore and may have come from a known mine in Iraq that was active before the 1991 Gulf War.
So this is the best evidence we've found in over a year of having occupied the country that they have nukes? Is this a subtle troll? If so, congratulations on your excellent work, otherwise you have a serious case of cognitive dissonance going on. In this case, I have a suggestion: extract head from ass, open eyes, look around.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
I think this current situation is a byproduct of our increasingly media driven world. It seems more and more that the news is driven by its value as a 'media product' (and to be fair it always has at some level), and less by its 'valid information to the public product'. What does it say about the future of our information society when most of that information is crap like this hoax, or the "swift boat veterans", or "Bush is a monkey", or "Kerry is Frankenstein". It seems that the political arguments of our modern age have succumb to the sound-bytes of our very own media. And now we are so polarized as a society that one side will not believe what the other side says on practically any issue.
If something comes up anti-Bush, it's always the liberal media and some grand conspiracy on the left. When something comes up anti-Kerry, it's the conservative media, and the same conspiracy on the right. No one trusts anyone anymore, and its just this kind of crappy half-assed journalism that builds mistrust rather then any kind of factual opinion.
After some more digging, it seems that the White House re-issued the forged documents as releases for the media after the CBS story. I do find it interesting that they did not examine the documents, nor did they hold them for verification, they just released them as-is.
These are two allegations which simply are not true.
How do you know that? Did you see Bush
Bush hasn't denied anything that is in these memos. The responses from the Bush camp are always things like "He says he is proud of his service" and "He fufilled all obligations", but never ever said "Those alligations are simply not true! I served on those days! The people who claim they never saw me are lying!"
You truly are the master of the straw man tactic.
So, whether this was done on purpose or accidentally, from a legal perspective it matters little.
Yellowcake uranium from pre-Gulf War I does not qualify as a WMD
That's not a correct statement. In this context, "WMD" means anything that was prohibited by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Lots of radical leftists want to re-define the term so that "WMD" only means working nuclear bombs or whatever. That's just silly.
I write in my journal
So this is the best evidence we've found in over a year of having occupied the country that they have nukes?
Um. No. Dumbass.
I write in my journal
Bush hasn't denied anything that is in these memos.
Bush has denied, over and over again in public statements going back to 1994, that he failed to fulfill his obligations. He renewed that denial just about two hours ago.
It's real easy to hang on to your irrational hate if you don't pay attention to the facts.
I write in my journal
"You can't apply one standard to the group you agree with, and then apply another standard to those you don't. That's just hypocrisy."
So I guess those that are calling for Rather's resignation should also call for the resignation of 90% of US journalists who passed along all the fake evidence about WMDs and Saddam's role in 9/11 without doing any due diligence.
I don't think it matters whether the documents were cut-and-pasted, or even made up entirely. Kevin Drum explains why here.
But the yellowcake in question was pre-91!
Still, "in this context" is just your definition for WMD. If, by challenging this definition, I become a "radical leftist," we have just ceased to have any grounds for a meaningful dialogue. Feel free to call me other names you feel like, but I'll have been forced to stop taking you seriously.
I personally don't find it silly to define the word "weapon" to mean something that works. Webster certainly never says anything about "potential" weapons. Neither, really, did Bush. He was talking about actual, usable weapons.
In Bush's own words:
"Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them." (in reference to Chemical and Biological weapons).
and
"In defiance of pledges to the UN [Iraq] has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons."
I'm not in this discussion to argue about the war, or its justifications. I'm concerned about the redefinition of language used in a bunch of those justifications. But it seems to me that it's not the "radical leftists" who have tried to redefine what the Administration was talking about when they raised the spectre of WMDs.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
Ah, yes. Kevin Drum. Always first in line to try to wage the last campaign. Hint, Kevin: Nothing you have to say is (1) true or (2) new since 1994. It didn't work in the '94 gubernatorial race, it didn't work in the '98 gubernatorial race, and it didn't work in the 2000 presidential race. Let it go, you dumbass.
I write in my journal
But the yellowcake in question was pre-91!
I don't care if it dated back to Hammurabi, it was expressly prohibited under the 1991 cease-fire. And yet somehow, somehow it ended up being shipped to Rotterdam in 2003.
Still, "in this context" is just your definition for WMD.
Um. No. It's the definition put forth in the Safwan Accords, reinforced by the United Nations Security Council, and used as the standard to which Iraq was held accountable.
If, by challenging this definition, I become a "radical leftist," we have just ceased to have any grounds for a meaningful dialogue.
We never had any such grounds. You started out with "Only working nuclear bombs are prohibited," which is nothing more or less than the insane ramblings of a crazy man.
Feel free to call me other names you feel like, but I'll have been forced to stop taking you seriously.
I'm all broke up.
I'm concerned about the redefinition of language used in a bunch of those justifications.
Then stop doing it.
But it seems to me that it's not the "radical leftists" who have tried to redefine what the Administration was talking about when they raised the spectre of WMDs.
See? That's my point. You're all about "oooh, they raised a specter!" When in truth, it was simply a matter of a cease-fire violation. You like the idea of hopping up and down on the "raised a specter" thing, though, because it (1) makes it sound like the Bush administration was trying to persuade somebody of something --they weren't --and (2) it makes it easier for you to deny that prohibited materials have been found in vast quantities in Iraq.
Whatever you say, man. No war, all a big lie, no moon landing, fluoride in the water is a form of mind control. Whatever.
I write in my journal
The story was well researched, includes a lot of interviews
No, it wasn't, and what interviews? Ben Barnes? (Kerry campaign Vice Chair and number three fund-raiser) Bill Burkett? (Democratic activist with a personal animus towards Bush who has retracted some of his past accusations). Hodges? (who claims they misrepresented what he said - given their misrepresentation of the document experts that is only too believable).
The only credible testimony is the secretary who wasn't interviewed during the "five years of research" and the original story but only came up after a local paper researched it for maybe a week. Even in her case CBS ignores any evidence (such as her own partisanship or the fact that she was a pool, not a private secretary) that undermines their predetermined storyline.
On the other side of the ledger is the interviews they chose not to include in their report. Killian's family, several of Bush's fellow pilots as well as Staudt. Certainly their testimony is just as liable to be suspect due to partisanship, personal friendships etc. But it seems more than fair to call such a report "one sided" or even "biased". The story of Bush's status as a "fortunate son" is a LOT more ambiguous than the CBS/DNC account.
Finally, i don't think that a major news organization pushing forged documents in an attempt to influence an election is a insignificant "shiny toy." I'm sure if ABC News and the Wall Street Journal pushed a major story blasting Kerry based on crudely forged documents from an "unimpeachable" source that turned out to be John O'Neill and the testimony of a Bush fundraising "Ranger" you would think it was an important issue - even if they found a secretary to confirm the documents as "fake, but accurate" (and as an aside mentioned that Kerry was a "flip-flopper" she just didn't trust)
I'd love to see some if you'd care to provide some. On the other hand, you could just keep it a secret.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
Let me break it down for you...
A) Everyone knows GWB was a bit of a slacker in his youth.
B) Given that, his military service still earned him an honorable discharge.
C) None of this shit from 30 years ago matters!
Finally, GWB will be reelected because he is forward looking, more in touch with regular folks, and better looking physically than his opponent. (i.e. the woman vote)
You would think after the fiasco about media credulity of Iraq WMDs, the media would be more suspicious of this sort of thing. In both cases, evidence was uncritically accepted because it fit with a preconceived notion of the facts.
We knew Saddam had developed and used WMDs in the past, we knew that Saddam had disobeyed UN resolutions in the past, we knew that Saddam had cheated on international weapons inspections in the past. Why wouldn't he have WMDs? When evidence was presented, everyone was ready to accept it. Even the Joe Wilson story (Niger yellowcake) didn't keep people from accepting the worst case scenario.
Similar thing with the Bush National Guard records. We know that Bush jumped to the head of the applicant list through the good ol' boy network. We know that he did not perform the duties he signed contracts for.
There was nothing in the content of the forged memos that raised suspicion -- instead it was abbreviations and typography that gave it away. Interestingly, the same was true of the Niger yellowcake documents -- one of the big giveaways was that the names of govt officials were not contemporary with the dates on the documents.
Even old pros like Rather need to learn: just because evidence seems to fit does not make it true.
I'm willing to belive the people who claim never to have seen him are lieing. I don't remember everyone I saw in class when I was 24, and that was 6 years ago! It is possible that someone in 25 years will run for president that I never remember seeing in class. I question anyone who will say with authority that some nobody 30 years ago wasn't someplace, based only on memory. Attendance records are a different matter, (and these are open to question, but so far as I know nobody has brought them out) as they are reasonable proof of who was there. (even then there have been mistakes.
We do know the Bush was discharged normally, which suggests strongly that even if he did miss a few sessions it wasn't enough to do something back then when he was a nobody. Today of course he is president and we are trying to guess.
There are good reasons to vote for Bush or Kerry. I don't think you have heard any from the mainstream media. Instead we hear about war records - things that happened before I was even born! There are plenty of important issues, and both have a record of being in the federal government for the last 4 years that we can look at to see how they really act. Because they don't work on letting me know this I'm voting for a third party. (I have learned a few bad things about both of them, but perhaps if they brought forth something I didn't know about it might counter the bad they have done)
I think the story is going from simply bad to radioactive:
It looks like Max Cleland is tied to it as well.
Mary Mapes has apparently been chasing Bush on this story for five years.
And Mary Mapes was behind CBS' story about the serious, and yet overplayed, reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib.
Interesting indeed.
We do know the Bush was discharged normally, which suggests strongly that even if he did miss a few sessions it wasn't enough to do something back then when he was a nobody.
;-)
Ummm, at the time in question, George W Bush was the son of a very wealthy senator. That's hardly a "nobody". He was exactly the sort of person who routinely gets special treatment without needing to ask.
Of course if you're also super-wealthy, you might consider him an ordinary person. But if so, how did you wander onto slashdot?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Let's instead try a logical explanation:
Somebody (ONE person) who dislikes Bush faked up these documents. In fact that person has been identified, it is certainly this Burkett guy, unless he was duped by somebody else. CBS leaped on this and showed themselves to be complete idiots by not doubting the authenticity of it. That is stupid but not criminal.
This requires no planning or conspiracy by Kerry and the DNC (or Bush and the RNC, an equally silly opposing conspiracy theory being pushed). I think my theory is about 10 million times more likely than any of the drivel being posted here by loons on every side.
My opinion: CBS will and should take full blame for being idiots. They probably will, nobody is going to trust anything they claim for a long time. This is not a criminal punishment, it is a punishment in public opinion.
If the forger can be found, and it can be shown that they actively tried to push the letters as authentic (rather than as an internal thing that was not intended to be real) then they are liable for libel against George Bush. Not against anybody else. Trying to say they libeled some more sympathetic target is stupid, it is patently obvious that the target of the memos was George Bush.
Please show a quote and your source. The White House rhetoric surrounding this is always circumlocutory -ever since 1994, which suggests that they're trying to avoid a situation which would allow for impeachment.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
George HW Bush was never a Senator. Therefore, your opinion is revealed as belonging to an ignorant person.
Happy to help.
Yes it is. The White House admitted that Bush skipped out on the physical. They released documents that show it. The CBS document controversy has overshadowed these facts, which makes you wonder who created the fake documents to begin with.
and certainly nobody is denying the content is true.
Also not correct.
The poster should have said "nobody credible is denying."
Actually, the campaign issue
Actually, there is no campaign issue here. Bush skipped out on his guard duty 30 years ago because he was doing drugs and would have failed the physical. It's an issue of historical fact but hardly a campaign issue, and the Kerry campaign is silly for going after what happened 30 years ago when Bush is doing so much to foul things up right now.
CBS made a huge error here, and somebody will likely lose their job over it. And they should make a significant effort to publicize who forged the documents and why. But this shouldn't be a campaign issue at all.
Ben Barnes has been alleging that somebody pulled strings
No; Ben Barnes is admitting that he pulled strings. The admission diminishes his own character as well, so it is difficult to see this as some kind of self-serving scheme. In any case, Bush's absence from the guard is well documented by documents the White House released and does not dispute.
The Democrats are wasting their time with this. Everybody knows Bush and Cheney ducked out on their country during Vietnam, and the people who don't want to believe that it's true are not going to be convinced by a document, real or not. The historians will sort the truth out. The campaign would do well to focus on what's actually happening today rather than looking at 30 years ago.
There's nothing subtle about Twirlip's trolls.
Democrats increase taxes. This decreases purchasing and voluntary productivity. They increase regulations on businesses (so do the Repubs, but the Dem's have it down to an art), which slows business and makes it cost more.
Clinton was fortunate to be at the helm when the internet dot.com boom hit. The economy did well in spite of, not because of, anything Clinton did.
But, I'm feeding a troll, bad on me.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
Ain't it a pisser there's no proof. Funny how some people will believe anything bad about a politician they don't like, despite proof, yet won't believe something like, oh, say, the FACT that al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence folks had meetings before 9/11, or the FACT that Iraq had WMD which they shuffled from spot to spot while inspectors were in the country, and more than likely moved them to Syria during the enormous lead-time before the war. I mean, they did exist (this was proven in GWI), Hussein didn't destroy them, and now they can't be found.. Geee, where could they be?
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
A better question is whether or not Bush did anything anyone didn't do in the 1970s. In 1989 I was considering ROTC and the recruiter said to me... "And if you go in the Guard, and miss a few sessions, no one really gives a crap." Literally.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
someone when before the american people and presented false information as factual. and people feel that once that information is proven false, that the person who presented it should at least apologise and at most should resign.
ok. i can agree with that. so after we're done going after rather for lying about bush's guard service, can we then go after bush for lying about, you know, sending the country to war in iraq. i know starting a war isn't as important as trying to figure out if the son of a rich and powerful politician got preferential treatment during a draft (like that would ever happen), but it seems like something we could, at some point possibly, give a little look over...
i know, i know, i'm a commie anti-american islamic terrorist atheist liberal. dunno what i was thinking. please go back to destroying my country. i'll just sit over here and mourn her demise.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Either way, I wish you well... I think you need some good energy in your life. :)
http://www.loveliberty2004.com
Honestly, I am asking, does anyone really care? It seems utterly hypocritical that the most peace loving hippies are the ones who can get so worked up over the issue. Wasn't everyone and their dog trying to get out of the cluster fuck that was Vietnam? Further, why do we even care what happened in Vietnam? Both of the presidential contenders were BOYS when this all happened. Kerry was smoking a pound of weed at the time while W occasionally got his rocks off snorting a line of crank. Who cares?
Of all the issues that have been dredged up, that fact that both sides are dwelling on this dumb shit is maddening. I don't give a single shit what either of these two did when they were boys. I don't give a fuck if Kerry shouldn't have gotten a purple heart or not, nor the fact that he came back and declared his love for the North Vietnam government. I don't care if Bush, like any sane individual, pulled every string in the book to keep from getting sent into the cluster fuck that was Vietnam.
What I do care about is the here and now and how these men have behaved now that they are men. Even more importantly, I want to know there policy stances NOW, not 30+ years ago. I want to know exactly what Kerry would have done different during the Iraq war and I want to know what Bush is going to do now. I want to know where they plan for the future. This mud slinging contest isn't so much disgusting, it is just annoying. If neither idiot can stop for a few moments to tell me what they want to do, preferably in non-abstract terms, then the choice seems pretty clear. I'll just vote for a third party candidate.
You can't apply one standard to the group you agree with, and then apply another standard to those you don't. That's just hypocrisy.
;-)
AKA "Politics As Usual".
Consider, for example, those doctored photos showing John Kerry and Jane Fonda on the same stage. When people with a bit of photo experience pointed out the evidence that they were forgeries, the media just chuckled and went off on the next goose chase. No agonized re-examinations, no discussions of ethics. Just "Oops" and a quick change of subject.
Probably the best comment on this particular flap is this Stuart Carlson cartoon.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Consider, for example, those doctored photos showing John Kerry and Jane Fonda on the same stage. When people with a bit of photo experience pointed out the evidence that they were forgeries, the media just chuckled and went off on the next goose chase. No agonized re-examinations, no discussions of ethics. Just "Oops" and a quick change of subject.
Probably a couple reasons why this didn't result in a bigger flap: not so close to the election, the President wasn't the one pictured (oh, how classic would that have been?!), and it didn't involve a huge investigative piece from the vaunted CBS News organisation. All of those are factors, to one degree or another.
3 other investigations, (the Boston Globe among them) have found the charges are correct WITHOUT USING THESE DOCUMENTS. Face it, Bush is a dick ( and so is Cheney)
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
These allegations ARE true and have been corroberated by many people. Hell, Molly Ivins new about this YEARS ago.
Bush is a COWARD
DAB
former EM2(SS) US Navy
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
In this whole situation is the independent media. I can't see anything that CBS has done wrong from a purely journalistic point of view. They made a mistake believing Burkett, but news organizations make retraction more often than would be believed. The onus is not on the organization to report ONLY the truth, but to do vigorous fact checking, investigate itself internally, and apologize when mistakes are made. I think CBS has done that, even in the face of a bullying conservative media that I imagine would have forced the Washington Post to retract Watergate had they been as strong then. I believe that CBS checked its facts in earnest and made a mistake. But that is different entirely than broadcasting known lies (as Fox is known to do) or not having a fact-checking organization at all, like all bloggers.
The "documents are faked" cry came from conservative bloggers. Then people started wondering whether typewriters can make superscripts (they can) and a handfull of the document inspector panel said they didn't approve the documents. Of course, that's why there is a panel of experts, and not just one expert. Anytime there are documents, I imagine a few experts disagree, and they go with the weight of the panel. There is nothing particularly insidious about inspecting your documents and following expert opinion.
But the initial Bush response was not to deny the veracity of the claims. In fact, they didn't claim the documents were forged until the conservative bloggers had pushed the story into the media, which indicates at least partially that they were unsure. If they were unsure, there's a pretty good reason to believe that the allegations alleged MIGHT have some merit. Moreover, the Bush response was to say "these guys are just repeating old allegations," in other words, everybody already knows that Bush got it easy during Vietnam. To change from that to "CBS intentionally forged documents to hurt the president" is frankly absurd and intellectually dishonest.
CBS is NOT a partisan company. They make every effort to be neutral with respect to politics, so if CBS comes out tarnished as a Bush-hating medium by the conservative pundits, that will be a sad day indeed. The original post mentions the 2000 election call, which it may be recalled was originally made by Bush's cousin at Fox News. The absolute last thing we need is for more people to believe the "Rathergate" hype and to fall into the "liberal media bias" mythology.
Well, I guess the whole controversy over Bush's election is just a figment of my imagination then.
:)
Basically, yeah. It's made up. It's not real. It's a tin-foil-hat thing, like the "controversy" over the moon landing or the "controversy" over flight 77.
Either way, I wish you well... I think you need some good energy in your life.
Oh, well, by all means then, let me get a crystal and do some meditation and channel the spirit of Ramtha, a 35,000-year-old hunter-gatherer who can share his wisdom with me.
Freak.
I write in my journal
Hell, Molly Ivins new about this YEARS ago.
Well, hell! It must be true if Molly Ivins says so!
I write in my journal
After firing two reporters for not presenting facts they knew were false, FOX news fired them. They sued FOX news citing using the Whistler Blower Act as protection. However, FOX news appealed with the courts saying that there was no law that the news had to report the truth.
Yet another reason to hate FOX news and to not fully trust the media.
Oh yeah; it was his father Prescott who was the Senator. George H. W. was a Congressman (and UN Ambassador and CIA Director among other offices).
;-)
I'd think the point still stands: George W Bush, as the son of a Congressman and granson of a Senator (and scion of one of America's wealthier families) is the sort of person who doesn't need to ask for favors. He gets them without asking. When he claims that he never got any special treatment, he is likely telling the truth as he sees it. He could easily be blissfully unaware of such things.
Happy to help
Happy to correct my error. At least, I'm probably a lot happier than Dan Rather is right now.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Molly actually KNOWS Bush, personally. Has for years. I have met Bush (2000 campaign, at my bosses house). He was an idiot then, and is an idiot now.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
Kerry/Edwards 2004! We'll make Socialism work this time!
That's right! I heard Edwards was calling Lloyd Bentsen to discuss nationalizing all private property and installing the dictatorship of the proletariat. And Kerry can't wait for the withering away of the state!
Man, get your head out of your ass. You don't have to be a moron to be conservative.
A defining moment for bottom-up journalism.
Even if this suggested conspiracy was true how would it excuse the actions of Dan Rather and CBS?
/. a laughing stock outside of its true techinical stories.
/. ever needed. Just too much Bush hate in Taco that he had to have a vent.
Insightful my ass, wishful thinking is more like it. Its dolts that rated you insightful that keeps
A politics section was the last thing
Go anon as my karma has been slammed POST META MODERATION way too many times over this forum. (its good to keep pics of moderation--got to love the point assassins)
1. They went to a known Bush hater and known liar for documents pertaining to his military service. 2. No documents were known to exist 3. They didn't verify the documents 4. They spent days saying they were right, against all the evidence 5. They blamed the whole thing on Burkett, they didn't "admit" anything An honest mistake is a mistake in which you had NO INTENTION OF HARM. That is not the case here.
"Joe Wilson testified to congress that he in effect lied..."
I think anyone making a claim that someone lied needs to provide some documentation. Can you provide a specific cite in the Washington Post or in Congressional testimony?
My understanding is that he was indeed there months after the supposed attempt to purchase, and he never claimed to have been there at the time of the claimed purchase. The trail as I understand it was that an Italian journalist was given the Niger documents and did not publish a story on the subject because the documents and claims could not be substantiated (take that, CBS!). The journo handed the docs to Italian govt officials and eventually the US got it. Wilson was sent there months after the Italian journo got it, and Wilson never claimed to have been present during the deal (which never happened, so how could he have been there). In fact, he wrote a piece in the NY Times of 6 July 2003 saying that he had never seen the forged documents.
As I understand it, he never lied, in effect or otherwise, about his mission to investigate the phony deal.
In this context, "WMD" means anything that was prohibited by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement.
No. In the context GWB used to justify the Iraq invasion, WMD is something that poses a major threat to the USA. Nothing Iraq had qualifies. $500,000 spent in Austin TX could buy you better terrorist capabilities than they had.
Lots of radical leftists want to re-define the term so that "WMD" only means working nuclear bombs or whatever.
That's how Dubya choose to define it. But you're right, I've heard he may be secretly liberal after all.
... The documents were clandestinely delivered to Kerry supporters so that they would then be given to CBS ...
;-)
No, no, no. CBS should not be the target, that is not plausible. You need to make up something more believable. Like:
Karl Rove creates the docs and feeds them to a Kerry staffer expecting the staffer to turn it over to a 527. Bingo, proof of Kerry/527 coordination. Instead the Kerry staffer gives it to CBS. Works out even better than planned.
See, something like that would have been much better.
But, as is the custom with our current administration, the most effective way to suppress the message is to conduct a smear campaign against the messenger.
. Think about how police separate witnesses. It is well established that when witnesses talk and compare notes there is contamination.
Look at the swiftboat vets issue. All the dem spokespeople ever seemed to talk about is how one co-author of the book is a crank and the other has had a genuine hard-on for Kerry for decades. No one seemed to really interview the dozens of vets who were on the river with Kerry and have different stories.
FWIW, other vets having different recollections of the same battle is completely normal and does not suggest that either side is lying. Outgoing fire from a nearby boat can be audibly mistaken for incoming fire. Or recollections from the firefight from the day before/after can get mixed up with the day in question. Psychologists have researched how fragile and suggestable wartime memories are. Stories/details heard from other vets, even years later at reunions, actually integrate with the vets own memories. The original story is down, a faint mention is at http://today.uci.edu/news/uciinthenews_040830.asp
These documents were forged, as were the niger documents. The niger documents however contributed to the US entering a pointless war which has cost over 1000 US servicemen plus a whole lot more dead Iraqis. Which do you consider more important ?
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
In the context GWB used to justify the Iraq invasion, WMD is something that poses a major threat to the USA.
Idiot. You think that these things just get made up? The terms of disarmament were defined by UN Security Council resolutions. I don't care how many words you try to put in the president's mouth; it won't change the underlying facts.
I write in my journal
Could this get any more bizarre?
According to the Drudge Report, the NY Sun is quoting Bill Burkett's lawyer as saying that they are planning to sue CBS News for defamation of character and libel.
This is hilarious.
If CBS and their Bush hating affiliates spent so much time making up this stuff, don't you think that simply means they really have no actual damning news about Bush.
Maybe he isn't doing that bad of a job after all.
When people start making things up, that usually indicates a lack of real things to talk about.
The terms of disarmament were defined by UN Security Council resolutions
UN resolutions are for the UN to enforce.
Of course, I expected the same response from you, because I explained it all to you 2 years ago. You're consistent in your mistakes, no matter how spectacularly you've been proven wrong- a trait Bush would admire.
I don't care how many words you try to put in the president's mouth
Right. I hypnotized Bush, and his public speeches are my own words.
UN resolutions are for the UN to enforce.
Guess what? The UN has no executive branch. They are a bunch of old guys sitting in New York with headphones on. Enforcement of the UN resolutions is the duty of the member states. If the matter falls under the 7th chapter of the UN charter (as all 17 resolutions against Iraq were), member states are required to enforce them.
The US, UK, Spain, Australia, Hungary, and many other member states made the UN word strong by enforcing resolutions that had been on the books for 13 years.
Of course, I expected the same response from you, because I explained it all to you 2 years ago.
Well, you were dead wrong 2 years ago, just as you are dead wrong now.
UN resolutions are for the UN to enforce.
Apart from the fact that you're just plain wrong --read the UN charter lately? --enforce with what? Strong language?
Of course, I expected the same response from you, because I explained it all to you 2 years ago.
LOL. You've been right all along, huh? It's everybody else in the country that's been wrong. That's real sensible. I'm amazed you haven't won over more converts with that kind of talk.
I hypnotized Bush, and his public speeches are my own words.
If I were you, I wouldn't brag too loudly about the fact that you lack the basic human intelligence required to understand things like speeches. I wouldn't advertise the fact that you come away from speeches and other statements of policy thinking that the speaker just told you that black is white or that up is down. I wouldn't mention that because it demonstrates the degree to which you are an idiot. Which is something you should try as hard as possible to hide.
I write in my journal
Look, do you not REMEMBER that Bush asked the UN for a resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq? It's baffling* how people can support Bush, yet refuse to even listen to his own words.
Here's one lie: "The Iraqi regime has acquired and tested the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction"
Here's another: "We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."
That's how GWB made his case for war. Bush didn't focus on the minutiae of UN resolutions- he made a bigger, bolder case. So when I choose to judge him by the position he took, you can't fall back on a little detail which by itself would never have justified the expensive occupation.
Was the USA "justified" invading Iraq?
From the legal standpoint, sure- they'd been at war for 12 straight years, that's just an escalation.
From the perspective of it being the right away to achieve the country's short or long term goals- absolutely not.
made the UN word strong by enforcing resolutions that had been on the books for 13 years.
I love that! Made their word strong by going against their specific directions! "Vigilantism" is the most generous way to describe it.
* Not really baffling. I have enough psychological training to understand the tribal thought processes leading to those actions- I just don't like them.
If I were you, I wouldn't brag too loudly about the fact that you lack the basic human intelligence required to understand things like speeches
By "understanding speeches", it seems you mean "expect to be lied to, and don't let it bother you".
Sorry. Although the lies are no surprise to me, I still hold the liar accountable for what he said.
PS. The best thing about you is that all your insults apply better to yourself than anyone else. It's amazing that the rubber-glue refutation is actually still applicable in this age and medium.
> PS. The best thing about you is that all your insults apply better to yourself
> than anyone else. It's amazing that the rubber-glue refutation is actually still
> applicable in this age and medium.
His insults all boil down to a suspicion that they indeed apply to him; never mind the belief perseverance element that pervades threads like this anyway. Twirp, in particular, is providing a really fascinating view into all sorts of abberant psychology as well as unwittingly providing textbook examples of normal human social psychological foibles. It's tragic because he's intelligent, I guess, but train wrecks are still fun to watch anyway. [gets popcorn]
Twirp, in particular, is providing a really fascinating view into all sorts of abberant psychology as well as unwittingly providing textbook examples of normal human social psychological foibles.
Back when Twirp had a slashdot journal entry, it mentioned he was recieving psyche counselling. Those entries have been deleted.
Completely random. Take the crack pipe out of your mouth before posting again, dipshit.
I write in my journal
Look, do you not REMEMBER that Bush asked the UN for a resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq? It's baffling* how people can support Bush, yet refuse to even listen to his own words.
Wrong. We were not seeking a resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq -- we already had 17 of those. We were seeking a resolution that would give our allies justification for themselves to enforce existing resolutions that were already on the books. It's baffling how people can ignore the 13 years of history preceeding the war in Iraq.
Here's one lie: "The Iraqi regime has acquired and tested the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction"
No lie there. Since the March 2003 invasion we have uncovered Iraqi plans to aquire the 1300km range No Dong missile from North Korea, and have uncovered stocks of SCUD missile propellant. Both of these delivery systems were capable of delivering WMD and were prohibited by the UN.
Here's another: "We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."
No lie there. Do a google search on Abu Wa'el and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi if you don't believe me.
That's how GWB made his case for war. Bush didn't focus on the minutiae of UN resolutions- he made a bigger, bolder case. So when I choose to judge him by the position he took, you can't fall back on a little detail which by itself would never have justified the expensive occupation.
Bush's case for the war was that we could not allow potential threats to go unchecked, as we did with Al Qaeda all those years. Saddam Hussein, with his weapons of mass destruction and ties to international terrorism, was a direct threat to us. So far this case has not been disproven nor discredited.
I love that! Made their word strong by going against their specific directions! "Vigilantism" is the most generous way to describe it.
Bzzzt. Their specific directions were clearly laid out in resolution #687 (and 16 subsequent resolutions) which gave full authority to make Iraq comply by using military force. For 13 years that really didn't mean anything until we came along and proved to every tyrannical leader in the world that defiance to UN resolutions is not going to get you empty, harsh words and a corrupt oil for food program to build your palaces with.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/kurtz.how ard.html
No lie there. Since the March 2003 invasion we have uncovered Iraqi plans t
It's just impossible to hold a serious conversation with people who can't tell the difference between past and future tense verbs.
Actually, the campaign issue is whether a major news organization used memos which it either (1) knew or (2) reasonably should have known were falsified as the basis for a story which was released with the intent of influencing the outcome of the election.
Unless either the Bush or Kerry team were complicit in the forgery - and there's no evidence to indicate either campaign was - there is no campaign issue, period. It's CBS's problem.
No lie there. Do a google search on Abu Wa'el and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi if you don't believe me.
Ok, searching done. Abu Wael wasn't senior, and al-Zarqawi was not then (and isn't now) a member of al-Quaida. Besides the fact that the CIA pegs him as outside of Iraq at that time.
Bush's case for the war was that we could not allow potential threats to go unchecked, as we did with Al Qaeda all those years.
Note the irony that Clinton repeatedly ordered Osama's death, while one of Bush's first acts on taking office was to make nice with the Taliban.
Bush didn't claim that Iraq was a potential threat- he said it was an immediate threat, right now.
Note that by invading Iraq, and pulling away the troops hunting Al Quaida, he is allowing them to go unchecked again.
Note that if you want to talk about threat potential, then Iran and North Korea dwarf anything Iraq had.
Fox news is smart enough to not site physical evidence; they just get vague false references, if they give any at all.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I don't want to build a laser to attack another planet.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Ok, searching done. Abu Wael wasn't senior, and al-Zarqawi was not then (and isn't now) a member of al-Quaida. Besides the fact that the CIA pegs him as outside of Iraq at that time.
Better search again. al-Zarqawi was a close associate of Bin Laden throughout the '90s, and the CIA has confirmed that he received surgery in a Baghdad hospital in the summer of 2002.
Note the irony that Clinton repeatedly ordered Osama's death, while one of Bush's first acts on taking office was to make nice with the Taliban.
Nope -- the 9/11 report cited at least 3 instances where Bin Ladens location was certain and Clinton had the opportunity to take him out, and in every instance he backed off for fear of collateral damage. (The 9/11 commission didn't fault him for this -- we were living in a different time when the nature of this threat was not fully appreciated)
Bush didn't claim that Iraq was a potential threat- he said it was an immediate threat, right now.
When is the better time to defend yourself? When your attacker is methodically assembling his gun and loading it with ammo, or when he has the barrel pointed at your head with his finger on the trigger and one in the chamber?
Note that by invading Iraq, and pulling away the troops hunting Al Quaida, he is allowing them to go unchecked again.
Not according to what the 9/11 commission found. They concluded that at least 75% of Al Qaeda is dead, and our constant pressure is making it very difficult for them to assemble with any kind of large scale organization.
Note that if you want to talk about threat potential, then Iran and North Korea dwarf anything Iraq had.
And there is still plenty of diplomacy to be tried with both North Korea and Iran. Neither of these countries is in direct defiance of 17 Chapter 7 UN resolutions.
I'm not going to throw out the First Amendment just because someone got hoodwinked.
The Whitehouse had the chance to deny the Documents - they didn't.
That is PROOF by many standards.
The Bigger truth that Bush checked out on his military duty is lost in the minutia. Bush hasn't come clean on his military record - and is documented as covering up records. That's Bush - not some irrelevent newsman - Buhs - the one in the Whitehouse - lying about his records - so relax.
AIK
AIK
It seems to me that everyone has been operating with forged documents all year long; from the war to this, everyone, including Dan and George, relying on unreliable evidence. Too much.
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
Untrue. Bush drew a very high draft number and never would have been drafted but joined the National Guard anyway. Then once in the National Guard he volunteered for Operation Palace Alert which would have put him in Vietnam. He was not picked for that duty but the point is he volunteered.
I want to make it clear that I'm a libertarian and I'm not voting for either of these guys but this National Guard crap is just scurrilous.